HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.3 DubRchWest Attch 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................... 2
Clarifications and Modifications to the DEIR......................................... 2
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters ................................................... 7
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses........................................ 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Introduction
A Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) dated November 2004
was prepared for this Project and distributed for public review in November 2004
through January 2005. The proposed Project involves consideration of an Amendment
to the Eastern Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan, annexation to the City of Dublin
and the Dublin San Ramon Services District, prezoning of the Project area, a
preannexation agreement and a Stage 1 Planl1ed Development Plan for the Dublil1
Ranch West Project located on the west side of Tassajara Road, east of Parks RFTA,
north of existil1g City of Dublin limits and south of the Alameda County limit lil1e. The
Project site consists of approximately 190 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of
Alameda County. A full description of the proposed Project is cOl1tained in the DSEIR
document.
Ul1der the California Enviro11ffiental Quality Act (CEQA) and implementing CEQA
Guidelil1es, after completion of the Draft EIR, lead agencies are required to consult with
and obtain comments from public agencies and organizatiol1s having jurisdiction by
law over elements of the Project and to provide the general public with an opportunity
to comment on the DSEIR. Lead agencies are also required to respol1d to substantive
comments on enviro11ffiental issues raised during the EIR review period.
As the lead agency for this Project, the City of Dublin held a 45-day public review
period between November 19, 2004 and January 3, 2005.
This Comments and Responses document augmel1ts the DSEIR and, together with the
DSEIR, comprise the Final Supplemental EIR (FSEIR) for this Project. This Comments
and Responses document contains all public comments received during the 45-day
public review process regarding the DSEIR and responses to those comments. Included
within the document is an annotated copy of each COmmel1t letter, identifyil1g specific
comments, followed by a response to that comment.
The FSEIR also contains clarifications and minor corrections to information presented in
the DSEIR as well as revisions to the proposed Project.
Clarifications and Modifications to the DSEIR
The following clarifications and modifications to the DSEIR are incorporated by
reference into the DSEIR document.
1. On page 14, "9.7" is replaced with "3.7."
2. On page 18 (Utility Services), the word "westerly" is replaced with
"easterly."
3. On page 56, the text of the DSElR is amended to read as follows in two places
on this page:
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 2
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"In addition, HTH relocated a number of CRLF from dsewkere on the
Dublin Ranch West site into Tassajara Creek, in anticipation of management
as part of the Tassajara Creek Management Zone."
"Since approval of the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR, the California tiger
salamander has been listed as threatened and critical habitat has been
designated proposed. ... All of the Project area to the west of Tassajara Creek
is within proposed critical habitat Unit 18 of the Central Valley Region."
4. On page 60, the impact bullet is revised to read as follows:
"Substantially-Rreduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered,
rare or threatened species;"
5. Page 64, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-l is hereby amended to
read as follows:
U A CTS management plan shall be developed by the Project proponents, and
approved by the G1;y of Dublin in consultation with CDFG and the USFWS,
prior to construction activities. This measure shall also apply to construction
of recreational trails in preserved areas. The Plan will detail how CIS will be
managed before and during construction activities and will include the
following:
a) Installation of a temporary herpetological fence prior to any ground
disturbance around the entire development footprint, which shall
prevent CTS from entering the construction site and shall remain until
the permanent fence or barrier is installed. The existing Of the CUFreRt
one-way barrier, if approved by the USFWS. is a functioning
temporary banier: however. it is not located around the entire
development footprint. is eJlteRàeà and approyeà fsr aGe by the
UgPWfii (S11M BIO 2). A maintenance schedule shall be included for
this fencing.
b) A salvage trapping <æà relscaRen plan that details how aestivating
CTS individuals will be adequately relocated from the development
footprint and into permanently preserved suitable aestivation habitat.
Although the existing one-way exclusion banier will allow migrating
breedin¡: adults to exit the prqject area. non-breeding adults and
juveniles may not migrate to potential breeding sites for one or more
years. Salvage of these individuals should be accelerated by
installation of trap arrays near burrow concentrations."
6. On page 64, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 is revised as follows:
" A permanent herpetological fence or barrier shall be installed around the
entire development footprint following construction activities to prevent
movement of CTS into the development area. Such fencing shall be designed
to allow for movement of larger terrestrial wildlife species, but shall preclude
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 3
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~J~:~~; i~i;::Z~~~~; ~~~)~te~:~ ~:=t dJ:=g~~~~~;::~:~;
7. Page 64, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-3 is deleted.
8. On page 64, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-4 is revised as follows:
"To compensate for the permanent loss of approximately 2Z.2 m acres of
CIS aestivation habitat, and ensure the opportunit;y exist~ for recovery of this
species within the Amador and Livermore Valley areas of Alameda Coun1;y.
the Project proponent will acquire and preserve in perpetuity suitable CIS
aestivation habitat at a 1:1 ratio adjacent to preserved, occupied CTS breeding
and aestivation habitat and construct a breeding pond, or as required by the
USFWS and CDFG. The mitigation aestivation habitat shall be located in the
Amador and Livermore Valley area as close as is practicable. and as aPkoved
by the USFWS or CDFG. and shall exhibit similar characteristics to the bitat
lost.
In selecting off-site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving
one large block of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved
areas to existing open space and other high quality habitat, and excluding or
limiting public use within preserved areas. Land selected for mitigation shall
be permanently preserved through use of a conservation easement or similar
m.ethod, approved by the City of Dublin in consultation with the USFWS or
CDFG, and obtained prior to the issuance of any construction permits."
9. On page 65, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-7 is revised as follows:
"During initial ground disturbing activities. All pfoject construction
employees shall receive an educational training program that includes
information on sensitive species identification and their potential habitat,
approved mitigation measures for the project, and actions em.ployees should
take if a sensitive species is encountered. This measure shall also apply to
construction of recreational trails in preserved areas."
10. Page 67, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-9 is revised as follows:
"a) Prior to construction of the proposed bridges, a map shall be prepared
to delineate CRLF breeding habitat, construction and laydown areas,
and areas of proposed temporary fill within Tassajara Creek. Pre-
construction surveys within these areas shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist (as approved by the City) with appropriate
authorization to handle CRLF. If CRLF or CIS are found within the
construction areas (er et;flcr sCRoitive wilèlife spccies), they shall be
immediately moved to undisturbed, preserved portions of Tassajara
Creek if authorized in a Biological Opinion or other permit issued by
the USFWS for the Project. Construction, laydown, and temporary fill
areas shall be fenced appropriately to prohibit CRLF and CIS
movement into these areas, as supervised and verified by a qualified
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 4
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
biologist. Construction activities and access shall be confined to these
fenced areas during construction activities. A qualified biologist will
monitor the fence and construction activities daily when construction
activities are conducted within Tassajara Creek. A qJ1alified biologist
with appropriate authorization peFHIits to relocate a£Pf CRLF or CTS in
conjunction wit], a biological opinion shall be available to the on-site
biological monitor if CRLF or CIS (or othef seRsiävc wildlife species)
are found within the fenced areas during daily construction
monitoring; CRLF shall be relocated to undisturbed, preserved
portions of Tassajara Creek, and CTS shall be relocated to the nearest
protected upland habitat containing burrow habitat."
11. Page 68, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-ll is revised as follows:
"Prior to any tree removal or ground disturbance, a qualified biologist
(approved by the City) shall conduct special status breeding bird surveys
throughout the develo rtion of the . ea and wi' feet
in acljacent habitats. Buffers s all be a minimum of 250 feet for raptors
(although sefloiäve raptors such as golden eagles. which are unlikely to nest
on the Dublin Ranch West site, may require a much larger buffer), and
between 50 and 100 feet for special status passerines depending on habitat
type (50 feet in dense vegetation, 100 feet in open areas). Ftc constf\:ieåsR
surveys shall tah:e place thfougheHt t;Re à€vc1opment parlieR ef the prejeet
area, incluàiRg GUrvcys for grasslarllii lIiràs and bifdc lilcely te nest along tl-.e
Tassajara Creek corridor. Nesting status shall be monitored by a qualified
biologist to determine when nests are no longer active. All activities shall be
prohibited within the buffer until after young have fledged and,L,Qr moved
out of the nest. This measure shall also apply to construction of recreational
trails in preserved areas."
12. Page 70, Impact BIO-6 is changed to read as follows:
"Supplemental Impact BIO-6: Loss of speeial status plants Congdon's
Tarplant"
13. On page 71, Supplemental Impact SM-BIO-15 is amended to read as follows:
"The majority of Congdon's taq¡lants are scattered at low densities over
approximately four acres south of the existing residence on the site; the
remaining individuals to be impacted occur in small areas west of Tassajara
Creek. Studies conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates have revealed five
~ubpopulations within the Tassajara Creek Management Zone ITCMZ) that
average approximately 500 individuals on 0.5 acre each. Based on this
information, tho:: +fie project shall establish and manage a,p..proximately 0.63
acres of ereate one acre ef new eecupied habitat for Congdon's tarplantiaF
e"lCry SRe acrc of e)(Ìsting CSRgdon's tarp!ant Rallitat lost within suitable, on
site pres8P;eà habitat (such as the TCMZ. Following CDFG and City
a,pproval. the Dublin Ranch West Congdon's Tarplant Mitigation and
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of DUblin
Page 5
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Monitoring Plan (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2004) shall be implemented to
compensate for the loss of Congdon's tar:plant individuals. pfoject applicaRt
shall develop ar.à imfleæ.eJF\t a detaileà Miägaäen and MsmteÀng Plan ts
fully comf'Ðnsate fsr iæpacw to CongàsR's tai'plant. The plæ shall in(~hiàe
the mitigaäsn àesign, mcthods of salvage of c¡esting seeà, maintenance
methods (inchlàiRg ·....ecd managcHleRt), monitoring preeeàlifes and
performance CÀtÐEa, repofting requi£emeRti>, and a CSRängency measure ts
prcser¡e e)dsting eM site occupicd CSflgàsR'S tarplant haèitat at an cqual
amount to lost haàitat in case of mitigaäeR faihlre. The project proponent
shall provide a secure funding source (such as a performance bond) for the
implementation of the mitigation plan and long-tenn maintenance and
monitoring of the mitigation area. The created mitigation area must be
preserved in perpetuity (such as through a pennanent conservation
easement). The Mitigation and Monitoring Plan must be approved by the
City prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project. Mitigation shall
require a minimum of five years of monitoring and annual monitoring
reports shall be provided to the City."
14. Page 91, first line, the word "550" is replaced with "428."
15. Page 121, Utilities and Services, storm drainage. replace the sentence "Zone 7
is responsible for master planning" with the following; "Zone 7 owns and
maintains major storm drain channels in the Livermore·Amador Valley.
Zone 7 is presently working on a Stream Management Plan to identify future
channel improvements beneficial to the residents of the Valley." Correct the
sentence that reads: "Drainage on the project area.. . connect with Zone 7
facilities south of 1-580:' This should read: "Drainage on the project
area.. . connect with Zone 7 facilities north of 1-580."
16. Page 125: Zone Ts Salt Management Plan does not include demineralizing
shallow groundwater and reinjecting it into the groundwater basin. Instead, it
includes blending demineralization of a portion of produced groundwater with
other water supplies for delivery to customers. Also, delete the word "water"
from the term "salt-water." The sentence that reads "the resulting salty brine is
to be piped..." with "brine processing facilities" to "concentrate processing
facilities." The correct name of the Zone 7 contact person is "David Lunn."
17. Page 136, Supplemental Mitigation Measure P ARK-I is changed to read as
follows:
"PARK-I: ~~~::'e ~fltative map sr 6æ.ge :1 Devc1epment P,Ian a':hroval,
wmchevef occum fiFE:t, As outlined below, the Project developer all
either:
a) Revise the land use program for the Dublin Ranch West site to
provide an additional ::hMl.9 net acres of Neighborhood Park land
use designation in lieu of a publici semi-public use; or
b) Províàe 1.9 Ret acrcs of NeigkBsmeeà Parks lanà ",se in dose
prmámity sf the Pfoject site. As part of the Prqject Pre-Annexation
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 6
February 2005
I
I Agreement. pay fees to the City of Dublin to compensate for loss
of 1.9 acres of Neighborhood Park land on the Project site. Fees
I shall be equal to the neighborhood park in-lieu fee amount cha¡:ged
to developers who do not have parkland on their property as set
by the Dublin Community Facility Fee report in effect at the time
I of subdivision map recording. Fees shall be due at the time of final
subdivision map recordation,"
I 18. Page 138: Third bullet point in middle of the page should be corrected to read:
"Alternative 3: Reorganization and Development of the Dublin Ranch West with
a Revised Neighborhood Park Location."
I 19. Page 141, first line of 5.4, Alternative 3, the acreage figure "8.7" is replaced
with "7.8."
I 20. Page 142, add a new Supplemental Mitigation Measure for Alternative 3:
Supplemental Mitigation Measure ALTP ARK-I is added to read as follows:
I "ALTPARK-l: As outlined below. the Proiect developer shall either:
a) Revise the land use program for the Dublin Ranch West site to
I provide an additional 1.04 net acres of Neighborhood Park land use
desigr¡ation in lieu of a public I semi-public use; or
b) As part of the Project Pre-Annexation Agreement. pay fees to the
I Cit;y of Dublin to compensate for loss of 1.04 acres of
Neighborhood Park land on the Project site. Fees shall be equal to
!;he neighborhood park in-lieu fee amount charged to developers
I who do not have parkland on their property as set by the Dublin
Community Facility Fee report in effect at the time of subdivision
m'W recording. Fees shall be due at the time of final subdivision
I map recordation."
Summary of DSEIR Comment Letters
I Comment letters were received by the City of Dublin during the 45-day public
comment period on the DSEIR from the following agencies, organizations and other
interested parties.
I
Commenter Date
I Federal A2encies
None
I State A2encies
2.1 State Department of Transportation 1/03/05
I (Caltrans)*
2.2 State of California, Office of Planning 1/05/05
and Research*
I Dublin Ranch West Anal Supplemental EIR Page 7
City of Dublin February 2005
I
I
I
Local Aeencies
I 3.1 Alameda County Flood Control and 12/30/04
Water Conservation District Zone 7
3.2 East Bav Recional Park District 1/03/05
I 3.3 Dublin San Ramon Services District 1/03/05
(DSRSD)
3.4 Alameda County Public Works 1/04/05*
I Agency
Intetested PersonsjOtganizations
I 4.1 Martin W. Inderbitzen, Attorney at 1/03/05
Law
I * Although these comment letters were received after the dose of the public comment period, responses
are provided.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR Page 8
City of Dublin February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Annotated Comment Letters and Responses
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 9
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
61/63/2005 14:62
5162865559
CALTRANS
PAGE 01
'IITATRnP'r:AI.IR1RNiA. tlU8øœ.!.!Ii TIlAMl.JIi'Ut"U.l'Il'W ANnJ.mmtt'Nti A(';P.Nr:V
..WNt"IIll"I ~f"1.IW...D7IJIIItfnrdID 0____
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
III GRAND AVENUE
P. O. BOX 23660
OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660
PHONE (510)286-5505
PAX (510) 286--5513
TTY (800) 735-2929
6J
January 3. 2005
RECEIVED·
JAN 0 3 2005
STATE CLEARING HOUSE
~~~t
PI*-' 'l*' p~rl
ø~ ''''''0 (Øi~iÆlI"
ALA58076 1
SCH#2003022082
Mr. Mike Porto
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 2.1
Dear Mr. Porto:
DUBLIN RANCH WEST - DRAFf ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Thank you for including the California Depanment of Transportation (Department) in the
environmental review process for the Dublin Ranch West project. The comments pre&ented
below are based on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR); additional comments may be
forthcoming pending final l'eview of the DEIR.. As lead agency. the City of Dublin is responsible
for all project mitigation, including improvements to state highways and related drainage
systems. Please note that an encroachment permit wil1 not be Issued until our concems are
adequately addressed. Funher conunents will be provided during the encroachment permit
process.
TrI4i/k V,blmll Døta
Since cunent traffic volume data should be used whenever it is av/IÍlable, 2002 data for InterState 2.1.1
S80 (1-580) should be replaced with the more current 2003 volume data which Is available from
the Depamnent's webslte linküsted below. Pase 93, Section 4.6, Transportation and Circulation,
&isting roa4way network.
hup:/Iwww.dot.ca.gov/bqluaffops/saferesr/trafdBtaI
Hydrøulks
L A HydrologylHydraulic Study should be prepared and submlttM to the Department to enable 2.1.2
us to det\::rmine projecH~lated Impacts on the lOO-year flow rates and flow conditions at the
I-SSOfTassajara Road Interchange. Project-related drainage impacts to 1-580 should be
thoroughly evaluated, and mitigation recommended where appropriate since FEMA
floodplain maps show flooding at 1·580 where Tassajara Creek crosses the freeway west of
the interchange, and the DEIR states that Tassajara creek is the outfall for project-related
storm drainage systems. Tbe project should Include measUl'eS to reduce post-development
flow rates to existing values.
"C~I"an,s u..,rou.r MObml)l dC'N)U CdlfføfJI" I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-~-
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
61/63/2665 14:62
M.. Mike Pano
Jam.uuy 3, :wo5
Pag. 2
5162865559
CALTRANS
PAGE Ø2
2. Development fees should be used to improve the drainage infrastrUcture impacted by the
project. Dn.inagc improvements should include supplementing existing cross culverts under
the freeway that have been overta:o.ed by unmitigated development within the watershed.
Enc1YHIChment Permit
Work that encroaches onto the Srate Right of Way (ROW) requires an enerow:hment pennit that
is issued by the Depanment. To apply, a completed encroachment pcnnit application,
environmental documentation, and five (5) setS of plans, clearly Indicating State ROW, must be
submitted to the address below. Traffic-related mitigation measwes will be incorporated into the
construction plans during the encroachment pennit process. See the website link below for more
infoXIDatlon.
hnp:/lwww.dot.ca.govlhq/traffopsldevelopserv/pennitsl
Sean Nozzari, District Office Chief
Office of Pennits
California DOT, District 4
P.O. Bo,," 23660
OaldlIld, CA 94623-0660
Please feel free to call or email Patricia Maurice of my staff at (510) 622-1644 or
natricia maurice@dot.ca.l!ov with any questions regardins thh letter.
Sincerely,
TlMO . SABLE
District Branch Chief
JORlCEQA
c:
Mr. Scot! Morgan, State Clearinghouse
"Calwdn: ð'np~t m(iÞllll1 rJc,tnt CÆJifOm"'¡'
2.1.3
2.1.4
I
.
I
I
Arnold
Schwancnegger
Govct"nor
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STATE OFCALIFORNIA
GoverIlor's Office of PlanIling and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
January 10, 2005
Michael Porto
City of Dublin
Development SeTVice, Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 2.2
Subjeet: Dublin Ranch West Project
SCH#; 2003022082
Dear Michael Porto:
~.,,~
(~)
.-..;: .
~~"'~
Jan Bool
Aoring Director
The enclosod co=nt (s) on your Draft EIR was (wore) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end
of the ."'te review period, which closed on December 30, 2004. We sre forwarding the.e comments to you
because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmontal
docurnmt.
1'ho California Envirorunental Quality Act does not require Load Agenci.. to respond to iate comments.
However, we encourage you to incorporat~ these additional comments into your final envllonmental
document and to consider them prior to taking fmalaction on the proposed project.
Please c011tact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445·0613 if you have any questions concerning the
environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the abov~-named project, please refer to
the ten-digit S"'te Clearinghouse number (2003022082) whon contacting this office.
Sincerely,
~~.
Senior Phmner. State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: ResourcM Agency
ViC1 \?WI)
Öl-I}':'OS
(Eß
]400 TI!NTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
TEt.(916)44$-iJ613 FAX(916)32,J-,JOI8 www.opr.ca.goY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Pl.éA$ANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-5127 4
PH:)NI;' (925) 484-2600 ~p.x (5125) 462-3914
5991 PARKSIDE DRIVE .
December 30, 2004
Mr. Mike Porro, Project Planner
Community Development Departmtnt
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RECEiVEtJ
Jt'\N 0 3 R~L'¡)
Letter 3.1
pLlBLlN PLANNIN-
Re: Dublin Ranch West Project - Draft Supplemental Environmental Imp.ct Report (DSEIR)
Dear Mr. Porto;
Zone 7 has reviewed tho referenced CEQA document. We have several comments which are made in the context of
Zone Ts mission to provide drinking water¡ non.potablc water for agriculture and inigated turf, flood protectiQI1¡ and
groundw.ter .nd slTeam man.gemont within the Livermore-Amador Valley. Zone 7 previously commented on the
Notice ofPreparntion for a DSEIR for the W.llis Ranch Project, whicb w.s the predecessor to this project. PI..,e see
enclosed M.rch 17, 2003 letter for your reference. Our comments are organized to follow the DSEIR, .s follows:
1.
Chapter 3.0 Projecr Description - 3.6 Projecl Developmlml Plan, page \3
This paragraph identified existing .nd proposed land use designations fur tho project. The projecr will consist
oflow, medium, and medium-high density residenti.l, neighborhood commercial. .nd park and open sp.ce.
Mitig.tion for the creation of impervious areas within the Livermore- Amador Valley is addressed through the
collection of Special Drainage Are. 7-1 Dr.in.ge Fees. The dr.inage fees are collected for Zone 7 by the local
governing agency upon .pprov.l of vesting tentative or final map for new streets/development and/or upon
approv.l of any new building/grading/use pennit required of .ny public agency/commercial/residenti.l/
industri.l/agricultural user. Fees are dependent upon whetherpost-project impervious are. conditions are
greater than pre-project conditions and/or whether fees have previously been paid. Effective January I, 2005,
the fees will be $0.662 per square feet of new impervious surf.ce area.
3.1.1
2.
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Analysis - 4.7 Uti/tties and Services, Storm Dratnage
Under Environmental Setting, page 121~ replace sentence that reads "Zone 7 is responsible for master
pl.nning" with "Zone 7 owns and maintains major .torm drain channels in the Livermore-Amador Valley.
Zone 7 is presently working on a Stream M.nagement M.ster Plan to identify future channel improvements
beneficial to the residents of the Valley." Correct sontence th.t read¡; "Drain.ge on the project area...connect
with Zone 7 facilities south ofl-580" to "Drainage on the project are....connect with Zone 7 facilities north of
1-580." 11 should be noted that Zone 7 does not typically maintain culverts. as they are usu.lIy owned by
CalTrans, or are the City's responsibility to maintain.
3.1.2
Under Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis (Zone 7), page 125. it is noted th.t the City will require hydrology
and hydr.ulic analysis from developers for future projects within Dublin Ranch West for review by both the
City and Zone 7. Please be advised that Zone 7 should be .Ilowed to review and comment prior to the
cononeneement of each future project.
3.1.3
3.
Ch.pter 4.0 Environmental Analysis - Supplemental In/ormation in Response 10 Notice of Preparation (NOP);
Main Basin Salt Loading (Zone 7). p.ge 125
There are . number of corrections to be made in this par.graph. Please he .dvised that Zone 7's current (near-
term) Salt Management Plan docs not include "demineralizing shallow groundw.ter... and reinjecting it into
the groundwater basin." Inste.d. we are planning on demineralizing. portion of the produced groundw.ter
tram Out existing supply wells and blending it with other water supplies for delivery m out customers. Tho
portion of sentence that reads "This impact is more of a regional salt-water management problem, ... "" should
be revised to read "This impact is more of a regional salt management problem, _.. ."Also, replace portion of
3.1.4
I
I
M{. Mike Pono, Project Planner
Community Development Department
City of Dublin
December 30. 2004
Page 2
I
I
sentence that reads "the resulting salty brine is to be piped..." with "the resulting concentrate is to be piped
.. _" Sirnilarly~ replace portion of sentence that reads" brine processing facílitiestt to 'Iconcentrate processing
facilities", Please also correct spellíng for Zone Ts contact for information On ma.în basin salt loading~ Dav~
Lunn.
I
4.
Appendix 8.llnilial Study
I
Under paragraph 8, Hydrology aud Water Quality, page 39, it should be noted that all proposed Mitigation 3.1.5
Measures for Hydrology specified in the Eastern Dublin EIR, will require input from Zone 7 prior to
implementation, as any new drainage pians proposed could have an effecI on -Zone 7's Stream Management
Master Plan. The Mitigation Measures should also defme what sort of channellmprovemems will be requued
of developers.
I
In the first sentence of the Environmental Selling paragraph, page 51, please be advised that Zone 7 is a water 3.1.6
wholesaler and does not serve the project area directly_ In addition, Zone 7 does not ovm Or maintain any
storm drain facilities within the Projeet Area. In the second paragraph, replace sentence that reads "new storm
drainage facilities which would COMect to existing facilities maintained and eontrolled by Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7" with "new storm drain facilities which would connect
to existing facility owned and maintained by Zone 7, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Con.<ervalion
District n
I
I
I
Also, please suhmit for Zone 7 review all future plan and specification and future studies pertaining to the proposed
project, a!tn: SuzaMe Alaksa. Associate Engineer, Advance Planning.
We appreciate the opponunity to comment on these documents. Please feel free to call Jack Fung at (925) 484-2600,
ext. 245, otmysdfatext. 400. if you have any qnestions.
I
Very truly yours,
I
~.o-µ ð---.
Jim Horen
Principal Engineer
Advance Planning Section
r"'"
I
JH:JF:arr
I
Enclosure
I
cc: Dave Requa, DSRSD
John Mahoney, Zone 7
Dave Lunn, Zone 7
Joe Seto, Zone 7
Man Katen, Zone 7
Jack Fong, Zone 7
Mary Urn, Zone 7
I
I
P;\¡f(ivpJanVack.'¡J 1-22-04 Dubljr¡ k,anch West DSEIR,doc
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
5997 PArlKSIDE DRivE ; PLËASANTON, CALIFORNIA 94588-5~27 ; "',",ONE (925) 484-26DO ~A)o( (925) 462-3914
March 17, 2003
Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr.
Development Services Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Re' Notice of Preparation for Supplemental Environmentallmpact Report for
Wallis Ranch Reorganization and Development CPA 02-028) and Initia] Study
Dear Mr. PeabodY'
Zone 7 has revi..wed the referenced Notice ofPr.paration (NOP) and !niti.al Study. We have several
comments which are made in the context of Zone 7'8 responsibilities in our service area to provide
wholesale treated water, non-potable water for agricuhure and irrigated tUIf, flood protection, and
groundwater and stream management. Our comroents are listed below and are organized to follow the
order of the environmental checklist in this !nida] Study:
I. Project Background and Description -!nfrastructure, page 5
Tassajara Creek, extendffig from the southerly boundary of the project to approximately 2,100
feet south of the A]ameda County/Contra Costa County line, and an approximate 400-foot long
reach of the tributary to Tassajara Creek, are authorized Zone 7 facilities. If any alteratiop of
Tassajara Creek or thc tributary are proposed, then a hydraulic study ofth. effect of such
alteration on the wate{ surface under the 100-year flow conditions and the proposed development
should be submitted to Zone 7 for review and comment.
2. Section 8, Hydrology and Water Quality. item c), page 4]
Mitigation for the creation of new impervious areaS within the Livermore-Amador Valley is
addressed through the collection ofSpecia] Drainage Area (SDA) 7-] drainage fees_ Zope 7's
standard mitigation practice is to colkct ¡Ill SDA 7-1 fee on any new buildings, improvements
{including, but not limited to paving), or structures to be copstructed that substantially ipcrease
the imperviousness of the land surface.
3. Section 8, Hydrology and Water Quality, item e), page 41
A hydrology study is needed to determine the impacts to Zone 7's facilities- Zone 7 requests that
it be able to review and comm<:nt prior to commencement of the project.
4. Section 8. Hydrology and Water Quality, items g and i), page 42
A hydraulic study is needed to determine the impacts oUhe project On the 100-year water surface
in Tassajara Creek. Zone 7 requests that it be able to review and comment prior to
commencement of the project_
I
I
Mr. Eddie Peabody, Jr.
City of DubHn
March 17, 2003
Page 2
I
I
5.
Section 13, Public Services, Water and Sewer, page 46
I
This project will also be annexed to DSRSD for water and sewer services. and DSRSD's master
utilities plans, including recycled water, will cover this project area. The Initial Study does not
assesS the potential salt loading impacts over Our main groundwater basin. Zone 7 considers all
applied water (rainwater is an exception), including both potable water and recycJed water, to
contribute salt loading to the groundwater basin and there must be mitigation ofthe associated
impacts.
I
I
Zone 7's Groundwater Demineralization Project is the recommended project to accomplish Zone
7' s Salt Management Program's goal of non-degradation of our main groundwater basin fi:om the
long-term buildup of salts. Zone 7 expects to begin design in 2004, with project completion
expected in 2006. We request that the City of Dublin express support for the Groundwater
Demineralization Project within the Draft EIR as the appropriate mitigation for any projects
proposed. Otherwise, we request the City address the mitigation of any salt loading impacts of the
project should Zone 7's proposed Groundwater Demineralization Project not be constructed and
placed into operation.
I
I
6.
Section 1 6, Utilities and Service Systems, item d), page 52
I
A portion ofthe project area is located in Contra Costa County. Zone 7's service area is in
Alameda County. The only portion of Contra Costa County that receives Zone 7 water is a
portion of Dougherty Valley, and that is through a special agreement. Please explain if there was
an intent to serve the Contra Costa County portion of the project area with Zone 7 water.
I
I
I
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these documents. Please feel free to call me at (925) 484-
2600. ex!. 400, or Jack Fang at ex!. 245, if you have any questions.
I
Very truly yours,
//~ ~
~en
Princlpal Engmeer
Advance Planning Section
I
JH:JF:arr
cc:
Dave Requa, DSRSD
Ed Cununings, Zone 7
John Mahoney, Zone 7
Dave Lunn, Zone 7
Joe Seto, Zone 7
Matt Katen, Zone 7
Jack Fang, Zone 7
I
I
I
FHe; P:\AdvpJan\C'EQA Ref!m"a¡s\WallisR;iT1chR.~organiz;ati()nDe.velopmcl'Jt.doc
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( <kJe.iJvuL OJOSo5 U6mAiL
10: 5LI!+m Si
PARK DISTRICT
EAST BAY REGIONAL
January 3, 2005
Via Fax and US Postal Service
Mike Porto, Project Planner
City of Dublin
Community Development Department
toO Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 3.2
RE: Tassajara Creek Regional Trail- Dublin Ranch West Project (P A 02-028)
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report SCH # 2003022082
Dear Mr. Porto:
Thank you for providing the East Bay Regional Park District ("Districtj with a
copy of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the
Dublin Ranch West proposed project. As stated in the District's Response to the
Notice of Preparation (see March 18, 2003 letter to Mr. Eddie Peabody Jr.) lIB part
ofthe implementation of the District's adopted Master Plan 1997, the District
seeks to develop the TIIBsajara Creek Regional Trail ftom Dublin Blvd., through
the proposed project, continuing northward and eventually connecting to Mt.
Diablo State Park.
The proposed project would not be consistent with the District's Master Plan
1997. The Master Plan locates the TIIBsajara Creek Regional Trail along the ridge
in the vicinity of the eastern edge of Parks RFTA, and then proceeding northward
along the ridge toward Mt. Diablo State Park. The proposed project would
location the Tassajara Creek Regional Trail in a narrow corridor between two
areas proposed fur low and medium density residential development. The Draft
SEIR is inadequate because in does not address the significant impacts IIBSOCiated
with the lack of consistency with the Master Plan, and the impacts ftom changing
the existed open space to residential development adjacent to the regional trail
corridor.
Please call me at 510/544-2621 if you would like to discuss this further.
~
IìII rei
29f)C ¡=:¡eíalta Oaks Court P.O. Box 5381 Oakland. CA 94605-0381
510 635-0135 FA~ 510569-4,319 ;'Ut) 510633-0460 www,ebparks,rJr'g
BOARD OF O:A::C70R!:i
Doug Siden
Pl8sidel'1;
W;:¡rd4
Je.:Jn Sir:
Vir:~.Pr~~.i¡J~r"l1
War(ll
Beverly Lsr¡e-
~r~;;¡~urE!r
W;;rljc,
CaiO! S~iI~r¡n
!:Ìecr~(;;¡ry
WEJfd3
hhn $u[l6'r
WEJrd2
Ayn Wieskamþ
W.,.rd5
Ted Radke
W.srd7
Psi O'Br!sr:
S/!;)'.i!(ill MilllSlger
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,.
>
t<u.ei V.fð:. Of{) SO 'S
US rV/Ji4 L /0'. Sî..! r+M
$£
DUBLIN
SAN RAMON
SERVICES
DISTRICT
9258280515
7051 Dubliu Soukvard
DubIin, California 94568-
FAX: 925 829 I J 80
JanuaI)' 3, 2005
Mr. Mike Porto, Project Plauner
City of Dublin, Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Letter 3.3
Subject: P A 02-028, General Pian/Specific Plan Amendment, prezoning and Stage 1 Development
Plan for Dublin Ranch West--Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report
Dear Mik.:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject document. The Dublin San Ramon Services Dis1rict
("Dis1rict") has the following comments.
Potable Water SuvtJlv and Serviçe
As you point out in the draft EIR, the entire Dublin RJmch West project will create an additional maximum
potable water demand of 320,000 gallons per day. Because of the plauning already done by the Dis1rict, in
cooperation with the City of Dub tin. that demand for Dublin RJmch West is already incorporated into the
Dis1rict's Urban Water Management Plan and 2004 Water Master Plan Update in progress. In 2004. the
District perfonned and completed a "Water Service Analysis and Water Supply Assessment" for the Dublin
Ranch West project in accordance with the "Agreement to Senle Water Litigation" between the Dis1rict and
the City of Livermore; Citizens for Balanced Growth; Zone 7 Water Agency, Alameda County Flood Control
and Water Conservation Dis1rict; Windemere Partners; and Shapelllndus1ries, Inc., dated November 2, 1999.
A copy of the document was forwarded to the City of Dublin on December 15.2004.
3.3.l
The facilities curTently planned by the District for this area will be of sufficient capacity to meet the increased
demand at full build out of this project; and this demand will be mitigated somewhat by the extension of
recycled water pipelines through the project area and adherence to Dublin's standard water conservation
measures. To obtain water service from the Dis1rict, potable water lines must be extended into the project site.
The pipeline must be constructed by the project applicant and dedicated to the Dis1rict for operation and
maintenance. The sizes and locations of all water pipelines should be identified prior to project approval for
installation. Coordination with the Dis1rict should be conducted to ensure that the proposed activities do not
interfere with existing Dis1rict facilities and the instalJation of new water lines are completed in confonnance
with the District's Standard Procedures, Spectjicatians and Drawings and 2Q04 Updated Water Master Plan
in progress.
The supply of the 320,000 gallons per day of potable water for this project is provided for in the long-tenn
con1l'acts between the Zone 7 Water Agency and the Dis1rict. No additional mitigation is necessaI)' for
obtaining additional water supply for this project.
The IJ\Jb¡j~ $:>n R~,.,,,,,, s,·(~,~,,~ )1~¡:1(¡ i~" f\¡!;.li" F.n!;IY
File~ Chron.
H:\ENGOE >Tì(: ;¡QA\20:S-02o.1005lDublin RMK.h W~S[ ~E11I. Lu ]_!-O~.dDc;
I
I
Mr. Miko Porto
City ofDublin
January 3, 2005
Page 2 of2
I
I
Reevcled Water SuvvIv and Service
I
District Ordinance No. 301 requires recycled water use for all new land uses that are commercial, multi-family 3.3.2 .
residential and institutional irrigation within the District's potable water service area. A portion of the
development of the Dublin Ranch West falls into these categories. In your report. you show a maximum
expected average day demand for recycled water of 104,300 gallons per day for irrigation. The District's 2000
Recycled Water Plan has 132,900 gallons per day for irrigation. The Water Master Plan Update currently in
progress will incOlporate the reduced demand.
I
To obtai" recycled water service from the District, recyc1ed water lines must be extended into the project site.
The pipehnes must be constructed by the project apphcant and dedicated to the District for operation and
maintenance. The sizes and locations of all pipelines should be identified prior to project approval for
installation. The installation, operation and maintenance of recycled water lines shall confonn to the District's
Standard Procedures, Spedficatìons and Drawings and Recycled Water Use Guidelines.
I
I
Wastewater Services and Wastewater Effluent DisoosaI
I
Wastewater flows at Dublin Ranch West's full bwld out has been included in the planned capacity expansions
of the District's Wastewater Treatment Plant and LA VWMA' s wastewater effluent disposal facilities.
Providing w....tewater collection, treatment and export services is contingent upon the Dublin Ranch West
Development satisfYing all requirements contained in the District's Code and implementing the District's
master plans, pohcies and ordinances.
3.3..3
I
The District has included the project area in its master plan study sewer services. So that the project may
receive sewer services from the District, sanitary Sewer lines must be extended into the project site. These
facilities must be constructed by the project applicant and dedicated to the District for operation and
maintenance. The sizes and locations of all Dismct utilities and facilities should be identified prior. to project
approval. Coordination with the District should be conducted to ensure that the proposed activities do not
interfere with existing District facilities and the installation of new sewer lines are completed in confonnance
with the District's Standard Procedure>, Specifications and Drawings and updated master plans.
3.4.4
I
I
I
As noted above. our agency does not deem any mitigation beyond those specified in the Draft EIR for the areas
of our potable water., recycled water, or wastewater collection and disposal services to the community. We
feel the joint planning effort done between the City of Dublin and the District h.... successfully identified those
areas of concern and planned reasonable solutions for those are..... Thank you for your consideration in this
matter. ¡fyou have any questions regarding these comments please call me at (925) 875-2255.
I
¿t!;~
RHODORAN.131A~
Associate Engineer.
I
I
I
tp
co; D. Requa
D. 13ehrens
S. Delight
R. Portugal
I
I
fil~; Çhron.
H:'£NGDE!F'1\CEQA\20:;-o2-100;5\DubU" ~h W~51 SEIR Ltr 1-3-QS.du~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
951 Turner Coun, Room 100
Hayward. CA 94545 -269&
(510) 670-6601
FAJ((510) 670-5269
JaIluary 4, 2005
Mike Porto
Project Planner
City ofDublin
Community Development Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin; CA 94568
Letter 3.4
Dear Mr. Porto:
Subject: Dublin Ranch West Project
Draft Supplemental Environmental hnpact Report
Reference is made to your transmittal of the above noted Draft SEIR for the Dublin Ranch
West project, located on 189 acres within unincorporated Alameda COlmty, west side of
Tassajara Road, east of Parks RFT A, south of the Alameda/Contra Costa county line and
north of the existing Dublin City limit line.
We have reviewed the submitted documents and offer the following comments:
1. Exhibit 16 shows a future T as$lljara realignment. Transitions will be needed within the
current project limits.
3.4.1
2. Evaluation should be made on constrUCtion impacts to adjacent County roads.
3.4.2
3.4.3
3. Evaluate impacts to existing County roads due to increased traffic. Potential traffic
calming requirements may be needed for County roads.
4. Although a conceptual sketch is provided regarding this project, it is critical that roadway
improvements be included in the area between the jurisdictional boundary line and the
most southerly limits of the project. Experience has demonstrated that this roadway area
has been subjected to previous incidents due to limited shoulder area, motorist speed, and
reaction time with motorists in the turning-movement process. Since this section of
roadway has a curve-linear alignment, it is critical that roadway design standards and
improvements be considered beyond the fi'ontage limits of the parcel.
5. With the future alignment ofTassajara Road and Fallon Road, it is important for right of
way dedication (to the ultimate alignment) of this roadway be considered. The existing
right of way on Tas$lljara Road is 66 feet with a future-width-line of 100 feet.
3.4.4
3.4.5
D\~\D-ÜtJ
R~C£lvE!J
TO SERVE AND PRESERVE OUR COMMUNITY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Mike Porto
2
January 4, 2005
6. Prior to finalizing this design concept, it is suggested that a roadway conceptual plan be
considered for the surrounding area.. Although not all lands westerly ofTlISsa.jara. Road
are a. part of the proposed project, the ultimate development of this area. will undoubtedly
impact surrounding parcels and roadway improvements along TIISsajara. Road.
7. On Tassajara. Road, the installation of a traffic signal, deceleration and acceleration lanes,
potential for on-street bike lanes, shoulder improvements, street lighting, and additional
traffic control signing and striping should be considered. These improvements are further
sUl11l11arÌzed in the consultant's report, "Supplemental Impacts for Potential Traffic
Safety Impacts."
3.4.6
3.4.7
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
for this project. If you have any questions, please call Andrew Otsuka at (510) 670-6613.
~I-ý
Stanley Fung
Deputy Director
Development Services Department
IAO
cc: Hank Ackerman, Flood Program.
John Fensrennacher, Real Estate Division
James Chu, Road Department
Robert Preston, Traffic Engineering
Mario Montalvo, Maintenance & Operations
Tom Hinderlie, Maintenance & Operations
Fred Wolin, Enviromnental Services
Robert Hale, Clean Water Division
Gary Moore, Permits Section
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r/r;ð~ Jer~ ~
MARTIN W. INDERBITZEN
Attorney at Law
January 3, 2005
Hand Delivered
Mike Porto
Planning Department
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin,Califonria94568
Letter 4.1
Re: Dublin Ranch West Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mike:
Thank you for the opportunity to cOWIIlent upon the Dublin Ranch West SDEIR.
Comments pertinent to the Biology Chapter are attached herein as a separate document.
Al! other chapter comments are presented below.
Exhibit 12 Master Infrastructure Plan. We wish todarity that although the Plan does
not illustrate Zone 2 water lines in Tassajara Road, north of the primary project entry, and
in Fallon Road, DSRSD plans to have these lines placed in these street segments.
Pal!e 14, Second bullet item: replace "9.7" with "3.7".
Pal!e 18. Second paragraph under Utility services. second line: replace "westerly" with
"easterly".
Pal!e 91, First line of page: replace "550" with "428".
Pal!e 141. First paragraph of5.4 Altemative 3. . .: replace "8.7" with "7.8".
PaI!es 1-2 and 135-136:
The Dublin City Council held a public workshop on October 5, 2004 to discuss various
issues regarding the Dublin Ranch West project, including reviewing and evaluating four .
plans that looked at different locations and sizes of neighborhood parks on or near the
project site. The Council selected Option Four, which provided 7.66 acres of
neighborhood park on site, arid 1.04 acres of neighborhood park that would be located on
an adjacent development parcel because "it would serve the different needs of the
community". Additionally, 1.2 acres of land was set-aside on the project site that could
be utilized as either public/semi-public or neighborhood park uses. The Council accepted
Portol)
DR - W.lI~.
7077 Koll Center Par1çway, SuitEi120, F'le,asan10n, CaUfomla 94566 Phonil!l 925 485-1060 Fax 925 4as-106S
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
4.1.4
4.1.5
4.1.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Porto
January 3, 2005
Page Two
the fact that neighborhood park acreage could be moved off site if need be. Based on the
foregoing, we request that mitigation measure PARK-l be revised as follows:
PARK-I. Prior to tentative map or Stage 2 Development Plan approval, whichever
occurs first, the project developer shall:
(a) Revise the land use program for the Dublin Ranch West site to provide an
additional 1.04 net acres of Neighborhood Parks land use designation in
lieu of a public/semi-public use; or
(b) Pay in-lieu fees for required Neighborhood Park acres.
Pal!e 135, first paragraph after Sunnlemental Imnact PARK-I: Revise "7.66" acres to
u6.8!'.
4.1.7
Biological Resources Section 4.3
Our remaining comments focus on the Biological Resources Section, Section 4.3 of the
Supplemental Draft EIR. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference are two
memorandums prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates (the first dated December 1, 2004;
the second dated December 30, 2004) each referencing specific sections of the
Supplemental Draft EIR with appropriate comments.
4.1.8
In addition, it is our belief that the Environmental Setting Section of Section 4.3, at Page
47 of the SDEIR does not adequately consider the beneficial impacts of the Tassajara
Creek Management Zone for its unique beneficial affects on the wildlife that are
potentially'"impacted by the project. If the SDEIR were to properly consider the
foregoing as part of the environmental baseline (California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines Section 15125) the SDEIR would conclude that the potential affects on the
California Red-Legged Frog from this project are reduced to a level of insignificance.
The TassajaraCreek Management Zone (TCMZ) must be considered in conjW1ction with
the Biological Opinion of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service dated July I, 2002
together with the Project Area Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prepared by H.T. Harvey
& Associates as well as the Tassajara Creek Conservation Area Management Plan and
the Tassajara Creek Private Open Space Management Plan. If one were to review the
Biological Opinion dated July I, 2002,. it would be accurate to conclude that the
development of Dublin Ranch West was not specifically identified as a project impact for
the Opinion. Nevertheless, the Service did take into consideration the potential
development of Dublin Ranch West; two potential bridge crossings across Tassajara
Creek and the City of Dublin's park and recreation plan when issuing the Biological
Opinion and approving the Tassajara Creek Management Zone and its associated
Portö1.3
DR·WalHs
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Porto
January 3, 2005
Page Three
mitigation and monitoring plan, the TaBsajara Creek Conservation Area Management
Plan and the Tassajara Creek Private Open Space Management Plan.
The descriptions used by the Service and the meaBures required in the TCMZ indicate
that impacts to the upland area of DublÚJ. Ranch West as dispersal habitat for the
California Red-Legged Frog have already been considered. AB a result, the impacts of
Dublin Ranch West on the California Red-Legged Frog dispersal habitat are insignificant.
The Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states under the
Section entitled Affecl$ of the Proposed Action Subsection Direct and Indirect Affects·
(California Red-Legged FroglRed-Legged Frog Critical Habitat) at Pages 22 to 23.
"The City of Dublin is planning to construct trails along both sides of
TaBsajara Creek within the TaBsajara Creek Open Space. These future
trails may result ÚJ. the loss of additional acres of California Red-Legged
Frog habitat and on-going affects in the form of harm, harassment, injury,
and mortality to California Red-Legged Frogs fi'om habiiat loss and
modification, trail construction related disturbance, trapping and relocation,
loss of movement corridors, increased predation by pets, crushing by
horses, bicycles and pedestrians, and capture for pets."
Under the Section entitled Cumulative Affects (still within the Section entitled Affects of
the Proposed Action) the Service states at Pages 29 and 30:
"A future housing development is planned imlnediately to the west of the
Tassajara Creek open space. The Applicants plan to construct two road
crossings over TaBsajara Creek at some undetennined future time through
the 53 acre Tassajara Creek open space to provide access to the site
of the future housing development. TIris future development would likely
result in the loss of additional acres of California Red-Legged Frog and
California Tiger Salamander habitat."
The Service states in its Opinion under the Section Incidental Take Statement subsection
Amount or Extent of Take that:
". .. the Service anticipates that an unquantifiable number of California
. Red-Legged Frogs will be taken in conjunction with the following: . . .
(2) Temporary loss of 53 acres of California Red-Legged Frog habitat from
the Habitat enhancemeut [as a result of future crossings] and perpetual
recreation activities by the City of Dublin Parks Department [as a result
of construction and operation of City trails]". [Emphasis added]
PortOU
DR ~ Wallis
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Porto
January 3, 2005
Page Four
These references to the temporary loss and the perpetual recreation activities by the City
of Dub 1m are clear references to the authorized mcidental take as a result of the activities
identified under Direct and Indirect Affects at Pages 22 and 23 and cumulative affects at
Pages 29 and 30. Because the recreational trails are anticipated to be constructed withio
the Tassajara Creek open space which is immediately adjacent to the Tassajara Creek
Management Zone (and between the Tassajara Creek Management Zone and the
proposed development of Dublin Ranch West) the additional acres of Red~Legged Frog
habitat, the harassment, mjury and mortality to California Red-Legged Frogs ITom habitat
loss and modification, the loss of movement corridors, the mcreased predation by pets,
crushing by horses, bicycles and pedestrians, capture for pets, trail construction related
disturbance, trapping and relocation resulting from the Dublin Ranch West project
proposal is insignificant inasmúch as it has already been taken into consideration by the
Service in the Incidental Take Statement of its Biological Opinion dated July 1, 2002.
The Tassajara Creek Private Open Space Management Plan states as its goal as follows:
,
"The primary goal of the P~S [Private Open Space] is to manage
the annual grassland habitat, oak savannah/oak woodland habitat,
and swale in a manner that is compatible with management
of the adjoining TCMZ (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2003b) and the
overall TCCA [Tassajara Creek Conservation Area]. In order to
achieve this goal, the p~s will be managed as a transition area between
the TCMZ and the adjacent future development."
With the issuance ofits Biological Opinion on July 1, 2002 and approval of the Tassajara
Creek COllSetVation Area along with its related management documents (for the
Tassajara Creek Management Zone and the Tassajara Creek Private Open Space) there is
little doubt that the Service intended to provide for the development and enhiIncement of
habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog IDlhin the Tassajara Creek Conservation
Area and to protect the California Red-Legged Frog ITom the approved and anticipated
development adjacent to the Tassajara Creek Conservation Area by among other thiogs
providing m the management documents for a "transition area between the Tassajara
Creek Management Zone and adjacent future development". Thus, any impact to the
California Red-Legged Frog as a result of upland dispersal would be msignificant
provided that the Tassajara Creek Open Space Management Plan is complied with.
PortoiJ
DR~WaJli:¡
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
Mike Porto
January 3. 2005
Page Five
For ease of reference, I have enclosed:
1. A complete copy of the Biological Opinion issued by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service highlighted (a) to show the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service acknowledgment of adjacent development and the
impacts thereof identified under both direct and indirect impacts (page 22)
as well as cumulative affects (page 29); (b) incidental take as result of
"perpetual recreation activities by the City of Dublin Parks Depar1ment".
(page 31).
2. The Tassajara Creek Conservation Area Management Plan.
3. Tassajara Creek Private Open Space Management Plan.
4. Portions of the Project Area Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
Once again, thank you for the chance to couunent upon this document. Please feel free to
. call me at 925-485-1060 if you wish to discuss these comments in greater detail.
Very truly yours,
/'
,<;:?;~
MARTIN W. rNDERBITZEN
MWI/lmh
Enclosures
cc: Jim Tong
Connie Goldade
Pertot,)
DR-Wallis
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(J; H T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
~ ECOLØGlCAL CONSLLTANTS
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Martin Inderbinen/Connie Goldade
Steve Rottenborn
1 December 2004
Comments on Dublin Ranch West Draft SEIR
Our staff has reviewed the Draft Supplemental EJR for the Dublin Rauch West Project. Some of
our previous concerns OJJ previous drafts have been addressed, but we still have concerns
regarding several items. Specific coroments are as follows:
Impact BIO-l (California Tiger Salamander [CTS]):
· SM-BlO-1 arid: SM-BIO-2, page 1-4 (also pages 56 arid 64): The existing passive
exclusioJJ barrier was installed, with CDFG approval, to act as a temporary barrier to
exclude CTS from entering the future developmeut arid construction areas while allowing
CTS to leave the site. TIris pUIJJose is the same as the "temporary herpetological fence"
described in BIO-I a) not a permanent fence or barrier as in BlO-2. BlO-1 a) should be
modified to allow a temporary herpetological fence or barrier and delete reference to use of
the curreut one-way barrier m a pennanent capacity. ill addition, the passive exc1usiou
uature of this barrier allows it to substitute for trapping aloug the perimeter.as would be
required under BlO-1 b). BlO-1 b) should be modified to describe a salvage plan rather
than exclusively a trapping plan. BIO-2 should also be modified to delete description of
the existiug passive exclusion barrier for pennanent use.
4.1.9
. SM-BIO-3, page 1-5 (also pages 63 and 64 and Table 6): The DSEIR states in several
places that CIS may breed in Tassajara Creek, and that further surveys should be
couducted in the creek. In our opinion, further surveys for CTS in Tassajara Creek should
uot be necessary. Reports summarizing surveys for CTS by H.T. Harvey & Associates
(HTH) along Tassajara Creek ou the Dublin Ranch West site were provided to Wetlands
Research Associates (\VRA). HTH conducted surveys for CTS in suitable habitat in: the
Tassajara Creek drainage on the Dublin Ranch west site iiI 1993,. 1995, and 2000.
Tassajara Creek is a very deep, strong stream with high flow volume and velocity during
the winter months when CTS are active, and it is our opiilion (supported by multiple
surveys) that this creek does not provide breecliug habitat for CTS. As a result of the
unsuitability of habitat along most of the creek drainage, CTS larval surveys were .focused
on the only habitat within the Tassajara Creek drainage that approaches potential breeding
habitat (an isolated oxbow). No evidence of CTS breeding was found in this area or
elsewhere in T assaj ara Creek, and we do not think that further $!lIVeys for breeding CTS in
T assaj ara Creek are necessary.
4.1.10
~
San Jo.e Office
3150 Almaden Expressway, Suite 145
San Jose, CA 951180408-448-9450 o Fax: 408-448-9454
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
habitat on the POrthem border of the project $ite along a gently slopiDg drainage. While it
is possible that a few individual access or even disperse acro$$ portions of the uphwd
habitat on the Dublirt West site, it is not "disper$al habitat" In our opinion, the loss of
potential upland dispersal habitat for CRLF is not a significant impact under CEQA.
The. Biological Opinion (BO) for Dublirt Ranch, i$$ued by the USFWS on July 1, 2002,
identifies the Tassajara Cree.k Open Space as one of the mitigation sites for impacts to
CRLF from the "Dublin Ranch project and describes the activities that are expected to OCClJ1'
within and adjacent to the Open Space area. The BO acknowledge$ potential future
impact$ to CRLF habitat from a future housing development pla¡¡ned immediately to the
west of the Tassajara Creek Open Space and two road crossings over Tas$ajara Creek
through the Open Space area. However, it seems clear that the USFWS thought that
implementation of the Tassajara Creek Open Space management plan would not only serve
to mitigate (in- part) Dublin Ranch project impacts, but also to provide adequate protection
for CRLF using this reach of Tassajara Creek. In our opinion, becau$e the exì$ting
Tassajara Creek Open Space management plan provides" protection for the primary
dispersal avenues for CRLF on the site, no mitigation for the loss of upland disperSal
habitat for the CRLF should be necessary.
4.1.14'
However, if the City insists that impacts to CRLF dispersal habitat are significant and
require mitigation,.,it is our opinion that on-site improvements to promote dispersal of "
CRLF to points west of the $ite would benefit CRLF more than the off-site mitigation
proposed by SM BIO-8. The applicant could enhance the drainage along the northern
boundary of Dublin Ranch West Project Site to provide better connectivity between the
aquatic habitats to the west and T assajara Creek. This drainage within the project site
would be maintained as open $pace and managed to support dispersal of CRLF." This
drainage would be enhanced by constructing micro-topographical depressions or texnporary
pondiDg areas, and/or improving habitat for foraging and refuge, planting native vegetation
(i,e., willows), adding downed woody debris and natural rocks to be used as refugia by
CRLF. '
4.1.15
0, SM-BIO-9, pages 1-11 and 1-12 (also page 67): In the sentence, "If CRLF are found
within the construction areas (or other sensitive wildlife species), they shall be immediately
moved to undisturbed; preserved portions of Tassajara Creek if authorized ill a biological
opinion issued by the USFWS for the project", the "other sensitive wildlife species" phrase
requires clarification. Depending on whether or not such species are listed, they mayor
may not be addressed in a BO_ The "other sensitive wildlife species", which are also
referred to on page 1"12, that would require relocation should be identified specifically.
4.1.16
° 8M-BIO-9, page 1-12 (also page 67): We recommend that the statement "A biologist with
appropriate peImits to relocate any CRLF.,." should be revised to read "A qualified
biologist with appropriate authorization to relocate CRLF in conjunction with a biological
opiníon."." The USFWS does not i$Sue general permits to allow biologists to relocate
CRLF; rather, this authorization would be granted on a project-specific basis ill conjunction
with a BO.
4.1.17
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~.
,
Impact BIO-3 (Breeding Birds):
· SM-BIO-ll, page 1-14 (also page 68): In our opinion, impacts to nests of common birds
are not significant impacts under CEQA; these are regulatory compliance issues (e.g"
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, CDFG code), not CEQA issues, While pre-constmction
surveys for compliance with such regulations are advisable, they should be dealt with
separately from CEQA compliance.
4.1.18
· SM-BIO-ll, page 1-14 (also page 68): If the City insists on retaining SM BIO-ll, we
recommend that the statement that a breeding bird slllVey shall be conducted "throughout
the Dublin Ranch West area" be revised to read "throughout the development portion of the
Project area" as indicated later in BrO-II; except in the case of Golden Eagles (which are
not known to nest on the Dublin Ranch West site), no nest surveys should be required in
portions of the Project area >250 feet fi:om proposed development.
4.1.19
· SM-BIG-II, page 1-14 (also page 68): We recommend that in the sentence, "All activities
shall be prohibited within the buffer until after young have fledged and moved out of the
nest", the word "and" be replaced with "and/or". The Killdeer (Charadrius vociftrus), one
species for which habitat may actually be temporarily enhanced by construction-related
disturbance due to its preference for sparsely vegetated habitats and its moderate tolerance
of human activity, could possibly nest on the site during construction; because this species'
precodal young leave the nest soon after hatcJúng (but long before fledgihg), there is no
need for the buffer around a Killdeer nest to remain in place aftei the young have hatched
and left the nest area.
4.1.20 '
Impact BIO-6 (Special-Status Plants):
. Topic/Supplemental Impact, page 1-19 (also page 70): The "TopiC/Supplemental Impact"
should read "Biological Resources. Loss of Congdon's tarplant" since this is the ouly plant
species considered to be of special status by the City knowuto be present on this site.
4,1.21
. SM-BID-1S, page 1-19 (also page 70): It is our opinion that the loss of approximately 630
individual Congdon's tatplants does not constitute a significant impact under CEQA given
the fairly widespread occurrence and abundance of the species_ The tarplant is known to
occur in sizeable numbers in the Dublin-Livermore area (e.g., 240,000 individu81s
estimated on Camp Parks immediately adjacent to Dublin Ranch West), and the loss of
approximately 630 individuals at Dublin Ranch West «0.1 % of a regional population of
over 700,000 plants) would not be significant to the overall population, We recommend
that this impact, and Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-15, be deleted.
_ 4.1.22
lfthe City insists that mitigation be provided for impacts to Congdon's tarplant, we believe
that mitigation performed on the basis of the number of individuals impacted would be
more appropriate than on the acreage of occupied habitat impacted given the fact that the
wajority of individual plants to be impacted (about 500) are scattered at low densities over
approximately 4 acres south of the existing residence on the site; the remaining individuals
4.1.23
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to be impacteèl occur in small areas west of T assajara Creek. ProtocoH~eJ surveys
conducted by HTH in September 2002, with follow-up surveys in 2003, revealed five
subpopulations within the Tassajara Creek Management Zone (TCMZ) that average
approximately 500 individuals on 0.5 acres each_ Thus, the "largest" impact area, in tel1J1S
of acreage, may be a low-quality site due to the low deDsity of plants found in this 4-acre
area, and it is our OpiniOD that mitigatioD withiD the TCMZ can achieve dexcities similar to
those curreDtly occurrÌ!1g in the TCMZ; only approximately 0.63 acres of mitigatioD l3rld
e¡¡l¡3rlcement, seeding, and managemeDt wollid be Deeded to provide habitat for an
additioDal 630 individual plants.
In 2003, prior to deteIIIlining that impacts to CODgdoD's tarplants OD Dublin Ranch West 4 12
. . 4
should be cODsidered less than sigoificant due to the size of the regional populatiOD, Hili
prepared a draft Mitigation and Monitoring Plan describing the establisbmeDt and
management of Congdon's tarplants on approximately 0.8 aCres surrounding 3rl existing
tarplant subpopulation within the TCMZ; an updated draft version of this plan is attached
to this memo. If the City insists that mitigation be provided for impacts to Congdou's
tarplaut, we recommend that SM-BIG-IS be revised to read, "The Dubliu Ranch West
Congdon's Tarpl3rlt Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2004)
shall be implemented to compensate for the removal ofCougdon's tarplant individnals_"
We have provided a copy of the CougdoD's tarplant Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to
Jerry Haag, arid to Michael Josselyn at VIRA_ We are sending two copies for your use in
procesSÍI1g these comments. This plan may be accessed via Our flp site_ Clicking on thè
link below will take you to the HTH ftp site; open the folder narned Dublin West aud down
load the tarplant pdffile.
:ftp://harveyftp;harvev3150(iì)209.237.26.68
Impact BIO-7 (Loss of riparian vegetation):
. H. T_ Harvey & Associates has mapped the riparian vegetation along Tassajara Creek 4.1.25
(provided to VIRA) and so has determined impacts of the bridges across Tassajara Creek
more precisely at 0-31 acres. This was accomplished by overlaying tbe bridge plans over
the riparian habitat map.
. SM-BIO-16, page 1-21 (also page 71); H. T. Harvey & Associates has developed a riparian 4.1.26
habitat mitigation and monitoriug plan for the project site. We recommend that SM-BIO-
16 be revised to read, "The Dublin Ranch West Riparian Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
(RT. Harvey & Associates 2004) shall be implemeuted to compensate for the removal of
riparian vegetation subject to approval of CDFG and tbe City".
We have provided a copy of the Riparian 1v1itigation and Monitoring PI¡¡¡;¡ to Marty for
approvaL We are sending 4 copies for your use in processing these CODUIlents if it meets
with his approval. This plan may be accessed via our ftp site. ClickiDg on tbe link below
~-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
will take you to the HTH ftp site; oþen the folder named Dublin West and doWÎ1load the
Riparian. pdt file.
ftp://harvevítP:harvey3l50(åJ,209.23726.68
Envlronwental Setting
.. Page 47: The sentence "The portions of the Project area has beeu used for cattle
grazing..." should be revised for clarity/grammar.
4.1.27
· Page 48: The sentence "The majority of the Project area is donrinated by non-native
grassland that has been historically, and has been used for livestock grazing" should be
revised for clarity/grammar.
4.1.28
· Pages 49-50: As discussed previously, it is our opinion that the reach of Tassajara Creek
located on the project site does not provide suitable breeding habitat for crs, as this is a
very deep, strong stream with high flow volume and velocity during the winter months
when CTS are active. Surveys by HTH in 1993, 1995, an.d 2000 did not detect CIS in the
oruy habitat within the Tassajara Creek drainage on-site that approaches potential breeding
habitat (an isolated oxbow).
4.1.29
· Page 51: To place the impact to 630 individual t<iIplan.ts expected to result from this .
project into the appropriate context, the brief swnmary of the status of Congdon's tarplant
should include more infOmJation regarding the abundan.ce of the species in the Dublin-
LivemJOre area (e.g., 240,000 individuals estimated on Camp Parks immediately adjacent
to Dublin RaDch West).
4.1.30
· Page 53: The document states, "HTH relocated a number of CRLF from elsewhere on the
Dublin Ranch West portion of the Project site into Tassajara Creek.. ."This sentence
should be revised to read "HTH relocated a number of CRLF from Dublin Ranch into
Tassajara Creek__.." - no relocation of CRLF from the Dublin Ranch West project area
itself has been undertaken by HTH.
4.1.31
· Page 56: The document states that CTS critical habitat has been designated. Critical
habitat for this species has been proposed, but the designation has not yet been approved.
4.1.32
· Page 56: The document states that no larval surveys for CTS have been conducted in
Tassajara Creek within the Dublin Ranch West area, and that larval surveys conducted in
this drainage by BIB were "dOWJ1stream of this site". As summarized in reports provided
to WRA, HTH conducted surveys for CTS and suitable habitat in the Tassajara Creek
drainage 01) the Dublin Ranch west site in 1993, 1995, and 2000. Tassajara Creek is a very
deep, strong stream with high flow volume and velocity during 'the winter months when
CTS are active, and it is our opinion (supported by multiple surveys) that this creek does
not provide breeding habitat for CTS. As a result, CTS larval surveys were focused on the
only habitat within the Tassajara Creek drainage that approaches potential breeding habitat
4.1.33
~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
approximately 770 cubic feet per second, at a minimum depth of 5 feet (2003 Draft
Tassajara Creek Drainange Analysis for Dublin Ranch West (Wallis Property), City of
Dublin, County of Alameda). Such high flow volume and velocity in Tassaj;ua. Creek is
not conducive to the breeding biology of CTS, which require lentic habitats (i.e., non-
flowing pools), or at most gentle flow, during the winter and early spring breeding
season. Even lower flow volume and velocity in Tassajara Creek than the 2-year event
calculated by MacKay & Somps would still not allow for successful deposition of
spennatophores by the males or of fertilized eggs by the females; all would be washed
downstream due to the flows. If successful fertilization and hatching of the eggs were
even to occur (e.g., during a protracted period of little rainfall), the larvae would be
susceptible to the high flows and again would be washed downstream. CTS do not breed
in highly lotic (stream type) enviromnents such as Tassajara Creek for this reason.
· Because Jeff Dreier from WRA had reported the presence ofCTS breeding in a stream in 4.1.38
the Dublin area, we searched the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) to
further analyze the possibility of CTS breeding in streams such as Tassaj;ua. Creek. A
total of 809 occurrence records were searched, of which 258 records between 1961 and
2004 were from Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Of these 258 records, 140 records
documented breeding by indicating the presence of larvae and/or eggs. Of these 140
records, 109 were from artificially constructed ponds (stockponds, bermed springs or
dminages to create ponds), 15 were from natural ponds, 11 were from vernal pools, three
were from seasoilal wetlands, and two did not indicate breeding habitat. No record
indicated that breeding occurred within a stream or natural drainage,
· In the USFWS "Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Tiger Salamander, 4.1.39
Central Population; Proposed Rule" (Federal Register 69:48570-48649), the primary
constituent element for breeding "based on our current knowledge of the life history,
biology, and ecology of the species..." that must be present to be considered critical
habitat is "Standing bodies of ftesh water, including natural and man~made (e.g., stock)
ponds, vema! pools, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies that typically
become inundated during winter rains and hold water for a sufficient length of time
necessary for the species to complete the aquatic portion of its life cycle." Streams are
not included as a primary constituent element by the USFWS. The USFWS use best
available science in designation of Critical Habitat in accordance with the federal
Endangered Species Act.
· Exotic species known to have a significantly negative affect onCTS by preying on the 4.1.40
eggs and larval salamanders, such as mosquito fish (GambuSia affinis), bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), and crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), are in high numbers within the reach
ofTassajara Creek adjacent to the Dublin Ranch West site.
· The mainstream literature on CTS describes breeding habitat as vernal pools, seasonal 4.1.41
and perennial ponds, and possibly (but not documented) quiet pools of streams, but no
studies to date have indicated that strearos with such high winter flows as Tassaj;ua. Creek
provide suitable breeding habitat for CTS. A list of the literature we have reviewed in
this regard is presented below;
o Anderson, P. R. 1968. The reproductive and developmental history of the
California tiger salamander. MA Thesis, Fre",o State College, Fresno, Califomla.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o Feaver, P.E. 1971. Breeding pool selection and larval mortality of three
California amphibians: Ambystoma tigrillum caJiforniense Gray, Hyla regilJa
Baird and Girard, and Scaphiopus hammOlldii Girard. MA Thesis, Fresno State
College, Fresno, Ca]ifornia..
o Fisher, R. N. and H. B. Shaffer. 1996. The decline of amphibians in California's
Great Central VaHey. Conservation Biology 10:1387-1397.
o Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of
special concern in California, California tiger salamander, pp. ] 2-16. Final report
to California Dept. ofFish and Game Inland Fisheries Djvision, Rancho Cordova,
California.
o Loredo, D. Van Vwen, M. 1. Morrison. 1996. Reproductive ecology of a
population of the California t;iger salamander. Copeia 1996:895-901.
o Petranka, 1. W. 1998. Salamanders of the United States and Canada.
Srnithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. 1-587 p.
o Shaffer, H. B., R. N. Fisher, and S: E. Stanley. 1993. Status Report: The
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), final report to the
California Department of Fish and Game. California Department of Fish and
Game. Sacramento, California.
o Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Third
Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts.
o Storer, T. I. 1925. A synopsis of the amphibia of California. University of
California Publications in Zoology 27:1-342. .
o Trenbam, P. C., H. B. Shaffer, W. D. Koenig, and M. R. Stromberg 2000. Life
history and demographic variation in the California tiger salamander (Amhystoma
tigrinum). Copeia. 2000:365-377.
o Twitty, V. C. 1941. Data on the life history of Ambystoma tigrinum caJiforniense
Gray. Copeia 1941:1-4.
o Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and K. E. Mayer (editors). ]988.
California's Wildlife. Volume 1. Amphibians and Repti]es. California Statewide
Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department offish and Game,
Sacramento, California.
. In summary, it is our best professional opinion, based on a thorough review of the 4.1.42
literature and of CNDDB records regarding the biology of the CTS, the high flows in
Tassajara Creek during the winter months, and our experience with and knowledge of the
biology of the CTS that Tassajara Creek does not provide suitable breeding habitat for
this species.
~-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
California Red-legged Frog
SM-BIO~8, page 1-10 (also pages 53-54 and 66-67): The DSEIR emphasizes that CRLF can
leave the drainage and therefore will disperse across the project site. While we agree that CRLF
could leave the Tassajara Creek drainage in a few areas (e.g., at the fann road crossing and more
gently sloped areas) where the topography might allow such egress, we believe that most
movement by CRLF in the area will be via the dro.inage itself, and that use of the upland areas on
the Dublin West site by CRLF is likely vay limited for the reasons below:
· Except for the few areas where CRLF may exit the Tassajara Creek riparian zone onto 4.1.43
the Dublin West site, most of the western bank is a vertical wall of over 20 feet, making it
extremely difficult (ifnot impossible) for CRLF to access the Dublin West site except at
these less sloped areas. Therefore, CRLF could not readily exit ftom known areas of ftog
residence in the Tassajara Creek zone onto the Dublin West site.
· A recent study of terrestrial habitat use by CRLF in coastal fo:rest and grassland has 4.1.44
suggested that an essential component of the habitat is the presence of concealing cover,
such as shrubs, herbs, woody debris, rootballs, small recesses in vertical banks, and forest
floor litter (Bulger, J D" N. J. Scott, Jr., R. 8. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and
conservation of adult California red-legged ftogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests
and grasslands. Biological Conservation 110:85-95). This concealing cover is necessary
to protect the CRLF ftom desiccation and p:redation during the ftequent periods of
inactivity while dispersing overland. While ground squirrel bUlTows may provide such
concealing cover in the East Bay region, the Dublin West site lacks this essential
component in the flat areas near Tassajara Creek that would be necessary for the kind of
upland habitat use/dispersal described in the DSEIR. Dispersing frogs (adults and
juveniles) ftom Tassajara Creek would therefore be subject to desiccation and predation
due to the lack of concealing cover.
· Additionally, the Bulger et al. (2003) study was conducted in a more mesic coastal area 4.1.45
of Santa Cruz County, where the risk of desiccation by CRLF dispersing into upland
areas would not be nearly as great as in the dry East Bay. We have hundreds of hours of
personal experience with CRLE both in mesic coastal sites and drier inland areas (such as
Dublin), and we have observed a markedly higher tendency toward upland dispersal in
the mesic coastal areas than on the drier East Bay sites such as Dublin West. In fact, it is
reported in the USFWS "Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-
legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii)" (Federal Register 69;19620-19642) that "the
majority of California red-legged ftogs observed in eastei'n Contra Costa County spoot
the entire wet seasoD within streamside habitat (T. Tatarian, in litt, 2000)", further
indicatiDg that CRLF in dry areas such as Dublin are likely to make little use of upland
areas similar to the Dublin West site.
· If the "upland dispersal habitat" depicted in the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Dublin 4.1.46
Ranch West Pn;>ject were being used by CRLF dispersing betweeD Tassajara Creek and
known aquatic habitat west of the site, as the DSEIR states, theD individuals should have
been detected in the trap array installed for CTS along the entire western boundary of the
Dublin West site during the 2003/2004 winter season" This argument is strengthened by
the fact that 586 postmetamorphic fTogs (adults, subadults and juveniles) and 1,973
tadpoles were placed in Tassajara Creek during the ~er of 2003 prior to opening the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
traps for the winter rains. Overland dispersal by CRLP occurs most actively during the
early rains of winter (Bulger et al. 2003), and therefore, if the translocated CRLP were
dispersing over the Dublin Ranch West site, they should have been intercepted by the
trap array when it was operational (beginning with the first rains in October 2003). The
only amphibians detected by the trap array were CTS, yellow-eyed salamanders
(Ensatina eschscholtzii), and Pacific treeftogs (Hyla regilla), even though one site in
Tassajara Creek where 342 postmetamorphic frogs and 1,968 tadpoles were translocated
is only 350 feet from the trap array.
· The drainage on the northern edge of the site currently provides a dispersal corridor for 4.1.47
CRLF that might disperse between Tassajara Creek and areas to the west of Dublin
Ranch West (e.g., Camp Parks). In fact, CRLF are likely to use this drainage for
dispersal far more than they would use the upland portions of the Dublin Ranch West site
due to a gentler slope out of the Tassajara Creek drainage, the presence of concealing
cover within and near the drainage north of the site, and moisture within this drainage.
. In summary, we expect CRLF in Tassajara Creek to leave the drainage and disperse onto 4.1.48
or across the upland area west of the creek only on rare occasions, and the upland
portions of the site do not represent important habitat for this species. Even if egress
from the Tassajara Creek drainage were not constrained by the topography of the creek,
adult CRLP would be expected to leave the drainage only during brief foraging bouts
during the wet seasou and stay within the proposed buffer zone along the creek. We do
not believe the Dublin West site to represent a migratory corridor between Tassajara
Creek and known CRLF aquatic sites further west on the Camp Parks property. Juveniles
disperse more widely over uplánd areas than adults, but on this particular site, juveniles
are expected to disperse primarily along Tassajara Creek due to the topography,
availability of cover, and level of moisture. It is our best professional opinion, based on
the site's topography, the dry nature of the upland areas on the site, the paucity of
concealing cover in the upland areas of the site, the high quality of CRLF habitat along
Tassajara Creek itself, .the presence of a suitable dispersal corridor immediately north of
the site, and the lack of any captures of CRLF dispersing across the uplands by the CTS
trapping array present during the winter of 2003/2004, that this project will not result in a
significant impact to dispersal by CRLF.
~-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Comment 2.1; State of California, Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
· Comment 2.1.1: Since current traffic volumes should be used whenever
possible, 2002 data for Interstate 580 should be replaced with more current
2003 volume data which is available from the Department.
Response: The Transportation and Circulation Environmental Setting portion
of the DSEIR (page 93), is hereby amended by reference to read as follows:
"Interstate 580 is an eight~lane east-west freeway that connects Dublin with
local cities such as Uvermore and Pleasanton as well as regional origins and
destinations such as Oakland, Haywood and Tracy. In the vicinity of the
proposed Project, 1-580 carried between 186,000 and 198,000 vehicles per day
(vpd) in 2003, based on Caltrans' Traffic Volumes for State Highways. I~580 has
interchanges at Dougherty Road/Hopyard Road, Hacienda Drive, Tassajara
Road/ Santa Rita Road and Fallon Road/ EI Charro Road."
· Comment 2.1.2: A hydrology /hydraulic study should be prepared for the
Department to determine project-related impacts on 100-year flow rates and
flow conditions at the 1-580/Tassajara Road interchange. Project related
drainage impacts should be evaluated and mitigation recommended where
appropriate since the 100-year FEMA maps show the intersection of 1-580 and
Tassajara Creek being subject to flooding. The project should include
measures to reduce post-development flow rates to existing values.
Response: The hydrology / hydraulic analysis prepared for the project by the
applicant's engineer will be forwarded to Caltrans based on their request.
Based on City of Dublin ordinances and development standards as well as the
most recent C.3 stormwater quality standards enforced by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, development projects will be limited in the
quantity of stormwater leaving respective sites. Therefore, it is unlikely that
development of the Dublin Ranch West site would increase flooding on the 1-
580 freeway where the freeway intersects Tassajara Creek.
· Comment 2.1.3: Development fees would be used to improve drainage
infrastructure impacted by the project. Drainage improvements should
include supplementing cross culverts under the freeway that have been
overtaxed by unmitigated development.
Response: Future development on the project site will be subject to local and
regional drainage fees imposed by the City of Dublin and Zone 7. Upgrading
of existing overtaxed culverts is beyond the scope of the Dublin Ranch West
project.
· Comment 2.1.4: Work that encroaches into a state right-of-way requires an
encroachment permit issued by Caltrans.
DUblin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 10
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response: Necessary encroachment permits will be obtained from Caltrans if
required.
Comment 2.2: State of California, Office of Planning and Research
. Comment 2.2: The State Clearinghouse received the comment letter from
Caltrans after the close of the DSEIR comment period.
Response: Comment acknowledged. See responses to the Caltrans comment
letter as Comment 2.1.
Comment 3.1: Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Zone 7 (Zone 7)
· Comment 3.1.1: Development on the project site will be subjed to drainage
fees imposed by Zone 7.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Payment of Zone 7 drainage fees will be
a standard condition of development approval by the City of Dublin,
· Comment 3.1.2: On page 121, Utilities and Services, storm drainage, replace
the sentence "Zone 7 is responsible for master planning" with the following:
"Zone 7 owns and maintains major storm drain channels in the Livermore-
Amador Valley. Zone 7 is presently working on a Stream Management Plan
to identify future channel improvements beneficial to the residents of the
Valley." Correct the sentence that reads: "Drainage on the project
area.. . conned with Zone 7 facilities south of 1-580," This should read:
"Drainage on the project area.. . connect with Zone 7 facilities north of 1-580."
Zone 7 does not typically maintain culverts, as they are usually owned by
Caltrans.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Requested revisions are reflected in the
section of the FSEIR entitled "Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR."
· Comment 3.1.3: On page 125, Hydrology and Hydraulic Analysis, Zone 7
should be allowed to review the projed hydrology and hydraulic analysis.
Response: Comment acknowledged. The City of Dublin Public Works
depar1ment will transmit a copy of the hydrology and hydraulic analysis to
Zone 7 for review and comment.
· Comment 3.1.4: Zone 7's Salt Management Plan does not include
demineralizing shallow groundwater and reinjecting it into the groundwater
basin. Instead, it includes blending demineralization of a portion of produced
groundwater with other water supplies for delivery to customers. Also,
delete the word "water" from the term "salt-water." Make other corrections
to wording involving the Salt Management Plan.
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EtR
City of Dublin
Page "
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response: Comment acknowledged. Requested revisions are reflected in the
section of the FSEIR entitled "Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR."
. Comment 3.1.5: In the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the Initial
Study (page 39) it should be noted that all Mitigation Measures required by
the Eastern Dublin EIR will require input from Zone 7 prior to
implementation.
Response: Comment acknowledged. Development of the Dublin Ranch West
project, if approved by the City of Dublin, will be required to comply with
Eastern Dublin EIR Mitigation Measures.
. Comment 3.1.6: On page 51 of the Initial Study it should be noted that Zone 7
is a water wholesaler and does not serve the project directly. Zone 7 does not
own or maintain any storm drain facilities within the project area. Also,
correct the wording "new storm drainage facilities which would connect to
existing facilities maintained and controlled by Alameda County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7" with "new storm drain
facilities, which would connect to existing facility owned and maintained by
Zone 7."
Response: Comment acknowledged. Requested revisions are reflected in the
section of the FSEIR entitled "Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR."
Comment 3.2: East Bay Regional Park District
. Comment 3.2: The proposed project would not be consistent with the
District's 1997 Master Plan. The Master Plan located the Tassajara Creek
Regional Trail along the ridge in the eastern vicinity of Parks RFTA and then
proceeding northward towards Mt. Diablo State Park. The proposed project
would locate the Regional Trail in a conidor between two areas proposed for
low and medium density residential development. The Draft SEIR is
inadequate because it does not address significant impacts associated with the
lack of consistency with the Master Plan and the impacts from changing the
existing open space to residential development adjacent to the regional trail
corridor.
Response: Based upon discussions between the East Bay Regional Park District
staff, City of Dublin staff and the applicant for development of the Dublin
Ranch West project, it was understood that the Park District supported a
change to show the Regional Trail along the Tassajara Creek corridor, which
would be consistent with the 1993 Eastern Dublin Specific Plan.
In any event, the proposed Dublin Ranch West project does not change the
original Park District regional trail location, but allows more flexibility for the
District to provide an alternative location for the proposed regional trail.
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page'2
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
The City of Dublin believes the 1993 Eastern Dublin EIR adequately
addressed the potential impacts of future trails adjacent to Tassajara Creek as
shown in Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The City has not identified any specific
impacts with the requested land use change that would replace existing open
space uses with Low Density Residential uses further to the west on the
Dublin Ranch West property.
Comment 3.3: Dublin San Ramon Services Dishict
· Comment 3.3.1: The District notes that the proposed project would create a
demand for approximately 320,000 gallons per day of potable water, Because
of planning done by the District in cooperation with the City, this additional
demand is identified in the District's Urban Water Management Plan. In 2004,
the District completed a "Water Supply Analysis and Water Supply
Assessment" for the proposed project in accord with the Agreement to Settle
Water Litigation dated November 1999.
The District notes that it has adequate water supplies to meet the increased
demand for the proposed project. A portion of this demand would be met
through extension of recycled water pipelines to the project site. Potable
water pipelines must also be extended to the site. Coordination with the
District must oCCUT with regard to pipeline sizes and locations and to ensure
that there is no interference with regard to existing District facilities.
No mitigation is necessary to obtain water supplies for this project.
Response; Comment acknowledged and no further response is needed.
· Comment 3.3.2: The District requires all new development to use recycled
water. A portion of the proposed Dublin Ranch West project would fall into
this category. A maximum expected average day demand of approximately
104,300 gallons per day would be needed for irrigation. The District's Water
Master Plan indicates use of approximately 132,900 gallons per day of
recycled water. The District's Water Master Plan will be updated to reflect the
latter figure.
Response: Comment acknowledged and no further response is needed.
· Comment 3.3.3: The District has included anticipated increased wastewater
flows from the Project into District and LA VWMA treatment and disposal
facilities. Providing wastewater collection, treatment and export services is
dependent on project compliance with District Codes and implementing the
District Master Plan, policies and ordinances.
The District has included the Project area in its Master Plan, so the Project
may receive sewer service from the District and sanitary sewer lines must be
extended to the Project site. Facilities must be constructed by the project
applicant and dedicated to the District. Coordination with the District must
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 13
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
occur with regard to pipeline sizes and locations and to ensure that there is no
interference with regard to existing District facilities.
Response: Comment acknowledged and no further response is needed.
Comment 3.4: Alameda County Public Works Agency
· Comment 3.4.1: Exhibit 16 shows a future Tassajara Road realignment.
Transitions will be needed within the current project limits.
Response: Comment acknowledged. The issue of roadway design and
transitions will be dealt with at the subdivision and improvement plan stage
of the Project, which will come after consideration of the currently requested
land use entitlements and the DSEIR by the City of Dublin.
· Comment 3.4.2: An evaluation should be made on construction impacts to
adjacent County roads.
Response: It is anticipated that construction vehicles and material trucks would
access the Project site via Tassajara Road which is in the City of Dublin.
Minimal, if any, construction impacts are anticipated to other County roads.
· Comment 3.4.3: The DSEIR should evaluate impacts to existing County roads
due to increased traffic. Potential traffic calming requirements may be needed
for County roads.
Response: The Transportation and Circulation section of the DSEIR (Impact
TRA-2) notes that Project impacts to local roadways will be no greater than
were analyzed in the 1993 Eastern Dublin ElR.
· Comment 3.4.4: Roadway improvements should be made in the area
between the jurisdictional boundary line and the most southerly limits of the
project. This area has been subject to previous incidents due to limited
shoulder area, motorist speed and reaction time for motorists. Since this
section of the roadway has a curvilinear alignment, it is critical that road
design standards and improvements be considered beyond the frontage of
the road.
Response: Comment noted and this comment does not relate to an
environmental impact caused by the proposed Project. The commenter's
request has been transmitted to the Dublin Public Works Department for
consideration.
· Comment 3.4.5: Regarding the future alignment of Tassajara Road and Fallon
Road, it is important for right-of-way dedication to the ultimate alignment of
this roadway.
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page'4
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response: Comment acknowledged. The issue of roadway design and right-
of-way will be dealt with at the subdivision and improvement plan stage of
the Project, which will come after consideration of the currently requested
land use entitlements and the DSEIR.
· Comment 3.4.6: It is suggested that a roadway conceptual plan be considered
of the surrounding area. Although not all lands westerly of Tassajara Road
are part of the proposed project, the ultimate development of this area will
undoubtedly impact surrounding parcels and roadway improvements along
Tassajara Road.
Response: The conceptual roadway alignment in the Eastern Dublin area is set
forth in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan adopted by the City of Dublin in
1993.
· Comment 3.4.7: Installation of a traffic signal, deceleration and acceleration
lanes, potential for on-street bikes, shoulder improvements, street lighting
and additional traffic control; signing and striping should be considered.
These improvements are further summarized in the consultant's report
attached to the DSEIR.
Response: Roadway improvements as noted by the commenter will be
considered at the time subdivisions and improvements are considered by the
City of Dublin.
Comment 4,1: Martin Inderbitzen
· Comment 4,1.1: Exhibit 12 (Master Infrastructure Plan) does not illustrate
elevation Zone 2 water lines in Tassajara Road north of the primary Project
entry and in Fallon Road; DSRSD plans to have these lines placed in these
street segments.
Response: Comments acknowledged. Detailed infrastructure information will
be supplied to Zone 7 prior to actual construction of the proposed project.
· Comment 4.1.2: Page 14; replace "9.7" with "3.7."
Response: Comment acknowledged. Requested revisions are reflected in the
section of the FSEIR entitled "Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR."
· Comment 4.1.3: Page 18, under Utility Services, replace "westerly" with
"easterly."
Response: Comment acknowledged. Requested revisions are reflected in the
section of the FSEIR entitled "Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR."
· Comment 4.1.4: Page 91, first line of page, replace "550" with "428."
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 15
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Response: Comment acknowledged. Requested revisions are reflected in the
section of the FSEIR entitled "Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR."
. Comment 4.1.5: Page 141, first line of 5.4, Alternative 3, replace "8.7" with
117.8.11
Response: Comment acknowledged. Requested revisions are reflected in the
section of the FSEIR entitled "Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR."
. Comment 4.1.6: On October 5,2004, the Dublin City Council held a workshop
to discuss the Project, including potentia1locations and sizes of neighborhood
parks. The Council selected an option, which would provide 7.66 acres of
neighborhood parkland and 1.04 acres of Neighborhood Park that would be
located on an adjacent parcel. This option also included 1.2 acres of land that
could be devoted to either publici semi public or neighborhood park use. The
City Council accepted the fact that some neighborhood park acreage could be
moved off site if needed. Therefore, the Mitigation Measure PARK-l is
recommended to be changed as follows:
PARK-I: Prior to tentative map or Stage 2 Development Plan approval,
whichever occurs first, the Project developer shall:
a)
Revise the land use program for the Dublin Ranch West site to
provide an additiona11.04 net acres of Neighborhood Park land
use designation in lieu of a publici semi-public use; or
Pay in lieu fees for required Neighborhood Park acres.
b)
Response: Based on the commenter's request, the City of Dublin proposes to
modify Supplemental Mitigation Measure PARK-l as follows, The mitigation
measure is also recommended to be changed based on an inaccuracy
discovered in the DSEIR, in that the anticipated deficiency in the amount of
neighborhood parkland on the Project site would be 1.9 acres and not 1.04
acres as identified in the DSEIR.
"PARK-I: As outlined below. the PrQject developer shall:
a)
Revise the ¡and use program for the Dublin Ranch West site to
provide an additional 1.9 net acres of Neighborhood Park land
use designation in lieu of a public I semi-public use: or
As part of the Project Pre-Annexation Agreement. pay fees to
the City of Dublin to compensate for the loss of 1.9 acres of
Neighborhood Park land on the Proiect site. Fees shall be equal
to the neighborhood park in-lieu fee amount charged to
developers who do not have parkland on their prooer1;y as set
th tin Communi Facili . effi t the
f ivision ma recordin. s time
of final subdivision map recordation."
b)
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 16
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. Comment 4.1.7: Page 135, first paragraph after Supplemental Impact PARK-I,
and revise "7.66 acres "with" 6.8 acres."
Response: This comment is noted and the DSEIR is corrected by reference to
read "6.8 acres." This revision is reflected in the section of the FSEIR entitled
"Corrections and Modifications to the DSEIR."
· Comment 4.1.8: The commenter does not believe the Biological Resource
section of the DSEIR adequately considers the beneficial impact of the
Tassajara Creek Management Zone for its unique beneficial effects on wildlife
potentially impacted by the proposed Project. If the DSEIR were to consider
this area as part of the environmental baseline, the document would then
conclude that Project impacts to California Red-Legged Frog would be
reduced to a level of insignificance. The Management Zone must be
considered in conjunction with the Biological Opinion issued by the U.s. Fish
and Wildlife Service dated 7/1/02 as well as the Project Area Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan prepared by HT. Harvey and other related documents.
Response: It is recognized that the Tassajara Creek Management Zone
protects and benefits CRLF breeding habitat and adjacent uplands; however,
it does not protect upland dispersal habitat connecting Camp Parks CRLF
popula.tions with Tassa.jara Creek. Dispersal habitat is recognized by the u.s.
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) as one of the primary constituent elements
of critical habitat for the CRLF. Critical habitat has been designated for the
project site.
The commenter implies that the Service has already considered impacts to
CRLF dispersal habitat on the Dublin Ranch West project in the Service's
Biological Opinion (2002) prepared for the Dublin Ranch project. However,
the Biological Opinion does not reach any conclusions on the Dublin Ranch
West project and only mentions under cumulative impacts that this project,
along with 40 other potential development projects in Contra Costa and
Alameda Counties, threatens habitat for the CRLF and CTS. The Biological
Opinion does not include any incidental take authorization for loss of
individuals on the Dublin Ranch West project nor does it consider any
mitigation for loss of CRLF dispersal habitat.
The Tassajara Creek Open Space Management Plan does not provide
protection of a dispersal corridor through the Dublin Ranch West site
between CRLF populations at Camp Parks and Tassajara Creek.
· Comment 4.1.9: The wording ofBIO-l (b) should be modified to describe a
salvage plan for California Tiger Salamander (CTS) rather than exclusively a
trapping plan. BIO-2 should also be modified to delete the description of the
existing passive exclusion barrier for penn anent use.
Response: In response to the commenter's request and based on further
review of potential CIS impacts. SM-BIO-l is revised as follows. Deletions are
struck through and additions underlined.
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 17
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"A CTS management plan shall be developed by the Project proponents, and
approved by the City of Dublin in consultation with CDFG and the USFWS,
prior to construction activities. This measure shall also apply to construction
of recreational trails in preserved areas. The Plan will detail how CIS will be
managed before and during construction activities and will include the
following:
a)
Installation of a temporary herpetological fence prior to any ground
disturbance around the entire development footprint, which shall
prevent CTS from entering the construction site and shall remain until
the permanent fence or barrier is installed. The existing sr tRc can-cnt
one-way barrier, if approved by the USFWS. is a functioning:
temporary barrier: however. it is not located around the entire
development fooq,rint. is cJ(tended and aj3 3'rs'isà fer "se BY tf¡e
USFWS ŒMM: BIa 2). A maintenance schedule shall be included for
this fencing.
A salvage trapping aRà relsEatioR plan that details how aestivating
CTS individuals will be adequately reIocated from the development
footprint and into permanently preserved suitable aestivation habitat.
Although the existing one-way exclusion barrier will allow migrating:
breeding adults to exit the project area. non-breeding adults and
juveniles may not migrate to potential breeding sites for one or more
years. Salvage of these individuals should be accelerated by
installation of trap arrays near burrow concentrations."
b)
Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-2 is also revised as follows:
"A permanent herpetological fence or barrier shall be installed around the
entire development footprint following construction activities to prevent
movement of CTS into the development area. Such fencing shall be designed
to allow for movement of larger terrestrial wildlife species, but shall preclude
CTS from climbing the fence. "Wit;h TJ¡¡F''\~ «F'proval, the one way barrier
eUFrently in placc may bc c)(tended to FReet ~B R'lii;igaëeR rcquircmcnt."
. Comment 4.1.10: The DSEIR states that CTS may breed in Tassajara Creek
and that further surveys should be conducted in the creek. Based on previous
surveys conducted by H.T. Harvey, no evidence of CTS breeding was found
in Tassajara Creek and further surveys are not necessary.
Response: Nocturnal CTS surveys conducted in 1993,1995, and 2000 did not
find salamanders; however, a significant number were trapped in 2003/2004
in upland habitat in which those surveys were conducted. Since other
amphibians successfully breed in Tassajara Creek, it is possible that conditions
exist that provide suitable breeding habitat at least in years when there are
few significant storm events. Evidence presented suggests that CTS breeding
in Tassajara Creek would be an extremely rare event and additional larval
Page,8
February 2005
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
surveys are no longer recommended.
. Comment 4.1.11: Impact SM 810-4 states that approximately 110 acres of the
Project site is aestivation habitat. H.T. Harvey staff believe the appropriate
acreage is 97.2 acres. This is based on the development acreage of the site
(Exhibit 11), Also, more flexibility in locating CTS mitigation sites are
requested in the event suitable replacement habitat is not available in the
Dublin/ Livermore area. It is recommended that the sentence "The mitigation
aestivation habitat shall be located in the Dublin and Livermore Valley area
and shall exhibit similar characteristics to the habitat lost" should be revised
to read that the mitigation site "shall be located as close to the
Dublin/Livermore Valley area as is practicable, and as approved by the
USFWS and CDFG."
Response: Based on further analysis, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-
BIO-4 is revised to read as follows:
"To compensate for the permanent loss of approximately 97.2 ~ acres of
CTS aestivation habitat, and ensure the opportunity exists for recovery of this
, within the Ama 'v rm re Valle ar un
e Project proponent will acquire and preserve in perpetuity suitable CTS
aestivation habitat at a 1:1 ratio adjacent to preserved, occupied CTS breeding
and aestivation habitat and construct a breeding pond, or as required by the
USFWS and CDFG. The mitigation aestivation habitat shall be located in the
Amador and Livermore Valley area as close as is practicable. and as a~roved
by the USFWS or CDFG. and shall exhibit similar characteristics to the abitat
lost.
In selecting off"site mitigation lands, preference shall be given to preserving
one large block of habitat rather than many small parcels, linking preserved
areas to existing open space and other high quality habitat, and excluding or
limiting public use within preserved areas, Land selected for mitigation shall
be permanently preserved through use of a conservation easement or similar
method, approved by the City of Dublin in consultation with the USFWS and
CDFG, and obtained prior to the issuance of any construction permits."
. Comment 4.1.12: Impact SM BIO-7 should be modified to include "during
ground disturbing activities." This is based on an assumption that buildout of
this project would take several years. Also, the type of on-site contractor
would change so that carpenters and similar trades would likely not
encounter special-status species as would grading contractors.
Response: Based on the information provided by the commenter and further
research, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-7 is revised to read as
follows:
"During initial ~ound disturbing activities. ."'II project construction
employees shall receive an educational training program that includes
information on sensitive species identification and their potential habitat,
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 19
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
approved mitigation. measures for the project, and actions employees should
take if a sensitive species is encountered. This measure shall also apply to
construction of recreational trails in preserved areas."
. Comment 4.1.13: Regarding Impact SM BIO-8, movement by California Red-
Legged Frogs (CRLF) would be in the drainage area of the creek and not in
adjacent upland areas. The description of the upland dispersal for CRLF relies
too heavily on definitions provided by critical habitat rulings rather than site-
specific information regarding topography. In the commenter's opinion, the
loss of potential upland habitat dispersal is not a significant impact under
CEQA.
Response: The City agrees that CRLF living in Tassajara Creek would likely
spend most of their time in the drainage and not use the upland portions of
the Dublin Ranch West area. However, the potential for CRLF to use upland
portions of the site exists and CEQA requires that any project that affects or
potentially affects a listed or protected species results in a mandatory finding
of significant effect. The commenter acknowledges that it is possible that a
few individuals may access and disperse across portions of the Dublin West
site, yet states that the site is not U dispersal habitat." According to the USFWS,
the healthiest CRLF populations persist as a collection of subpopulations that
exchange genetic information through individual dispersal events. CRLF can
move to and from populations to the west. The proposed project would
further fragment potential dispersal habitat.
· Comment 4.1.14: The Biological Opinion (BO) for the Dublin Ranch project,
issued by the USFWS on 7/01/02, identified the T assajara Creek Open Space
area as a mitigation site for the Dublin Ranch project and described the
activities expected to occur within and adjacent to the Open Space area. The
BO acknowledges future potential development on the Dublin Ranch West
site as well as two creek crossings, It seems clear the USFWS thought that
implementation of the Tassajara Creek Open Space Management PIan would
serve to mitigate impacts to the Dublin Ranch project as well as provide
adequate protection for CRLF using this reach of Tassajara Creek. Based on
this, the commenter does not believe mitigation for loss of upland dispersal is
necessary.
Response: The Biological Opinion for Dublin Ranch does not specifically
address habitat impacts and mitigation associated with the loss of upland
dispersal habitat at the Dublin Ranch West site.
. Comment 4.1.15: If the City insists that impacts to CRLF dispersal habitat are
significant and require mitigation, on-site improvements to promote
dispersal of CRLF to points west of the Project site would benefit CRLF more
than the off-site mitigations proposed in SM-BIO-8. The applicant could
enhance the drainage along the northern boundary of the Project site to
provide better connectivity between aquatic habitats to the west and
Tassajara Creek. The drainage within the Project site would be maintained as
open space and man.aged to support CRLF dispersal. The drainage could be
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dubiin
Page 20
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
enhanced by providing micro-topographic depressions or temporary ponds
and/ or improving habitat for foraging and refuge, planting native vegetation
(such as willows), and adding downed woody debris and natural rocks.
Response: The City's consulting biologist notes that habitat enhancement of
proposed open space alone would not mitigate for the loss of dispersal
habitat.
. Comment 4.1.16: Regarding Supplemental Mitigation Measure BIO-9, please
clarify the wording "other sensitive wildlife species" on pages 1-11 and 1-12
and also on page 67. Depending on whether or not such species are listed,
they mayor may not be addressed in the BO. These other species should
specifically be identified.
Response: Based on further research on this topic, Supplemental Mitigation
Measure SM-BIo.9 is revised to read as follows:
"a) Prior to construction of the proposed bridges, a map shall be prepared
to delineate CRLF breeding habitat, construction and laydown areas,
and areas of proposed temporary fill within Tassajara Creek. Pre-
construction surveys within these areas shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist (as approved by the City) with appropriate
authorization to handle CRLF. If CRLF or CIS are found within the
construction areas (or otRer sensitive wildlife Bf1eeies), they shall be
immediately moved to undisturbed, preserved portions of Tassajara
Creek if authorized in a Biological Opinion or other pennit issued by
the USFWS for the Project. Construction, laydown, and temporary fill
areas shall be fenced appropriately to prohibit CRLF and CTS
movement into these areas, as supervised and verified by a qualified
biologist. Construction activities and access shall be. confined to these
fenced areas during construction activities. A qualified biologist will
monitor the fence and construction activities daily when construction
activities are conducted within Tassajara Creek. A qualified biologist
with appropriate authorization f'ÐI'HlÎæ to relocate;my- CRLF or CTS in
coniunction with a biological oJ'inion shall be available to the on-site
biological monitor if CRLF or CIS (or OthCF sensitive widàlife Sfccies)
are found within the fenced areas during daily construction
monitoring; CRLF shall be relocated to undisturbed, preserved
portions of Tassajara Creek, and CTS shall be relocated to the nearest
protected u,pland habitat containing burrow habitat."
. Comment 4.1.17: The commenter recommends that the statement "a
biologist with appropriate permits to relocate CRLF..." should be revised to
read" a qualified biologist with appropriate authorization to relocate CRLF in
conjunction with a biological opinion." The USFWS does not issue general
pennits to allow biologists to relocate CRLF; rather, this authorization would
be granted on a project-specific basis in conjunction with a BO.
Response: This comment is addressed in the Response to Comment 4.1,16.
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 21
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· Comment 4.1.18: Re: SM-BIO-11 (pages 1-14 and 68), the commenter believes
impacts to nests of common birds are not significant under CEQA. Instead,
these are regulatory compliance issues. Although pre-construction surveys
for compliance with such regulations are advisable, they should be dealt with
separately from CEQA.
Response: The City believes the impacts identified in Supplemental Impact SM-
11 are significant under CEQA. However, based on the above comment and
further research, Supplemental Mitigation Measure SM-BIO-11 is revised to
read as follows:
"Prior to any tree removal or ground disturbance, a qualified biologist
(approved by the City) shall conduct special status breeding bird surveys
throughout the development ~ortion of the PrQject area and within 250 feet
in adiacent habitat~. Buffers s all be a minimum of 250 feet for raptors
(although seRsiti."e ral'tsrs such as golden eagles. which are unlikely to nest
on the Dublin Ranch West site. may require a much larger buffer), and
between 50 and 100 feet for special status passerines depending on habitat
type (50 feet in dense vegetation, 100 feet in open areas). Pre eensti'u.sasR
Sur/C)'S shall take place throughout the àevels 3R'leRt l'SFliOR sf the Project
area, includir.g SUf"'leys fer gTaoslaRà Biràs iHlà birds likely to nest along the
Tassajara Creek corridor. Nesting status shall be monitored by a qualified
biologist to determine when nests are no longer active. All activities shall be
prohibited within the buffer until after young have fledged and / or moved
out of the nest. This measure shall also apply to construction of recreational
trails in preserved areas."
· Comment 4.1.19: Re: SM-BIO-11 (pages 1-14 and 68), if the City insists on
retaining SM-BIO-11, the commenter recommends that the statement about a
breeding bird survey shall be conducted throughout the "Dublin Ranch West
area" be revised to read "throughout the development portion of the Project
area." Except for Golden Eagles, no nest surveys should be required in
portions of the site more than 250 feet from proposed development.
Response; Refer to Response to Comment 4.1.18.
· Comment 4.1.20: Re: SM-BIO-11 (pages 1-14 and 68), the commenter
recommends that the sentence" All activities shall be prohibited within the
buffer until after the young have fledged and moved out of the nest." The
word "and" should be replaced with "and/ or." The Killdeer could possibly
nest on the site during construction. Due to characteristics of this species,
there is no need for a buffer around a Killdeer nest to remain in place after
the young have hatched and left the nest.
Response; Refer to Response to Comment 4.1.18.
· Comment 4.1.21: On pages 1-19 and 70, the "Topic/Supplemental Impact"
should read "Biological Resources. Loss of Congdon's Tarplant," since this is
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental ËrR
City of Dublin
Page 22
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the only species to be considered of special status now to be present on the
site.
Response: Based on the comment and further research, the heading of
Supplemental Impact B10-6 is revised as follows:
"Supplemental Impact BI0-6: Loss of s¡;¡ecialstatus plants Congdon's
T ax:plant"
. Comment 4.1.22: On pages 1-19 and 70, SM-BIO-15, the commenter believes
loss of approximately 630 individual Congdon's tarplant does not constitute a
significant impact under CEQA, given the fairly widespread occurrence and
abundance of this species. The T arplant is known to occur in sizeable
numbers in the Livermore-Dublin area and the loss of approximately 630
plants would not be significant to the overall population. It is recommended
that Mtigation Measure SM-BIO-15 be deleted.
Response: The City notes that CEQA documents typically consider mortality
and loss of habitat to special status plants and wildlife as a significant impact.
. Comment 4.1.23: If the City insists that mitigation be provided to loss of
Congdon's tarplant, mitigation should be performed for the number of
individual plant impacts, not the acreage occupied by the species. A majority
of individual plants are scattered at low densities over approximately 4 miles
south of the existing residence; the remainder occur in small areas west of
Tassajara Creek.
Response: The City's consulting biologist agrees that mitigating the impact
based on the number of Congdon's Tarplant individuals impacted would be
more appropriate than on the acreage of occupied habitat. See the response
to Comment 4.1.24 for recommended changes to Supplemental Mtigation
Measure SM-BIO-15.
· Comment 4.1.24: In 2003, HT. Harvey prepared a draft Mtigation and
Monitoring Plan describing the establishment and management of
Congdon's tarplant on approximately 0.8 acres surrounding a tarplant
subpopulation within the Tassajara Creek Management Zone. The
commenter recommends that the mitigation be revised to read: "The Dublin
Ranch West Congdon's Tarplant Mtigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
(HTH, 2004) shall be implemented to compensate for removal of Congdon's
Tarplant individuals. "
Response: Based on additional research on this topic, Supplemental Mtigation
Measure SM-BI0-15 is revised to read as follows:
"The majori1;y of Congdon's taq>lants are scattered at low densities over
approximately four acres south of the existing residence on the site; the
remaining individuals to be impacted occur in small areas west of Tass~ara
Creek. Studies conducted by H.T. Harvey & Associates have revealed five
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 23
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
subpopulations within the Tass¡¡.iara Creek Management Zone (TCMZ) that
average approximately 500 individuals on 0.5 acre each. Based on this
information. the +fie project shall establish and manage approximately 0.63
acres of create one acre sf REi,': s..upied habitat for Congdon's tarplant fuF-
every sRe aerc of c¡d~ting CSRgàsR's taFflæ1t habitat lost within 8liitlilàlEi, en
site ¡¡-reserved habitat (such as the TCMZ. Following CDFG and Cit;y
approval. the Dublin Ranch West Congdon's Tarplant Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan (HI. Harvey & Associates 2004) shall be implemented to
compensate for the loss of Congdon's tarplant individuals. project a¡¡-¡¡-liEaRt
sRaU àevdop aJ'.d implement a detaÜeà Hiaga1åon and Monitoring PlaR te
fully eeffi¡¡-emate for impacts to Congdon's tai'!'læ1.t. Tnc plan sflall indude
tfle mitigation design, ffiethoàs sf sah'agc of existing oeeà, æaiRteflaRee
methods (iRehlEHRg '\'ced management), msRÎtsFÎ.ng ¡¡-roccdurcs and
pcrfofffiance criteria, re 3sraRg reEJ.1iirementG, and a ceFlëFlgemy æeaGure to
preserle enisling off site occupied CongàsFl's tarplant habitat at an eEJ:ual
amount to lost ha!?itat in case of mitigation faillil'e. The project profonent
shall provide a secure funding source (such as a performance bond for the
implementation of the mitigation plan and long-term maintenance and
monitoring of the mitigation area. The created mitigation area must be
preserved in perpetuity (such as through a permanent conservation
easement). The Mitigation and Monitoring Plan must be approved by the
City prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project. Mitigation shall
require a minimum of five years of monitoring and annual monitoring
reports shall be provided to the City."
· Comment 4.1.25: H.T. Harvey & Associates has mapped the riparian
vegetation along Tassajara Creek and so has determined that impacts of
bridges across Tassajara Creek more precisely at 0.31 acres. This was
determined by overlying bridge plans over the riparian habitat map.
Response: Based on this additional information, the acreage in Supplemental
Impact BIO-7 is revised from "1.0 acres" to "0.31 acres."
· Comment 4.1.26: Re SM-BIO-16 (pages 1-12 and 71), H.T. Harvey &
Associates has developed a riparian habitat mitigation and monitoring plan
for the Project site. The comrnenter recommends that SM-BIO-16 be revised
to read "The Dublin Ranch West Riparian Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
(HTH, 2004) shall be implemented to compensate for the removal of riparian
vegetation, subject to the approval of the CDFG and City."
Response: On January 11, 2005, the ftp site provided by the commenter did
not include a folder named Dublin West. If the HTH Riparian Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan contains the requirements described in SM-BIO-16, and is
approved by CDFG and the City, then it would meet the mitigation and
monitoring plan requirement of the mitigation measure.
· Comment 4.1.27: The sentence on page 47, "The portions of the Project area
has been used for cattle grazing," should be revised for clarity and grarrunar
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 24
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
salamander has been listed as threatened and critical habitat has been
dCGignatcd proposed. ... All of the Project area to the west of Tassajara Creek
is within proposed critical habitat Unit 18 of the Central Valley Region."
· Comment 4.1.33: On page 56, the document states that no larval surveys for
CTS have been conducted in Tassajara Creek vvithin the Dublin Ranch West
area and that larval surveys conducted in this drainage by HTH were
downstream of this site. The commenter notes that such surveys were
conducted on the Project site in 1993,1995 and 2000. Since the creek is deep
with strong flows, CTS larval surveys were focused on habitat within the
Creek drainage that approached potential breeding habitat, which is an
isolated ox-bow.
Response: See responses to comments 4.1.10, and 4.1.36-.41 related to CIS.
· Comment 4.1.34: On page 60, state CEQA Guidelines were amended to add
the term "substantial" before the phrase "reduce the number or restrict the
range of an endangered, rare or threatened species for a mandatory finding
of significance.
Response: Based on the comment, the impact bullet on Page 60 is revised to
read as follows:
"Substantially-Rreduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered,
rare or threatened species;"
· Comment 4.1.35: On page 66, the document notes that CRLF populations in
Tassajara Creek are further isolated from potential breeding locations
northwest and southwest of the Dublin Ranch area. Because the primary
dispersal areas for CRLF and the drainage area to the west have been
enhanced by the TCMZ or could be enhanced, CRLF will not be isolated from
areas to the west due to loss of upland dispersal habitat that is likely
infrequently used by CRLF.
Response: It is the City's consulting biologist's opirùon that enhancement of
occupied or potentially occupied habitat in the TCMZ and/ or drainage on the
northern edge of the site would not mitigate for the loss and fragmentation
of CRLF dispersal habitat.
· Comment 4.1.36: Studies completed by HTH determined that Tassajara
Creek itself is not potential breeding habitat for CIS. Therefore CIS larval
studies were focused oIÙY on habitat in the Creek that approached breeding
habitat, which is an existing ox-bow. No evidence of CTS breeding was found
in the ox-bow or elsewhere in Tassajara Creek.
Response: Current USFWS survey protocol typically includes both aquatic
sampling and pitfall trapping. Pitfall trapping was not conducted adjacent to
Tassajara Creek, so it has not been determined whether or not CTS were
moving toward the stream. CTS were trapped at the southern end of the
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 26
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
traplines within approximately 300 feet of Tassajara Creek. It is possible that
CTS reproduced in small numbers in Tassajara Creek during previous
surveys and remained undetected.
According to the Dublin Ranch West Biotic Resources report (HTH 2002),
adult CTS went undetected during surveys conducted in 1993,1996.1998, and
2001. However, based on all evidence in existing literature, there is a very
low probability that CTS reproduce in Tassajara Creek, and we are dropping
our recommendation that CTS larval aquatic surveys of Tassajara Creek be
conducted.
. Comment 4.1.37: Based on flow studies completed by MacKay & Somps in
Tassajara Creek, CTS do not breed in the Creek.
Response: Observations of the Moller drainage in December 2002 made by the
City's consulting biologist during a stonn event indicated that this drainage
experiences rugh flows. The presence of CTS within ten meters of both banks
of the Moller drainage less than one mile upstream from its confluence with
Tassajara Creek suggests that CIS may breed following rugh flows. In some
dry years or after the rugh-flow season, suitable conditions may exist for
successful CTS breeding in the stream, however there is a very low
probability that CTS reproduce in Tassajara Creek, and the recommendation
that CIS larval aquatic surveys of Tassajara Creek be conducted has been
deleted.
. Comment 4.1.38: Based on infonnation contained in the DSEIR, HTH
Associates searched the California Natural Diversity Data Base for the
possibility of CTS breeding in Tassajara Creek. No record was found that
breeding occurred in a stream or natural drainage.
Response: The City's consulting biologists observed adult CTS along both
banks of the Moller tributary to Tassajara Creek in December 2002. The
nearest aquatic habitat was stock ponds approximately one mile north and
south of the stream. Based on this observation, it can be assumed that CTS
likely breed in the Moller drainage following rugh flows.
H.T. Harvey's assertion that CTS do not breed in stream or natural drainage
habitats, based on their review of CNDDB records for Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties, is partially lacking in scientific proof and objectivity. CNDDB
records represent a volunteer reporting of survey results that have been
conducted by numerous biologists over the course of many years, often
employing diverse survey techniques that mayor may not include surveys
for larvae and mayor may not have included surveys in "unsuitable"
drainage habitat. Records in the CNDDB provide inconsistent data on
location and habitat of the observed species and many lack a habitat
description altogether. Infonnation mayor may not be available in these
records explaining what type of survey was conducted (nocturnal flashlight
survey, larval pitfall survey, funnel trap survey, incidental).
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Pag e 27
February 2005
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Of the 258 records H.T. Harvey reviewed for Contra Costa and Alameda
Counties, 140 records documented evidence of breeding but only 29 of these
records specifically mentioned CTS breeding in natural ponds while 109
records recorded breeding in artificial ponds. None of the 140 records
indicated breeding occurred within streams or natural drainages, therefore
HT Harvey concluded that breeding in this habitat does not occur. Based on
this type of reasoning, one could also conclude from this CNDDB data that
CTS prefer breeding in artificially constructed ponds rather than natural
occurring pond habitat.
Eighteen of the 258 CNDDB records from Alameda and Contra Costa
indicate observations of adult CTS in habitats in and adjacent to natural
drainage courses. There is no disputing that CTS are overwhelmingly
associated with seasonal pond habitats for breeding purposes. However,
there is simply not enough information about this species for consultants to
decide if adult CTS observed adjacent to drainage habitat wi11 or will not
breed within such an environment. Despite the issue with using CNDDB
records as scientific evidence in this case, the consultant biologist believes that
the existing survey results for this species in the project vicinity suggests
there is a very low probability that CTS reproduce in Tassajara Creek, and
the recommendation that CTS larval aquatic surveys of Tassajara Creek be
conducted is being deleted.
· Comment 4.1.39: Streams are not included as a primary constituent element
for CTS breeding based on the USFWS's " Designation of Critical Habitat for
the California Tiger Salamander."
Response: Streams could be considered "other ephemeral or permanent water
bodies that typically become inundated during winter rains and hold water
for a sufficient length of time necessary for the species to complete the
aquatic portion of its life cycle." However, recent evidence presented
suggests that there is a very low probability that CIS reproduce in Tassajara
Creek, and the DSEIR recommendation that CTS larval aquatic surveys of
Tassajara Creek be conducted is being deleted.
· Comment 4.1.40: Exotic species knOWI\ to have a significant negative effect on
CTS by preying on eggs and larval salamanders include mosquitofish, bluegill
and crayfish. All are found in high numbers in Tassajara Creek adjacent to the
Proj ect site.
Response: According to the Dublin Ranch Tassajara Creek Conservation
Habitat Management Plan (HTH 2003), there is a general lack of centrarchid
fishes, crayfish, and bullfrogs within the Tassajara Creek Management Zone.
· Comment 4.1,41: Mainstream literature regarding CTS described breeding
habitat as vernal pools. seasonal and perennial ponds and possibly quiet
pools of streams, but no studies have indicated that streams with high winter
flows such as Tassajara Creek provide suitable breeding habitat for CTS. The
comment provided a number of references.
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 28
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
Response: This comment is noted,
· Comment 4.1.42: The commenter believed that the high flows in Tassajara
Creek during the winter months and previous experience of the commenter,
that Tassajara Creek does not provide suitable breeding habitat for CTS.
Response: Based on the evidence presented, the City's biologist has concluded
that there is a very low probability that CIS reproduce in Tassajara Creek,
and the recommendation that CIS larval aquatic surveys of Tassajara Creek
be conducted is being deleted.
· Comment 4.1.43: The commenter notes that there are a few areas where
CRLF may exit the Project site from the Tassajara Creek riparian zone;
however, most of the western barù< is a vertical wall of over 20 feet, making
it very difficult if not impossible for CRLF to access the Project site, Therefore,
CRLF could not readily exit from known areas of frog residence in the Creek
onto the Project site.
Resp?nse: See responses to Comments 4.1.47 and 4.48 dealing with CRLF
speCIes.
· Comment 4.1.44: A recent study of habitat use by CRLF in coastal forest and
grassland suggests that an essential component is the presence of concealing
cover. This cover is necessary to protect frogs from desiccation and predation
during periods of inactivity. Although ground squirrel burrows may provide
some cover, the Project site lacks sufficient cover in the flat areas near
Tassajara Creek that would be necessary for the kinds of upland habitat use
and dispersal as described in the DSEIR. Dispersing frogs would therefore be
subject to desiccation and predation due to lack of cover.
Response: See response to comment 4.1.45.
· Comment 4.1.45: The study referenced in Comment 4.1.44 was conducted in
Santa Cruz County where the risk of desiccation to CRLF is not as great as
the East Bay. Based on personal experience with CRLF, the commenter has
found a markedly higher tendency toward upland dispersal in mesic coastal
areas than the dryer East Bay, such as the Project site.
Response: The commenter's opinion is noted.
· Comment 4.1.46: If CRLF were present in the upland dispersal habitat as
identified in the DSEIR, then individual frogs should have been detected in
the trap array installed for the CIS along the western boundary of the Project
site during the 2003-04 winter season. This argument is strengthened by the
fact that 56 post-metamorphic frogs and 1,973 tadpoles were placed in
Tassajara Creek during the summer of 2003 and these should have been
intersected in the trap array when this became operational in October 2003.
The only amphibians fourld in the trap array were CIS, yellow-eyed
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 29
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
salamanders and Pacific treefrogs, even though a large number of frogs and
tadpoles were translocated only 350 feet from the trap array.
Response: It is not dear in the comment whether all 586 post-metamorplùc
frogs and 1,973 larvae were released at one point 350 feet from the trap
array, or distributed throughout Tassajara Creek. Larvae probably
experience lùgh mortality rates. Estimated larvae survival rates to
metamorphosis cited by the USFWS (2004) range from less than one percent
to five percent. Based on these estimates, roughly 20 to 200 of the released
larvae would survive through metamorphosis. Depending on where the
release point(s) is located, it is unknown whether the released post~
metamorplùc frogs and those larvae surviving to metamorphosis would
have encountered the trap array.
. Comment 4.1.47: The drainage on the northern edge of the site currently
provides a dispersal corridor for CRLF that might disperse between Tassajara
Creek and areas to the west of the Project site, such as Parks RFTA. In fact,
CRLF are likely to use this drainage for dispersal far more than they would
use the upland portion of the Project site due to a gentler slope out of the
Tassajara Creek drainage, the presence of concealing cover within and near
the drainage north of the site, and moisture within the drainage.
Response: According to the USFWS, CRLF will make long-distance. straight-
line, poinHo-point movements rather than using corridors for moving
between habitats. The USFWS also cites a study in Santa Cruz County where
dispersing adult frogs moved without apparent regard to topography,
vegetation type, or riparian corridors. Tlùs suggests that CRLF dispersing to
or from populations to the west may move through any portion of the Dublin
Ranch West site.
. Comment 4.1.48: In summary, the commenter expects CRLF in Tassajara
Creek to leave the drainage and disperse onto or across upland areas west of
the creek oIÙy on rare occasions, and the upland portions of the Project site
do not represent important habitat for these species. Even if egress were not
constrained by creek topography, adult CRLF would oIÙY be expected to
leave the drainage for brief foraging bouts during the wet season and stay
witlún the buffer zone near the Creek. The commenter does not believe the
Project site is a migratory corridor between Tassajara Creek and known
CRLF sites further west. The dry nature of the upland area of the Project site,
the lack of concealing cover on the upland portion of the site, the high quality
of CRLF habitat along Tassajara Creek itself and the lack of captures of CRLF
dispersing across the upland by the CTS trapping array during the winter of
2003-04 lead to the conclusion that the proposed Project would not lead to a
significant impact to CRLF.
Response: The City's biologist agrees that juvenile CRLF disperse more widely
over upland areas than adults, Juveniles were observed in heavily grazed
grassland with minimal cover in the Eastern Dublin area in 2004, suggesting
that CRLF juveniles disperse even when cover is poor. Poor cover on the
DUblin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 30
February 2005
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dublin Ranch West site would not preclude CRLF from using it during
dispersal. Also, although CRLF dispersing from Tassajara Creek to the west
may face restricted access to the Dublin Ranch West site, those dispersing
from the Camp Parks area to the east toward Tassajara Creek, and ultimately
upstream or downstream, would encounter less-challenging topography.
Dublin Ranch West Final Supplemental EIR
City of Dublin
Page 31
February 2005