HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.2 Iron Horse Trail Extension Attch 4-5
~,;:~ . ..:.. ,=.;u ..,-..::,.,)y;" . .. __ , ~: _ '.: _ ,.),:<: ~;J: ,;:'.f;' .. '~:'>.t:
-:,..>'c'::\<~<-. .,'c:,c';. :.... '.,' -- .c, '> ;",: ,:..,...:..,'." -:.' "','J":',("';: ........, - . ;.,'c.,,;.'..,...'...:.." :,:........\::....~,._.,};,....:':.,c>.:_._ .":;.... "," :'
. . .,;;~~-;:i-';:".'S<~.-<:. )-:_;,:~~.hI..C..;?'_;t;-:::i..>:...-.":~ ..-c.-.,;..:.~'~.:t~::;fb~'-~:: :.c, ....jr:;i:~{::'(H~ ~ti-I'..". "J1;i- ~:.
, . ?"><' '.' ','.. , : .>: ::.,'z~>.:.:~-r.<:-<.."....} ../,J; f~;" if . ~b f.
, ~. _ "("-'~;>>/'::"D' ;~C',': ,:,' >">' r:~";"'~' .f, ........ . .., J ;c<n :~:"::
.., 'C"j ~\.<~::,/J.",:c:'. ;"';;;;;;'.' '>'<"S/..<e ,;f:.; ..',<.:.c~i:~s.:.' i~'/ "?~
II" . :,c:'.: :'.. < .~.,., ,,><~:,c;.c,"<T'k::;;',>,;:,}, ~c;:;:",
.........i .....'. ' .,. . "".'~"'X<\. 'c.~?<' c. ..... ;i/
.,. I>~' , .' .' ..'{ . ' ./~. .c;:>"C"T
.... . - . ". .,,;;..... , ",. -'? ' " - .... ..... , .
,...L 1'<' ",,';y'><, ' . ..--:_ "" ," ",' '<.~ ,eil:., I'.'
,,> ",:.:; <: :,' ",;'X'; "",, .<:.:;.,>".~ o"':;j . ;.;~:..j;--;:.:'\ 'T "'<i';:~"
.,,:~ T · t · }. 8"$';:1:" .....,.., "o~"':},,'f~:; ,L.<' ~> J.<~'.'::C~\; ,g..::'
. . . > ':, i\:1n1 l(i, ..tl,iu.){ - _';c;I,';::. .~<T' ..~.: ~;,~.;,'Oc,>iX';:;.~,~)C, .'~.:::.:<>:-:':..;,~, :,-' ..~
- -.' :,< I', _ ,'. -'"",,--_;;:~:c~;~"?K.}.. "'?~... ';'C: ..x:. . ,:;,'Y~'~;~~,:;.j
,>; ..'-../.... If" , ,'.". ....~{,. ...>"r.-:;' :>, /C.'C .';". "<"";;.':'~(, .> ""'\.'s -'i."
. ,~.,,<.. :.' '". :' ~ ,}':"u.- .'.\l~.J~J:;~,....> _ ':"'},'i;}</:):;""'.c;.c,c' , 'c .. ,,: 'c";';:'
'>, I _cf.. - "j~:~.:" ;;'. .f..";;~";'("'<' .:", ., <c', ' .\ '. -j./ ;i;'~(
, '. ....~ , ..:,),.>;" ,':'~{ c~ :c:'c}',c<:c' , ';n:.',~>..:/c ~~.0,';'Y::';i;~}:', ''. ~._;. -. .
.~~~< I<~ Jf ,://':,,::'~~:J/.,">"'."';"~ ':> ;'1;...~:. '\i::,:>,;"'/:3~i;;' j";~'..'-c.jp:r ,~..,;t;. :;c', ,.
.... ,ef""2 ::.' . ......;t';'+gZ .:.~~'Z:'" ',.';i~c~ (;;.!.( t~;""if;:r;;K.E., ,. ;~7:';"'.: ::~:;
..::/,. ;;~I' '.; "II':';i'_~'::'/'~: .' '''II(J)}' .... ';'T],c.j;' n::j,'~.U_{.I~'.,.; '>>?""'~:/>,:Y;.~";'.
,: ~,=..,~.\XS, 1':Ir;OD ~:n'.Qr:s:e~fil1r.al t.;~e:al~te!I,;~.:D~I'Vce";: :j~: ::: 'cX:,.r,./,:~.../:? ',',',"
>>.... '~,J' 17~':~'..c,';:;0'::0?. . .'h'i""i", ~-:"">""_;< ..' : " /N~7_,R':'<':{\)" ';. '''i;'Y';'~}'
',-~ :;!' . F,}~' !:;1:,,:\~,.,~)t,,~t'f~':'; ',' ."::.:Y',:"L:: F\ D..;:.:...,~,?{.;;C\1;'c:tt;c:2;:'>" ':'\:: . '.i.:'J' ~. ":j"c'e ~';' .,
", ,:,'~ "J', .'..m.-pFo~eml~.nfsE~tN,9.-1eet.i:.'t;..,:;~:'..... .,j:t~:;,~>;,/:::_:.";/:>.~;."...:.:....., ". ;.\
, _ ...;' .,>>,;,,~:,,;e..:.,. ".';c'-:..~..,<.';';.:"", < ,o,c y.':~'C>,'."'.'c,c";'/c>~: .: c,." ", . 'c' ',':'" .~~.c
.'cS .f:;;<.," "';;.:".:;,,: '/",{(;.< .'H~:;) :'<"c-;;~,<~,,;;: "'T.;"~ ~<:;
," .:"',";,<. .. .,ite') '~i!":= '2'~":-::(: >',', .=.:"~ c,I's,' -?~::~'
>. 1:.' ~."', . u,":" . e)' ?~:." /<.> , . ,~'.
....;rJ:;. . , ';<;/"":;">.:~{,i~>l~.:,. ....
, c.".' .';:'\'" = . -' ><,i ,. >' 'c{~ ,....',. 'S'\".;,.~, >;";".'
'. _ ,---< :;;.,<.1' , 'c=.~. ~, ':'..':";'X';':':";5;;,~";-''''''<' '.cd?: ,:-.::, <<:'\C;,1' ......;
, ,,~,:,,; l~'.,..>:}i;'<':'i . ,'.. ....J;/"..;.".u' . .... .y;?<'xy.;; <';f.
.... .;. I .... ..X -..:..C<:~'F:u, :.,,:,,<;'..?;S~.:.... '.,' ;\~ <'. ..... ":.
<. .... 'ST;:: 1.< u ' '. <\'}' f ~.; "'-"~I:: ",o\",'>;"'.'..(',~;~'Yg{Y';~- . _>;.;';,,;:;:'ji,r..~ : ).; S,
, '. ;:' I'" . '. '. :";S.;'.',:: (,;t., .......;..;. -;';'-;';' "'~':::; :'.'
. ,~:; I.'., .' ,.;..,....'... '. . ""'. "o',_ . :C.. ':T<> "',,/.,',;""
-e. I . .',' . ~.r; . <>", .' . ..... ~:;.i/' . ',:. ~~;:;
."~" i::c>.'?c,\c <> .,i.... '. .. . .,. .............. .........../. ..<,:~~,.,,},:,.:cx~cf.I?J
;.... "'. .'.,... .' = ,- .'/g'>' ,n:'>::J"~:~'; _i;i'\~L:' :!\,', <,.d ,.;~
. HCity~ ofIJuplin c c <. ~.., .:~ '0';:: >...'j')("'!:C:'\~'~~.;e:'~~':{;".:~{= 'j;:,
df !i;.; . ...., .,..~.. , . ~~:. ,.;,;u..-~t;:.!. . . ....}V .... C. < ,.","~'.~~~~2)j~F,:i}~X}xj.r.';\~}t
.) In 'ti.; ')0f'\6'''' - .....,':,.. -. '. ..' ."<:e'::,--">.:>:,;,:,, <> ..'y~.,
.( uecemver L.. U . ...............;:: .':.\);':";~:,'.' '..i'\';7'c~...~.. {',:..f\ ,~)-.t}:./\. .....)'.,
" ........ I. . ..' "... _'~Fc.<.:~L'. ;'." ...' ')..~:~~.>:..J:~L.~;.<~~..,;,~..;; ',.;. ""~'c~ .- .", 's~':::
. ,.... ,. _ '..,c'.' ......'"'."::/'..'j.. i.'....:...., e');' ',,':."; ..'i.,':.;>," ,i.i.>'........ - ;cc'
:. .'-C '-,;><',i.. :'.;.:' ....... . ......;,... .;..< . :-:.;-.':..'...m..........,...". . ... .
. ..... ,_ ,J'\.. . .' -.:.".'L.,.,{,.,:{;.;< "'.c' :.'c-': ,:;.' <c '- ~~;.
. , ';". .;',,;:, ,.<....'L.~;.,<..,.. '~..-,i'.':-. ':;'j.,'.;y.",c.: .;;.;...;t
_' ." . '. . ,',L-:tD. ...... ....... '{.:.;-> .. .;. .'SC \, , -j"./(';i\:': ''c'', ,:' ..,..
';. .' ..,t/ . ...'.:. - ':;x.n.~;.t.-, .<}>,";~,"'7'J~J.:" ';,I; .~.. ,,~:;. .,'~,),":}';:~lh : ..j '5'..,:-~'~~;;Jc
" ..' ", . L:",;', .;..:'.,;:~;.?;: ?>" ..f'\i:.i{;;h: .- ,.--) ;'~'e :. .;;";.~i:':~'< ~g
..'-:<>"j;'u).Xd"': . . .~. ~'~'o--->' ?'T.,";:, j:- -':"CiY\ :,'0'-;.:: j"" :f":;}.:;;. .{;>Z'
'" -' .', .. -' /,,,'c>.,f ,:'.. "ys,-., ,'~Y.T:i ~cD: ..) ;.;
.;, .t.', , - <i',-' ;'" ":'.'. i)...... .. ..~:..~<.~:<~.,...> ";:':~
,., .,'..:.}T..," .':. _ c..> < . " '.'-' n ,;",;.~>'_;<_ . "'\'. .ci,"';.,:.::G 'if;.,'..{";'\";..~)
," . ..... ........ '. ~.......'u> .'?~:,.~,>..}\L"'{,P).~,~;,~" - ',~~; "c.".;>" .~"
\ -.
ATTAflMENT ~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'lL,..
i.-'n
l,.t
CITY OF DUBLIN
1 00 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
Website: http://www.cLdublin.ca.us
DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Title:
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements
Project Description:
The City of Dublin is proposing to construct a public street from Dublin
Boulevard northwesterly to Dougherty Road, and relocate and enhance
the Iron Horse Trail along the old Southern Pacific Railroad Right of
Way in the City of Dublin.
This project is, in part, mitigation to the approval of development within
Eastern Dublin.
The proposed Scarlett Drive improvements will include extending
Scarlett Drive from Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard, widening the
existing Scarlett Drive roadway between Dougherty Road and Houston
Place to a four lane facility, modifying the existing signal at Dublin
Boulevard and Dougherty Road, installing a new signal at Houston
Place and Scarlett Drive primarily for pedestrian access to the Iron
Horse Trail, relocating and enhancing the Iron Horse Trail to the east
of its current alignment, constructing additional tumlanes at three
intersections, installing bicycle lanes on either side of the street, and
incorporating enhanced traffic signal priority for buses accessing the
east Dublin BART station.
Project Location:
Scarlett Drive, north of Dublin Boulevard and south of Dougherty Road
Project Proponent:
Melissa Morton, Director of Public Works, City of Dublin Public Works
Department
Address: 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
Conditions of Approval:
This approval is subject to the conditions of approval listed below and
the specifications of the approved project. The approved project will
include the following mitigation measures to ensure that any significant
impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level.
1. Air Quality: The project shall implement the following "Basic Control Measures" that would
minimize potential for elevated levels of dust (Le. particulates) during construction.
· Water all active construction areas daily.
· Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites as
needed (to be detennined by resident engineer).
· Sweep street if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets as needed (to be
detennined by resident engineer).
· Limit traffic speeds on unpaved areas to 15 mph.
· Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
· Replantvegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
· Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at anyone time.
Area Code (925) . City Manager 833-6650 . City Council 833-6650 . Personnel 833-6605 . Economic Development 833-6650
Finance 833-6B40 . Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 . Parks & Community Services 833-6645 . Police 833-6670
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 . Building Inspection 833-6620 . Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
Printed on Recycled Paper
2.
~rl ~b!
I
I
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps) Jurisdiction: The mitigation measures described below
would reduce impacts to the wetland habitat to a less than significant level.
. A wetland delineation will be conducted and submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) for verification of jurisdictional wetlands on-site.
. As mitigation for the permanent loss of wetlands, impacted seasonal aquatic habitat would be
replaced, either in conjunction with mitigation for proposed wetland impacts associated with
the Scarlett Drive roadway project or at an approved local mitigation bank or adjacent
property. Impacted wetlands win be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (replaced:
impacted). To mitigate impacts to wetlands, approximately four (4) acres of wetlands would be
created. A detailed wetland restoration plan will be prepared in consultation with a qualified
restoration biologist. Such a plan will provide the following:
Replacement of lost wetland habitat.
_ Location of on-site restoration opportunities. complete with an analysis of the technical
approach to create high quality wetlands.
_ Prior to construction, the project applicant shall apply for a Section 404 permit from the
Corps and Section 401 certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The
project proponent will comply with the conditions of these regulatory documents.
. In addition to the conditions contained in the regulatory documents, the project proponent
will comply with the following additional recommendations:
- A detailed plan will be created for wetland construction that includes excavation
elevations, locations of hydrologic connections and soil amendments, as necessary.
Planting, maintenance and monitoring plans will be prepared in consultation with a
qualified habitat restoration specialist.
_ Constructed wetlands shall be monitored for a period of five (5) years and the site shall
achieve 80 percent cover by native marsh plant species by Year 5. Specific performance
criteria will be determined and monitored for site success.
. Alternatively to measures stated above, the replacement of lost habitat functions and values of
the seasonal aquatic habitat can be achieved through participation in a nearby mitigation
bank. The appropriate acreage and location would be set in consultation with state and
federal resource agencies.
3.
Special-Status Plant Species: To ensure that the project would not significantly impact the
Saline clover and Congdon's tarplant, the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into
the proposed project.
. Conduct presence/absence surveys during their blooming seasons: April to June for the Saline
Clover, and May to October for Congdon's tarplant. Presence of either of these species is not
expected to greatly constrain the proposed project.
. If found, prior to site disturbance, the seeds from the species will be collected and sown
among populations that exist in the region, such as Springtown Alkali Sink preserve in
livermore.
4.
_ Western Pond Turtle (WPT): To minimize the potential impacts to WPT, the proposed project
will include the following mitigation measures.
. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 48 hours prior to grading and/or fill
of the western drainage. If no WPT are found, then no further mitigation is required. If WPT
are found, then the following measures shall be implemented.
. If WPT are found on-site during preconstruction surveys, a qualified biologist in consultation
with CDFG will establish a construction-free buffer zone and relocate individual WPT.
.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I J.( 15
~, . ~
i tJl}
· Replacement habitat shall be provided for WPT at a nearby mitigation bank, to the satisfaction
of CDFG.
5.
Burrowing Owls: Burrowing owls were not observed at the site, however, there have been
several observations of burrowing owls within three miles of the site. Therefore, burrowing owls
are considered present on-site. The following mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to
burrowing owls to a less than significant level.
· Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted, per California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) guidelines, no more than 30 days prior to start of site grading, regardless of the time
of year in which grading occurs. If no burrowing owls are found, then no further mitigation is
warranted.
· If owls are located on or immediately adjacent to the site, a qualified burrowing owl biologist in
consultation with CDFG will establish a construction-free buffer zone of at least 300 feet
around the active burrow. No activities, including grading or other construction work, shall
proceed until the buffer zone is established, or a CDFG approved relocation of the birds has
been perfonned [such relocations can occur only during the non-reproductive season
(September through January)]. Regardless of the time of year when burrowing owls are
observed on the site, implementation of one of the following two mitigation measures is
required:
If preconstruction surveys confinn that burrowing owls occupy the site, then avoidance of
impacts to the habitat utilized by these owls would be considered the preferred mitigation
method.
If preconstruction surveys detennine that burrowing owls occupy the site, and avoiding
development of occupied areas is not feasible, then habitat compensation on off-site
mitigation lands shall be implemented. Off-site mitigation typically entails evicting the
affected owls from the project site and setting aside and managing specific areas for
burrowing owls. The owls may be evicted outside of the breeding season, with the
authorization of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The CDFG
typically only allows eviction of owls outside of the breeding season [only during the non-
breeding season (September 1-January 31)] by a qualified ornithologist, and generally
requires habitat compensation on off-site mitigation lands.
A single, large continuous mitigation site is preferable to several smaller, separated sites. The
mitigation site would preferably support owls nesting and be contiguous with or at least
proximal to other lands supporting burrowing owls. Haera and Borges Ranch are two sites in
the Tri-Valley region with a history of burrowing owl use and suitable conditions for occupancy.
· A final report of burrowing owls, including any protection measures, shall be submitted to the
Senior Planner, and completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development
prior to start of grading.
6.
Archaeological Resources: In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered, all
construction within a radius of 50 feet of the find shall be halted, the Director of Community
Development shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make
appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation.
Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural
materials.
· In the event that human remains and/or cultural materials are found, all project related
construction shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find in order to proceed with the testing
and mitigation measures required. Upon detennination by the County Coroner that the
remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the California Native American
3
tVr Cfl
D
Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety
Code and the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. No further disturbance of the site may be
made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs in accordance with the
provisions of State law and the Health and Safety Code. The Director of Community
Development shall also be notified immediately if human skeletal remains are found on the site
during development.
7. Short-Term Construction Noise:
. Noise generating activity shall be restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
on weekdays unless otherwise approved in writing by the Dublin Building Official for structural
construction and the City Engineer for grading activities.
. All internal combustion engine driven equipment shall be equipped with intake and exhaust
mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
-. A "disturbance coordinator" shall be designated to be responsible to any local complaints
about construction noise and/or vibration. The disturbance coordinator would detennine the
cause of the noise complaint (e.g. starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would require that
reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number
for the disturbance coordinator will be conspicuously posted at the construction site and
include it in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule. (The City shall
be responsible for designating a noise disturbance coordinator and the individual project
sponsor shall be responsible for posting the phone number and providing construction
schedule notices).
Determination:
I hereby find that the above project WILL NOT have a significant effect on the
environment.
~~~
Meliss Morton
Public Works Department
It~~
Dae
Copies of the Initial Study documenting the reasons to support the above finding are available at the City of
Dublin, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568, or by calling (925) 833-6630.
Cc: Jeri Ram, Planning Director
G:\MISCPROJIScartetl Drive-Iron Horse Trail ExtensionlEnvironmentallFinal Neg Dee.doe
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b
CITY OF DUBLIN
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
Website: http://www.cLdublin.ca.us
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING and
INTENT TO ADOPT A .MITIGA TED NEGATI'lE DECLARATION
The Dublin City Council will hold a public hearing on the following project and associated Mitigated Negative
Declaration:
PROJECT TITLE:
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Dublin is proposing to construct a public street from Dublin
Boulevard northwesterly to Dougherty Road, and relocate and enhance
the Iron Horse Trail along the old Southern Pacific Railroad Right of
Way in the City of Dublin.
This project is, in part, mitigation to the approval of development within
Eastern Dublin.
The proposed Scarlett Drive improvements will include extending
Scarlett Drive from Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard, widening the
existing Scarlett Drive roadway between Dougherty Road and Houston
Place to a four lane facility, modifying the existing signal at Dublin
Boulevard and Dougherty Road, installing a new signal at Houston
Place and Scarlett Drive primarily for pedestrian access to the Iron
Horse Trail, relocating and enhancing the Iron Horse Trail to the east
of its current alignment, constructing additional turn lanes at three
intersections, installing bicycle lanes on either side of the street, and
incorporating enhanced traffic signal priority for buses accessing the
east Dublin BART station.
PROJECT/SITE LOCATION:
Scarlett Drive, north of Dublin Boulevard and south of Dougherty Road
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project has been reviewed under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the Dublin
Environmental Guidelines. An Initial Study has been completed and
mitigation included in the Project, and it has been determined that with
the proposed mitigation the project WILL NOT have a significant effect
on the environment; therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration has
been prepared for this project.
APPLICANT:
City of Dublin; 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568
The City will accept comments on the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Mitigated Negative
Declaration during the public comment period. The public comment period begins on Friday, December 22,
2006 and ends on Monday, January 22,2007 (30 days) at 5:00 p.m. A copy of this Initial Study, Mitigated
Negative Declaration and all documents associated with it are available for review in the Public Works
Department located in City Hall, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568. If you have any questions or comments
please contact Lee Thompson, Public Works Engineer at (925) 833-6630.
Area Code (925) . City Manager 833-6650 . City Council 833-6650 . Personnel 833-6605 . Economic Development 833-6650
Finance 833-6640 . Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 . Parks & Community Services 833-6645 . Police 833-6670
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 . Building Inspection 833-6620 . Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
Printed on Recycled Paper
5lftJ I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I;
I
The City Council hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 6, 2007 in the Dublin Civic Center Council
Chambers, located at 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin. Public comment on the project as well as the Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be heard at this meeting. Any interested person may appear and be heard on this
matter.
If you challenge the above-described action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues which
you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of Dublin at, or prior to, the public hearing.
~~;;0~
Public Works Department
/2- ~k(..
Date I
Cc: Jeri Ram, Planning Director
G:\MISCPROJ\Scarlett Drive-Iron Horse Trail Extension\Environmental\Notice PH-Intent to Adopt MND-Final.doc
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. C;.) j,.. tb l fQ
INITIAL STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ........ ............. ................. ..................... ........ ........................ 3
2. PROJECT INFORMATION.......... ..................... ..................................... ......................... .......... 3
2.1 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION ........................................... ........................ ..............3'
2.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW..................................... .................................................... ................... 3
2.3 PROJECT LOCATION .......................................... ..... ................. ............................... ......~....... 3
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........... ................. ........... .......... ............... .................. ........ ............. 8
2.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVE.................... ......... ......... ...... ....................... ........ .......................... ..... 11
2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ..........................................11
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION................................... 14
3 .1 AESTHETICS......................................................... ................................................................ 14
3 .2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. ....... ........... .......... ......... ............. ............................ ........... 20
3.3 AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................... 21
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .... ........ ............ .......... ........... ...... .......... ............ ........... ............24
3 .5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ........... ...................... ........................ ........................ ........ ...........34
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........... ............ .................................................. ........ ......... ..............36
3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ................................................................... 39
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITy............................................................................ 42
3.9 LAND USE..... ........................................................................................................................ 46
3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES .................................. ............. .... ........ .............. ..............................48
3 .11 NOISE........................................... ........................................................................ .................. 49
3 .12 POPULATION AND HOUSING ....... ........ ................................... ............... ..... ........ ............. 55
3 .13 PUBLIC SERVICES.......... ........... ....... ............... .......................... ......... .......... .......................56
3 .14 RECREATION ........ ...... ........... ......... ..... ................... ............. .... ......... ............ ........ ....... ......... 58
3 .15 TRANSPORTATION............................................................................................................. 60
3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........ ......... ............ ........ ..................... ............... ....... 62
3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE................................................................. 64
4. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 66
5. CONSULTANTS...... ... ..... '" ............................ ... .... .............. ............. .............. ................... .........67
FIGURES
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
TABLES
Table 1
Table 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS, continued
PAGE
Regional Map................................................................................................................ 5
Vicinity Map. .... ... ...... ........ ............ ........... ............... ................. ........... ......... .... ...... ...... 6
Aerial Photograph ...... ................ .... ......................... ....... ....... ..... ........ .............. ... .......... 7
Site Plan............................................. ~........................................................................ 10
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Incident Reports ................................. 39
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments .................................. 50
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photos 1-8
APPENDICES
Views of the Project Site............. ......... ........ ............... .......................... ................. 15-18
Appendix A: Live Oaks Associates, Inc., Biological Constraints to Road Widening and Extension of
Scarlett Drive
Appendix B: Live Oak Associates, Inc., Rare Plant Surveys Conducted on the Scarlett Drive
Property
,",
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
....
f;
~ ~,
1. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Dublin has prepared
this Initial Study to assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed extension and
widening of Scarlett Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road. This Initial Study
consists of a completed environmental checklist and a brief discussion of the existing setting, impacts
and mitigation measures for each topic addressed in the checklist.
2. PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Title:
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Lead Agency:
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Contact Person:
Melissa Morton, Public Works Director
City of Dublin Public Works Department
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: (925) 833-6630
Project Location:
Southern Pacific railroad right-of-way, North of Dublin Boulevard, and South
of Dougherty Road
2.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of Dublin proposes to relocate and enhance the Iron Horse Trail and extend Scarlett Drive
from Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard as called for in the General Plan. It is proposed that
Scarlett Drive be a four-lane multimodal facility which would require that Scareltt Drive be widened
from Dougherty Road to Houston Place. As part of the widening, the existing Iron Horse Trail which
runs parallel to Scarlett Drive will be reconstructed and enhanced. The proposed Scarlett Drive will
require traffic signal modifications and the extension of a double box culvert along Chabot Canal.
2.3 PROJECT LOCATION
Region
The project site is located in the City of Dublin. Dublin is located in the Tri Valley region of the San
Francisco Bay Area, approximately 30 miles north of the City of San Jose, 24 miles southeast of the
City of Oakland, and approximately 15 miles east of the San Francisco Bay. Scarlett Drive is located
northeast of the Interstate 580 and Interstate 680 interchange, near the DoughertylHopyard Road exit
off Interstate 580. Located to the southwest of the proposed Scarlett Drive are various medium-to-
high density residential developments and to the east and north is the Parks Reserve Forces Training
City of Dublin 3
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive lmprovements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
D) !
Area ("Camp Parks"). A regional location map, site vicinity map, and aerial photograph of the
project site are provided on Figures 1,2, and 3, respectively.
Existing Roadway Alignment
Scarlett Drive is currently a two-lane roadway. The alignment originates at Dougherty Road and
extends southeast for approximately 0.5 miles, terminating at Houston Place with no signalized
intersection. South of Dublin Boulevard, Scarlett Drive resumes and continues south, terminating at
Scarlett Court. The Iron Horse Trail parallels the existing roadway to the east, and continues to the
southeast along the proposed Scarlett Drive extension Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) right of
way.
The existing roadway would be widened from Dougherty Road to Houston Place, while the proposed
extension would begin at Houston Place, and would be located within the old SPRR right of way
(abutted by a seasonal drainage and the Iron Horse Trail bicycle/pedestrian path). The Scarlett Drive
extension is proposed to terminate at Dublin Boulevard, a four lane road running east-west (see
discussion under 2.4 below).
Surrounding Uses
The project site is surrounded by a variety ofland uses. To the southwest of the existing roadway are
various commercial and industrial uses including: the Mayflower and Caton van and storage
companies, a proposed contact lens manufacturing facility, an automobile repair shop, a building
supply company and a mini-storage company. To the east of the Iron Horse Trail is the Parks
Reserve Forces Training Area ("Camp Parks"). Camp Parks is approximately 2,800 acres and is
bounded by multiple entities. Camp Parks is a multi-use installation hosting a variety of military and
civilian tenants. The installation provides for various uses and activities, including: fire services,
maintenance of buildings, range control, storage facilities, demolition activities, and administration
of utilities. To the west, between Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road there are various new medium-
high density residential developments.
There are two seasonal drainages and one drainage canal running adjacent to the project site. One
seasonal drainage runs along the entire eastern length of the proposed roadway widening and
extension site. The other seasonal drainage runs along the western portion of the roadway extension
site, beginning south of Houston Place. The drainage canal runs southwest from the Camp Parks
facility and meets up with both seasonal drainage just north of Dublin Boulevard.
City of Dubiin 4
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
'/
r.'"
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'\
San
Francisco
Project Location
Pacific
Ocean
Mo.r, gan_,
Hill ...
o N 10 Miles
I I
REGIONAL MAP
Db f '6
FIGURE 1
5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
JOHNSON
~ Project Area
Scale: 1" = :!: 770'
VICINITY MAP
h;h \(P ~
""".
w
~
Z
W
>
<t:
.....J
<t:
0::
<t:
~
<t:
5TH
STREET
0::
o
l-
I-
W
.....J
0::
<t:
U
COt..;, (f)
'f?r
DRIVE
~
OWENS
o
;0
<
I"T1
FIGURE 2
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1::';:' ',! /I:.i
.,/ j}') i.4l f'
_ _ Project Area
Scale: 1" = :l: 360'
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
FIGURE 3
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"'f I
I-
(b
2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project ("Project") is to extend
Scarlett Drive from Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard, widen existing Scarlett Drive between
Dougherty Road and Houston Place to a four lane facility, modify the existing signal at Dublin
Boulevard and Dougherty Road, install a new signal at Houston Place and Scarlett Drive, and
relocate and enhance the Iron Horse Trail to the east of its current alignment. Specific components to
the widening and extension of Scarlett Drive, include the following:
1) Extending Scarelett Drive approximately 2,600 feet from Houston Place to Dublin
Boulevard as a four lane facility;
2) Widening the existing Scarlett Drive roadway between Dougherty Road and Houston
Place from a two lane to a four-lane facility;
3) Relocating the existing 10 foot wide bicycle/pedestrian path (Iron Horse Trail) to the
east;
4) Enhance and improve the Iron Horse Trail with an improved structural section,
landscaping and lighting;
5) Modifying the traffic signals at the intersections of Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive and
Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive, and installing a signalized intersection at Houston Place
and Scarlett Drive;
6) Extending the existing double-box culvert on the south end of proposed roadway
extension at Dublin Boulevard; and
7) Relocation of two existing PG&E transmission poles.
1. Scarlett Drive Extension
The Scarlett Drive extension would ongmate north of Dublin Boulevard, extend 2,400 feet
(approximately 0.5 miles), and connect with the existing Scarlett Drive at Houston Place. The
proposed Scarlett Drive extension would provide a continuous roadway from south of Dublin
Boulevard to Dougherty Road.
The extension would include two northbound through lanes with left turn lanes at Houston Place and
Dougherty Road. There will be two right turn lanes at Dougherty Road. Two southbound through
lanes would extend from Houston Place, with two left turn lanes, and one shared through/right turn
lane at the intersection with Dublin Boulevard. A new signalized intersection is proposed at Houston
Place, primarily to allow safe pedestrian access to the Iron Horse Trail for the residential
neighborhoods along Houston Place.
2. Scarlett Drive Widening
The existing Scarlett Drive is currently a two lane facility (one lane in each direction) approximately
0.25 miles in length. The proposed widening of Scarlett Drive to four lanes between Dougherty
Road and Houston Place would occur in conjunction with the extension of the roadway description
above. The existing two lane roadway ranges from 35 feet - 43 feet wide from face of curb to face of
curb between Dougherty Road and Houston Place. A narrow shoulder and 5 feet wide bike lane run
along the northbound side and a 4 feet wide bike lane is provided on the southbound side of Scarlett
Drive. A sidewalk runs along the western portion of the roadway, adjacent to the Trumark
residential development. The proposed roadway alignment from Houston Place to Dougherty Road
would include two 12 foot northbound lanes, from Houston Place to approximately Kilkenny Drive.
Beginning at Kilkenny Drive, the alignment would transition into two right turn lanes, one through
lane and one left turn lane. The southbound direction would provide two 12 foot through lanes
City of Dublin 8
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive [mprovements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
extending from the Dougherty Road intersection to Houston Place. The on-street parking will remain
along the Trumark development and five-foot bike lanes will be included, one on either side of
Scarlett Drive.
3. & 4. Relocation of BicyclelPedestrian Path
The Iron Horse Trail ("Trail") is a regional bicycle and pedestrian trail extending 12.69 miles from
Pleasanton to Contra Costa County. The trail is operated and maintained by the East Bay Regional
Parks District. Extension and widening of Scarlett Drive would require relocating the Trail
approximately 20 to 30 feet east of its current alignment between Dougherty Road and Dublin
Boulevard. During construction, a portion of the Trail running through the project site will be closed
and a traffic detour will be provided. The closure and detour will be only temporary during
construction. Pedestrians and bicyclists would be able to maintain full access to all portions of the
Trail north and south of the project site.
5. Traffic Signal Modifications and Intersection Improvements
In addition to the roadway improvements described above, intersection alignment and signal
modifications will be performed. The configuration of each of the affected intersections is described
below.
I. Dougherty Road/Scarlett Drive Intersection: The southbound Dougherty Road approach will
be widened and re-striped to include two (2) left-turn lanes and two (2) through lanes, and
one (1) free right-turn lane. The northbound approach will be widened and re-striped to
include one (1) left-turn lane, two (2) through lanes and one (1) free right turn lane. The
northbound Scarlett Drive approach will have two (2) right-turn lanes and one (1) through
lane and one (1) left-turn lane. Southbound Scarlett Drive will have two (2) through lanes.
2. Dublin Boulevard/Scarlett Drive Intersection: The northbound Scarlett Drive approach will
include one two (2) through lanes. The southbound Scarlett Drive approach will include two
(2) left turn lanes, one (l) shared through and right turn lane. The westbound Dublin
Boulevard approach will include two (2) right turn lanes, three (3) through lanes and one (1)
left turn lane.
3. Houston Place/Scarlett Drive Intersection: The southbound Scarlett Drive approach would
include two (2) through lanes. The northbound Scarlett Drive approach would include two
(2) through lanes and one (1) left-turn lane. A new signal will be placed at this intersection.
6. Extension of Culvert
The existing Chabot Canal culvert under Dublin Boulevard is a box culvert with a dividing wall
down the center (see Photo 7). An 8 foot by 8 foot double-box culvert structure would be extended
approximately 170 feet to the north within the Chabot Canal to support the proposed Scarlett Drive
and Iron Horse Trail.
7. Relocation of Two PG&E Transmission Poles
Two existing PG&E owned 60KY transmission poles and power lines, located at the north and south
end of the project site, will be relocated adjacent to the current locations. The PG&E poles and wires
are within an existing easement and the new location will also be in an easement or in a public right-
of-way.
City of Dublin 9
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..S)
~
w
CY:
:)
19
1..1..
(''';'J
.<'\
.c'
n.
o
-
z
o
(/)
z
w
r-
x
w
--1
<(
CY:
r-
w
(/)
CY:
o
I
Z
o
CY:
w
>
CY:
o
r-
r-
w
--1
CY:
<(
U
(/)
o
w
(/)
o
0...
o
CY:
0...
-------------------
I
".
!;j
-i,
I
2.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVE
I
The purpose of the project is to complete a missing component of the City's roadway network to
better serve the circulation needs of the recent development in the site area. The proposed project
has been designed to improve traffic conditions, while at the same time maintaining recreational trail
access and minimizing or avoiding potentially significant environmental impacts. By providing a
continuous connection between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road, Scarlett Drive will better
serve the transportation needs of the adjacent residential, commercial, and industrial uses in the site
area. This roadway connection will relieve the over capacity intersection at Dublin Boulevard and
Dougherty Road.
I
I
I
In addition, the existing minimum structural section Iron Horse Trail will be relocated and enhanced
with a heavier structural section, landscaping and lighting.
I
2.6 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
I
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "potentially significant impact" or "less than significant with mitigation
incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
I
x
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public services
Agricultural Resources
Cultural Resources
x
X
Air Quality
Geology/Soils
I
x
X
Hydrology/Water Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Land Use/Planning
Population/Housing
Transportation/Circulation
I
Utilities/Service Systems
X
I
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I
x
I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on
the following pages have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I
I
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
I
City of Dublin II
Scarlett Drive Iron Horse Trail Extension Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
..
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATNE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is
required.
Signature: Y/:}/.vvM YrJ?!~ Date /~?&
Printed Name: rr;b./~ /7)y-~/} For C~ 1/ o/j;-~ k;;
City of Dublin 12
Scarlett Drive Iron Horse Trail Extension Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l.tJ Lf'V6 1
~f
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "no impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the
project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not
expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) Once the Lead Agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the
checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than
significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is
appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or
more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated" applies
where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the
mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level (mitigation measures from earlier analyses may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration
[Section 15063 (C)(3)(D)]. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were
within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis.
c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant With Mitigation
Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions for the project.
6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the
page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
City of Dublin 13
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'J\;} t I
~o (U)
3. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION
This section describes the existing environmental conditions on and near the proposed project site,
as well as the environmental impacts associated with the project. The environmental checklist, as
recommended in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, is used to identifY
environmental impacts that could occur if the proposed project is implemented. This section
identifies the impacts which might result from the proposed project, explains the answers to the
checklist questions, and addresses mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce or avoid
significant impacts. The right-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Where appropriate, this section
includes an explanationfor those adverse impacts determined to be less than significant.
3.1 AESTHETICS
1. Settin2
The project site is currently comprised of the existing Scarlett Drive roadway and vacant land
between Houston Place and Dublin Boulevard. A ten (10) foot wide recreational path ("Iron
Horse Trail") runs adjacent to the roadway. Two seasonal drainages are present on the
eastern and western sides of the proposed roadway. Immediately to the east of the Iron Horse
Trail is a seasonal drainage running from approximately Kerry Court to Dublin Boulevard.
Another seasonal drainage begins just south of Houston Place, to the west of the proposed
roadway extension. The seasonal drainages both intersect with the Chabot Canal
approximately 20 feet to the north of Dublin Boulevard, just beyond a culvert running under
Dublin Boulevard.
The site is surrounded by a mix of uses, including the Camp Parks military facility to the
northeast, which includes various buildings and grassland areas. Various medium density
residential developments and commercial/industrial uses are located to the west and
southwest.
Photos of the project site are shown on the following pages to provide orientation for the site
and immediate surrounding areas.
City of Dublin 14
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'f". ~ ) J
<.\.. t,
Photo 1 - View of project site and Iron Horse Trail from Dougherty Road looking southwest.
Photo 2 - View of project site and adjacent Camp Parks Facility looking north towards
Dougherty Road.
PHOTOS 1 AN D 2
15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,....! f
, '''''''
It / i) ,),,'; (
Photo 3 - View of project site, Iron Horse Trail and eastern drainage from
Houston Place looking north.
Photo 4 - View of project site and adjacent eastern drainage looking south
from north of Houston Place.
PHOTOS 3 AN D 4
16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 '''>
i',J; '(
Photo 5 - View of project site and adjacent western drainage looking south.
Photo 6 - View of western drainage and adjacent warehouse facility facing west.
PHOTOS 5 AND 6
17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
','"
If;
Photo 7 - View of Chabot Canal and Dublin Boulevard culvert facing south.
Photo 8 - View of Chabot Canal and pedestrian bridge facing north.
PHOTOS 7 AND 8
18
I
"1 f ",
I I"...,J
r,
I
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion
I
AESTHETICS
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source( s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 ~ 0 0 1,2
a scenic vista?
2) Substantially damage scenic 0 0 ~ 0 0 1,2
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state -
scenic highway?
3) Substantially degrade the existing 0 0 ~ 0 0 1,2
visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
4) Create a new source of substantial 0 0 ~ 0 0 1
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Discussion: Because of the topography and location of the site, as well as the presence of
surrounding developments, views of the site are limited to the immediate surrounding area.
The widening and extension of Scarlett Drive, and intersection and signaling improvements
would change the visual character of the site itself. Since the existing site is vacant land and
a two lane roadway, the proposed project would alter the visual character of the site setting.
However, development of the proposed roadway improvements would not substantially
change the visual character of the site area and would not impede views of the surrounding
areas. The recreational trail adjacent to Scarlett Drive would be impacted by the project. As
described in Section 2.4 Project Description, the project proposes to relocate and upgrade the
existing Iron Horse Trail approximately 20 feet to the east of its current alignment. For these
reasons, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant visual and aesthetic
impacts.
I
I
I
I
Street lighting is proposed along the western section of the Scarlett Drive extension from
Houston Place to Dublin Boulevard. The size and type of lighting installed would be
consistent with existing lighting along Scarlett Drive north of Houston Place.
I
I
Lighting would also be installed along the eastern side of Scarlett Drive illuminating both the
roadway and providing, security lighting for the Iron Horse Trail.
3. Conclusion
I
The proposed project would not result in significant visual or aesthetic impacts. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
I
I
City of Dublin 19
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
"'" \
j i
3.2
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
1. Settinf!
The site is not the subject of a Williamson Act contract. There is no property used for
agricultural purposes on or adjacent to the project site.
2. Environmental Checklist and Discussion
AGRlCUL TURAL RESOURCES
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Souree( s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project: -
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique 0 0 0 [gl 0 3
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?
2) Conflict with existing zoning for 0 0 0 [gl 0 3
agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
3) Involve other changes in the 0 0 0 [8J 0 I
existing environment which, due
to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use?
Discussion: The project would not result In impacts to agricultural resources or be
constrained by the presence of farmlands.
3. Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in any impact to agricultural land or agricultural
activities. (No Impact)
City of Dublin 20
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,{
("
\
3.3
AIR QUALITY
1. Settin2
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional agency
responsible for monitoring air quality levels throughout the nine county Bay Area "air basin."
The BAAQMD has 26 monitoring stations throughout the region with instruments detecting
and measuring ambient levels of gaseous and particulate air pollutants. These pollutants
include: ozone, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and
particulate matters (PM 1 0 and PM 2.5).
The purpose of monitoring pollutant levels is to determine if an area or region is in
conformance with the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) and the Federal Clean Air Act
(CAA) ambient air quality standards. The CCAA has more stringent ambient air standards
than the CAA. Air districts are categorized as either an "attainment" or a "nonattainment"
area according to the number and severity of exceedances of State and Federal ambient air
quality standards. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulates air districts
throughout the state and determines if they are in conformance with the State and Federal
ambient air quality standards. Conformity is determined by the attainment or nonattainment
status of a district over a specified period of time.
According to Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy Plan!, from 1999 to 2005 the Livermore
monitoring station has detected the greatest number of state and national exceedances in the
Bay Area. There have been a total of 47 ozone exceedances of the state ambient air quality
standard (0.09 parts-per-million) at the Livermore monitoring station, which is the closest
station to the project site. In addition, there have been four (4) ozone exceedances and 14
carbon monoxide exceedances of the national ambient air quality standard (0.12 ppm) at the
Livermore monitoring station. Exceedances at the Livermore monitoring site during 2003-
2005 resulted from 21 days of ozone (l hr.2) levels above the state standard.
2. Environmental Checklist and Discussion
AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Imp act
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant No Impact
Impact Souree(s)
Impact
Would the project:
1) Conflict with or obstruct 0 0 0 ~ 0 1,4
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
2) Violate any air quality standard or 0 ~ 0 0 0 4
contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality
violation?
1 Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Metropolitan
Transportation Commission. Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy: Volume L Final-Adopted. January, 2006.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/plnlplans/ozone/2005 _strategy/adoptedfmal_ vol1.pdf
2 The highest average contaminant concentration over a one-hour period (any given day).
City of Dublin 21
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
1''/ , ,
.,r', ; ,I, "','
i \,Jr')
AIR QUALITY
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Souree(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
3) Result in a cumulatively 0 0 U [?) 0 4
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is classified as non-
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality
standard including releasing
emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors? -
4) Expose sensitive receptors to 0 0 0 [?) 0 4
substantial pollutant concentrations?
5) Create objectionable odors affecting 0 0 0 ~ 0 1,4
a substantial number of people?
Discussion: The project proposes the extension and widening of Scarlett Drive and the
improvement of intersection signalization at Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive and Dublin
Boulevard and Scarlett Drive. The project would alleviate traffic congestion and idling in the
long-term, and therefore, would not impact long-term regional or local air quality.
Long-Term Impacts
Unlike a project that constructs a new land use (e.g. residential subdivision, shopping center,
etc.), this project would not generate additional vehicle trips. The project is being proposed
to accommodate existing traffic, as well as expected future traffic from planned development
in the project area.
The proposed project will improve traffic operations in the immediate vicinity of Scarlett
Drive between Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road as well as the intersections of Scarlett
Drive and Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road and Scarlett Drive. The roadway
improvement will help to relieve traffic congestion at the Dublin BoulevardlDougherty Road
intersection. This improvement in traffic operations will have an incremental secondary
benefit of lowering vehicle-related emissions in the immediate site area since
congestion/idling will be reduced. This would be a beneficial air quality impact.
Construction-Related Impacts
During the construction of the project, various activities will have the potential to generate
substantial dust (i.e. particulates). Such activities will include the removal of existing
concrete, placement of fill, and minor grading. Elevated levels of dust are considered both a
potential health hazard and a nuisance. To minimize the potential for such impacts to occur,
the project will undertake the following mitigation measures during construction:
City of Dublin 22
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"'l [1b
f
Mitigation:
3.3.1: Water all active construction areas daily.
3.3.2: Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites as
needed (to be determined by resident engineer).
3.3.3: Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets as needed
(to be determined by resident engineer).
3.3.4: Limit traffic speeds on unpaved areas to 15 mph.
3.3.5: Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
3.3.6: Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
3.3.7: Limit the area subject to excavation, grading and other construction activity at any
one time.
3. Conclusion
The proposed project would result in incrementally beneficial long-term air quality impacts.
Implementation of the above described measures would reduce short-term quality impacts
associated with the construction of the proposed project. (Less Than Significant Impact)
City of Dublin 23
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
t"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The following discussion is based on a biological resources report prepared by Live Oak Associates,
Inc. in May 2006. The purpose of the biological letter report was to identify existing biotic habitats,
assess the site for its potential to support special-status species and their habitat, and identify
potential jurisdictional habitats. The complete biological report is included as Appendix A of this
Initial Study.
1. Settin!!
Habitat Types
Two biotic habitat types were identified within the project site: ruderal grassland and
manmade seasonal drainages. These habitats are briefly described below.
Ruderal Grasslands
Ve!!etation. Ruderal grasslands dominate all of the non-hardscape areas within the project
area. The vegetation occurring onsite consists mainly of grasses and forbs of European
origin, though several native species occur as well. Native ruderal species observed
included: slender wild oats, soft chess, barnyard barley, Italian ryegrass, sour grass, scarlet
pimpernel, black mustard, red-stemmed filaree, cranesbill, prickly wild lettuce, pea,
cheeseweed burclover, California poppy, bristly ox tongue and wild radish. There is an
"island" of willows and two sapling oaks within the eastern drainage. The oaks have stems
less than three-inches in circumference.
Wildlife. Ruderal grasslands offer habitat to a variety of avian and terrestrial vertebrates.
Though the site provides only several strips of linear habitat, it provides suitable habitat for a
number of these species. Amphibian and reptile species expected here include fence lizard,
southern alligator lizard, common garter snake, and gopher snake. Bird species observed in
the habitat during the site visit included killdeer, rock dove, burrowing owl (white-wash
observed), American crow, and Brewer's blackbird. The mammals found are also limited by
the proximity of the site to disturbance and include California ground squirrel, Botta's pocket
gopher and California vole.
Manmade Seasonal Drainages
Ve!!etation. Two manmade seasonal drainages occur on-site, one to the east of the existing
road and proposed extension, the other to the west of the proposed extension. The eastern
drainage begins near the northern boundary of the site as a gentle depression and swales out
to a shallow but fairly wide (approximately eight feet wide) area exhibiting algal matting,
indicating that this portion of the drainage remains wet or moist for several months. The
wide area of the drainage supports a dense thicket of willows and two sapling oaks. The oaks
have stems less than three-inches in circumference. The drainage is deeper and narrower
(approximately four to five feet wide) to the south of the willow thicket and contained
standing water in several places during the first reconnaissance survey (April 28, 2006). The
standing pools of water were between two to six-inches deep.
The west drainage begins south of Houston Place, is narrower (approximately three to four-
feet wide) and contains much deeper standing pools of water (between six and 10-inches
deep) than the east drainage. This drainage has densely vegetated banks, which are
City of Dublin 24
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~ 661l.oB
dominated by some of the same ruderal species as in the grassland. However, other plant
species are also present in1cuding cattail, rush, and poison hemlock.
Wildlife. A variety of wildlife species typically associated with other habitats may use these
seasonal drainages as water sources for part of the year. However, these on-site seasonal
drainages are of limited value to much wildlife, due to the lack of emergent or riparian
vegetation and their intermittent nature. Avian species ,observed in the drainages include
mallard and red-winged blackbird. Other avian species expected to utilize the drainages
include the great blue heron, great egret, snowly egret, Canada goose and black phoebe
among others. The eastern drainage also supports a small population of western tree frog.
Developed
Developed areas on the project site include the existing Scarlett Drive, the Iron Horse Trail,
adjacent residential developments (i.e. Archstone and Trumark Townhomes), Camp Parks
facilities and warehouses, and adjacent commerciaVindustrial uses. Because of the disturbed
nature of the project vicinity, common and widespread species of wildlife primarily occur in
this habitat. Reptiles such as western fence lizard possibly forage along the edges of this
habitat, finding cover under nearby vegetation. The raccoon may also visit these areas.
Large mammals such as the coyote, gray fox, bobcat, and deer are not expected to occur on-
site due to its location within an urban setting.
Regulated Habitats
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction
Areas meeting the regulatory definition of "Waters of the United States" are subject to the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps, under provisions of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
(1899), has jurisdiction over "Waters of the U.S." These waters may include all waters used
or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow
of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats,
sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as
"Waters of the U.S.," tributaries of waters otherwise defined as "Waters of the U.S.," the
territorial seas, and wetlands adjacent to "Waters of the U.S." Wetlands are considered to be
Waters of the United States. Areas not considered to be jurisdictional waters include non-
tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land, artificially-irrigated areas,
artificial lakes or ponds used for irrigation or stock watering, small artificial water bodies
such as swimming pools, and water-filled depressions.
Wetlands are considered valuable for a number of reasons, including their importance as
habitat and the roles they play in various ecosystems. In urban areas, it is not uncommon to
find fragmented and degraded wetland areas that may still exhibit some characteristics of
wetlands and also reflect some habitat value. The on-site drainages have been identified as
jurisdictional wetlands under the criteria of the Corps. The western seasonal drainage and the
Chabot Canal, display wetland characteristics and are considered habitat for the western pond
turtle and the western tree frog, while the eastern drainage is considered a seasonal wetland.
City of Dublin 25
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
1-1 ,"-'\ II '.""
I II '0 i.a '6
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
A field survey may be required within the project boundaries for habitats potentially under
the regulatory jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as
described under Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600-1607 of the Fish and Game Code of
California (CDFG 1994).
Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species
Federal and state endangered species legislation gives several plant and animal species
known to occur in the vicinity of the project site special-status. In addition, state resource
agencies and professional organizations, whose lists are recognized by agencies when
reviewing environmental documents, have identified some sensitive species occurring in the
vicinity of the project site. Such species are referred to collectively as "species of special
status" and include: plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as
"threatened" or "endangered" under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals listed as "fully protected" under the
California Fish and Game Code, animals designated as "Species of Special Concern" by the
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); and plants listed as rare or endangered in
the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular
Plants of California (2001).
Special Status Plant Species
A search of relevant databases was completed to identifY special-status plant species which
may occur in the project vicinity. Most of the special status plant and animal species are
either absent or may occur rarely or occasionally on-site. Reconnaissance-level surveys were
conducted in April and May 2006 for special-status plant species and for habitats capable of
supporting these species. Although the project site does not currently contain any special
status plant species, the project site does provide marginally suitable habitat for two species,
Saline clover and Congdon's tarplant. These plants were not seen during site surveys. An
additional rare plant survey was completed in July 2006, which confirmed that these species
are absent from the site. Please refer to Appendix B for a detailed discussion of the survey
methodology and likelihood of occurrence of special-status plant species.
Special Status Animal Species
Known records of bird and mammal species reported from the project vicinity were reviewed
and reconnaissance-level field surveys for special-status animal species were conducted in
April and May 2006. Special-status species likely to occur on-site or for which the resource
agencies have expressed particular concern are described below.
Detailed discussions that include an analysis of special status animal species, their legal
status, and life histories can be found in Appendix A.
Federal or State Endangered or Threatened Species
California Tiger Salamander. California tiger salamanders (CTS) have been documented in
ponds on the northeastern portion of Camp Parks Military reserve, approximately two (2)
miles northeast of the site. The preferred habitat of the CTS is ephemeral ponds, vernal
City of Dubiin 26
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
If, "b ) ~ ~
pools, or stock-ponds that hold water for a mInImum of four months surrounded by
grasslands habitats. The seasonal drainages on-site do not provide breeding habitat, and no
adult or larval CTS have been observed. In addition, no recent records exist for this species
within the project site. Tiger salamanders appear to be extirpated from the fields and the
intermittent wetlands that appear from time to time during periods of heavy rain, and they are
not expected to migrate from the northeastern portion of the reserve lands to the project site.
California Red-Legged Frog. The California red-legged frog (CRLF) requires deep, shaded
pools for breeding. Larvae, juveniles, and adult frogs have been collected from natural
lagoons, dune ponds, pools in or next to streams, streams, marshlands, sag ponds, and
springs, as well as human-created stockponds, canals, irrigation pond. The presence of red-
legged frogs in these habitats is related to the perennial water and the lack of aquatic
predators such as largemouth bass, green sunfish, crayfish and bullfrogs.
Records in the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) cite that red-legged frogs
have been found associated with the Chabot Canal, although no recent records exist fOF
CRLF within the project site and there were no sightings during the field surveys.
California Species of Special Concern, State Protected,
or Federal Candidate Species
Western Pond Turtle. The western pond turtle (WPT) is known to breed within lands of the
Camp Parks Military Reserve, approximately two (2) miles from the site. WPT spend the
majority of their time in the water, however, they require basking areas and dry land in which
to lay their eggs. It is likely that the species utilizes the Chabot Canal for breeding and
migrating purposes. Therefore, it is possible for WPT to enter the site via the Chabot Canal.
If the species were present on the site it would be found in the western drainage, however no
WPT were observed during either survey.
Burrowing Owl. The burrowing owl is a small, terrestrial owl. Burrowing owls favor flat,
open grassland or gentle slopes and sparse shrub land ecosystems. These owls prefer annual
and perennial grasslands, typically with sparse, or nonexistent, tree or shrub canopies. In
California, burrowing owls are typically found in close association with California ground
squirrels. Ground squirrels provide nesting and refuge burrows, and maintain short
vegetation height, which provides foraging habitat and visual protection from avian
predators. The nesting season, as recognized by the California Department of Fish and
Game, extends from February I through August 31.
Burrowing owls were not observed on-site during the reconnaissance surveys, however white
wash was observed at the aprons of two ground squirrel burrows to the east of the eastern
drainage. The CNDDB indicates several observations of burrowing owl within three miles of
the site. Because ground squirrel burrows were observed and because white wash was
observed in the vicinity of the project site; burrowing owls are considered present on-site.
City of Dublin 27
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
,
r ! I
'0'
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
1) Have a substantial adverse effect, 0 IZl D 0 0 1,2
either directly or through habitat 5
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
2) Have a substantial adverse effect on 0 0 D IZl 0 1,5
any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
3) Have a substantial adverse effect 0 IZl D 0 0 1,5
on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means? 0 0
4) Interfere substantially with the 0 D IZl 1,5
movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites? IZl 0
5) Conflict with any local policies or 0 0 D 1,2
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance? 0
6) Conflict with the provisions of an 0 D D IZl 1
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
City of Dublin 28
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WDt i
Discussion: As described in Section 2.4 Project Description, the project proposes to expand
and extend the existing Scarlett Drive roadway from Dougherty Road to Dublin Boulevard.
The roadway improvements have been designed to avoid and minimize impacts to regulated
biotic resources to the maximum practical extent. However, the roadway will be widened to
the northeast and west in the eastern and western seasonal drainages, and the box culvert will
be extended to the northeast within the Chabot Canal. Thus, the roadway widening/extension
and the box culvert extension will impact the potential western pond turtle and California
red-legged frog habitats. '
'(,
Habitats
Loss of Habitat
Other special status species that could occur on-site do so incidentally to home range and
migratory movements. Therefore, site development would deprive various raptor species of a
small amount of marginal foraging habitat. Such habitat is still regionally abundant, and the
loss of such habitat on site would not be regionally significant. (Less Than Significant
Impact)
Regulated Habitat
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps)
No riparian habitat is present on the project site. As stated previously, a total of
approximately two (2) acres of potentially jurisdictional, seasonal aquatic habitat is believed
to be present on-site. The roadway widening and extension of Scarlett Drive and the
associated grading would impact 1.6 acres of seasonal aquatic habitat to the east and west of
the existing Scarlett Drive. In addition, the culvert extension and associated fill at the future
intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard would temporarily impact approximately
0.5 acres of the Chabot Canal. The total proposed amount of fill for both of the seasonal
drainages and the Chabot Canal would be approximately 4,527 CY or 2.8 acres (assuming
2:1 slope to conform to Camp Parks). This area would be filled and either covered with
pavement (permanent impact) or a box culvert extension (temporary impact).
Impact: The project would result in fill of jurisdictional wetlands within the two
drainages east and west of the proposed roadway and within the Chabot
Canal.
Mitigation: The mitigation measures described below would reduce impacts to the
wetland habitat to a less than significant level. The project applicant would
incorporate measure 3.4.1 and either measures 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 or measure
3.4.4 into the project.
3.4.1 A wetland delineation would be conducted and submitted to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) for verification of jurisdictional wetlands on-site.
3.4.2 As mitigation for the permanent loss of wetlands, impacted seasonal aquatic
habitat would be replaced, either in conjunction with mitigation for proposed
wetland impacts associated with the Scarlett Drive roadway project or at an
approved local mitigation bank or adjacent property. Impacted wetlands
would be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (replaced:impacted). To
City of Dublin 29
Iron Horse TraiVScarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
mitigate impacts to wetlands, approximately four (4) acres of wetlands would
be created. A detailed wetland restoration plan would be prepared in
consultation with a qualified restoration biologist. Such as plan would
provide the following:
3.4.2.1 Replacement oflost wetland habitat.
3.4.2.2 Location of on-site restoration opportunities, complete with an
analysis of the technical approach to create high quality wetlands.
3.4.2.3 Prior to construction, the project applicant shall apply for and obtain a
Section 404 permit from the Corps and Section 401 certification from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project proponent
would comply with the conditions of these regulatory documents.
3.4.3 In addition to the conditions contained in the regulatory documents, the
project proponent would comply with the following additional
recommendations:
3.4.3.1
A detailed plan would be created for wetland construction that
includes excavation elevations, location of hydrologic
connections and soil amendments, is necessary.
3.4.3.2
Planting, maintenance and monitoring plans would be
prepared in consultation with a qualified habitat restoration
specialist.
3.4.3.3
Constructed wetlands shall be monitored for a period of five
(5) years and the site shall achieve 80 percent cover by native
marsh plant species by Year 5. Specific performance criteria
will be determined and monitored for site success.
3.4.4 Alternatively to measures 3.4.2 and 3.4.3, the replacement of lost habitat
functions and values of the seasonal aquatic habitat can be achieved through
participation in a nearby mitigation bank. The appropriate acreage and
location would be set in consultation with state and federal resource agencies.
Special-Status Plant and Animal Species
Special-Status Plant Species
The site provides marginally suitable habitat for two special status plant speCIes, Saline
clover and Congdon's tarplant.
Impact:
Although the project site does not contain any special status plant species, the
project site provides marginally suitable habitat for two species: saline clover
and Congdon's tarplant. Therefore, there is potential for these special status
species to occur on site.
City of Dublin 30
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"'"
l62
Mitigation: To ensure that the proposed project would not significantly impact the two
plant species, the following mitigation measure would be incorporated into
the proposed project.
3.4.5 Conduct presence/absence surveys during their blooming seasons: April to
June for the Saline Clover, and May to October for Congdon's tarplant.
Presence of either of these species is not expected to greatly constrain the
proposed project.
3.4.6 If found, prior to site disturbance, the seeds from the species would be
collected and sown among populations that exist in the region, such as
Springtown Alkali Sink Preserve in Livermore.
Special-Status Animal Species
California Ti!!er Salamander. Extensive surveys have been conducted for this species on-
site and no tiger salamanders were observed. The seasonal drainages do not provide breeding
habitat for CTS and the project site is not within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
designated critical habitat for the CTS. Due to the lack of breeding habitat on-site and no
known breeding ponds within the site vicinity, the project would not impact CTS. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
California Red-Le!!!!ed Fro!!. No California red-legged frogs were observed and breeding
habitat does not exist on the project site for red-legged frogs. Therefore, the project is not
anticipated to impact this species. (Less Than Significant Impact)
Western Pond Turtle. Although no WPT were observed during the field surveys
conducted, a portion of the project site was identified as potential habitat for the WPT. If the
species were present on-site, it would be found in the seasonal drainage west of the roadway.
As described above, while the roadway will generally be widened to the northeast, the
western drainage will be graded and filled.3 Development of the site could adversely affect
WPT, in the event individuals are present during grading and filling in the west drainage and
on its banks. For this reason, the project could impact individual WPT, which may be
present at the site.
Impact: The project could result in impacts and "take" of individual WPT in the event
individuals are present in the western drainage during project grading and
construction activities.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
impacts to WPT to a less than significant level. (Less Than Significant
Impact)
3.4.7 Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 48 hours prior to
grading and/or fill of the western drainage. If no WPT are found, then no
further mitigation is required. If WPT are found, then measures 3.4.8 and
3.4.9 shall be implemented.
3 Nguyen, Dat. BKF Engineering. Personal Communication. June 15,2006,
City of Dublin 31
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
3.4.8 IfWPT are found on-site during preconstruction surveys, a qualified biologist
in consultation with CDFG would establish a construction-free buffer zone
and relocate individual WPT.
3.4.9 Replacement habitat shall be provided for WPT at a nearby mitigation bank,
to the satisfaction of CDFG.
Burrowin1! Owl. Burrowing owls were not observed during the reconnaissance surveys,
however white wash was observed at the aprons of two ground squirrel burrows to the east of
the eastern drainage. The CNDDB indicates several observations of burrowing owl within
three miles of the site. Ground squirrel burrows were observed in the vicinity of the project
site. For these reasons, burrowing owls are considered present on-site.
Impact: Although burrowing owls were not observed on the project site, remnants of
their presence were observed at the aprons of two ground squirrel burrows.
Due to the likely presence of burrowing owls on-site, there is a potential for
the project to impact individual burrowing owls.
Mitigation: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
impacts to burrowing owls to a less than significant level. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
3.4.10 Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted, per California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG) guidelines, no more than 30 days prior to the start of
site grading, regardless of the time of year in which grading occurs. If no
burrowing owls are found, then no further mitigation is warranted.
3.4.11 If owls are located on or immediately adjacent to the site, a qualified
burrowing owl biologist in consultation with CDFG would establish a
construction-free buffer zone of at least 300 feet around the active burrow.
No activities, including grading or other construction work, shall proceed
until the buffer zone is established, or a CDFG approved relocation of the
birds has been performed [such relocations can occur only during the non-
reproductive season (September through January)]. Regardless of the time of
year when burrowing owls are observed on the site, implementation of one of
the following two mitigation measures is required:
3.4.11.1
If preconstruction surveys confirm that burrowing owls
occupy the site, then avoidance of impacts to the habitat
utilized by these owls would be considered the preferred
mitigation method.
3.4.11.2
If preconstruction surveys determine that burrowing owls
occupy the site, and avoiding development of occupied areas
is not feasible, then habitat compensation on off-site
mitigation lands shall be implemented. Off-site mitigation
typically entails evicting the affected owls from the project
site and setting aside and managing specific areas for
burrowing owls. The owls may be evicted outside of the
breeding season, with the authorization of the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The CDFG typically
City of Dublin 32
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cl ~Lib l ~t\
only allows eviction of owls outside of the breeding season
[only during the non-breeding season (September I-January
31)] by a qualified ornithologist, and generally requires
habitat compensation on off-site mitigation lands.
A single, large contiguous mitigation site is preferable to
several smaller, separated sites. The mitigation site would
preferably support owl nesting and be contiguous with or at
least proximal to other lands supporting burrowing owls.
Haera and Borges Ranch are two sites in the Tri- Valley region
with a history of burrowing owl use and suitable conditions
for occupancy.
3.4.12 A final report of burrowing owls, including any protection measures, shall be
submitted to the Senior Planner, and completed to the satisfaction of the
Director of Community Development prior to start of grading.
3. Conclusion
Implementation of the above mitigation measures, which are included as part of the project,
will reduce impacts to biological resources to a less than significant level. (Less Than
Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
City of Dublin 33
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
it
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
1.
Settine
Archaeological Resources
Based on a review of archeological, paleontological and historical literature resources
conducted for surrounding areas, records show no inventory of known archeological
resources.4. In addition, there are no structures or buildings of historical significance in the
immediate vicinity of the project area. According to recent surveys, State and federal
inventories list no historic resources on the site and no records exist of previous archeological
finds for the surrounding area.
Based on City of Dublin's archaeological resources review for an adjacent site, the project
site is not located in an area of archeological sensitivity5. The project site does not contain
undisturbed soils since the surrounding uses have been developed with urban uses. The
likeliness of the project encountering buried archeological resources of significance is low.
Historic Resources
No city, state and/or federal listed or potentially eligible historically or architecturally
significant structures, buildings, landmarks or points of interest are located in or adjacent to
the project.
2. Environmental Checklist and Discussion
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Souree(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
0 0 0 [8J D 1
1) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an historical
resource as defined in S 15064.5?
2) Cause a substantial adverse change 0 .0 [8J 0 D 1
in the significance of an
archaeological resource as defined in
S 15064.5?
3) Directly or indirectly destroy a D D [8J 0 D 1
unique paleontological resource or
site, or unique geologic feature?
4) Disturb any human remains, 0 0 [8J 0 0 I
including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
4 Initial Study/Negative Declaration. Park Sierra Apartment Proiect General Plan AmendmentlRezoninglSite
Development Plan. October 1997.
5 Initial Study & Mitigated Negative Declaration. Dublin BoulevardJDoughertv Road Intersection Improvement
Proiect. April 8, 2004.
City of Dublin 34
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Discussion: There are no listed, determined or pending local, State of California, or
California Register of Historic Resources historic properties located in or adjacent to the
proposed project. Therefore, the project would not impact any historical resources.
Impact: While there are no known archaeological resources in the site area, there is a
potential for significant cultural materials to be encountered during construction or pile
driving activities.
Mitigation: The following standard mitigation measures are included as part of the project
to ensure that the project will not result in significant impacts to unanticipated cultural
resources:
3.5.1 In the event any significant cultural materials are encountered, all
construction within a radius of 50 feet of the find shall be halted, the Director
of Community Development shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist
shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the
significance of the find and the appropriate mitigation. Recommendations
could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural
materials.
3.5.2 In the event that human remains and/or cultural materials are found, all
project related construction shall cease within a 50-foot radius of the find in
order to proceed with the testing and mitigation measures required. Upon
determination by the County Coroner that the remains are Native American,
the coroner shall contact the California Native American Heritage
Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 7050.5 of the Health and
Safety Code and the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. No further
disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County
Coordinator of Indian Affairs in accordance with the provisions of State law
and the Health and Safety Code. The Director of Community Development
shall also be notified immediately if human skeletal remains are found on the
site during development.
3. Conclusion
With inclusion of the above standard mitigation measures, the development of the proposed
project would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources. (No Impact)
City of Dublin 35
Iron Horse TraiVScarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
(:,'i~
l~~
L/
.,}
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The following discussion of the geologic features, soils, and seismic conditions of the project site is
based on a geotechnical investigation prepared by Terra Search (August 1995) and Lowney
Associates (May 1997) for the Park Sierra Apartment Project Initial StudylNegative Declaration
(October, 1997). The geotechnical report analyzed how the existing geologic conditions of the
surrounding area for the site could potentially affect future development and operation of the site.
1. Settinl!
So its
Soils within the immediate vicinity of the project site are composed of medium dense clayey
sands and sandy gravels to a depth of approximately five feet below the existing grade. Stiff
to hard silty clays underlie the site from a depth of 5-12 feet. The soils on-site could exhibit a
high potential for expansion. Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture
changes. These changes can cause heaving and cracking of slabs-on-grade, pavements, and
structures founded on shallow foundations.
Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone. The project site is, however, located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay
Area. It is classified as Zone 4, the most seismically active zone in the United States. The
closest faults which could impact the project site are the Calaveras Fault, which is located 1.4
miles to the west-southwest and the Pleasanton Fault, approximately 0.25 miles to the
northwest. Two other major active faults in the area are the Hayward Fault and the San
Andreas Fault. The U.S. Geological Survey and the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) predict there is an approximately 70 percent probability that one or more major
earthquakes will occur in the San Francisco Bay region within the next 30 years.
Liquefaction is the result of seismic activity and is characterized as the transformation of
loose, water-saturated soils from a solid state to a liquid state after ground shaking. There are
many variables that contribute to liquefaction, including the age of the soil, soil type, soil
cohesion, soil density, and ground water level. According to an investigation of adjacent
soils to the site, the risk of liquefaction is low.
Seasonal drainages are located along the eastern and western portions of the site. Relocation
of the eastern drainage to accommodate the widening and extension of Scarlet Drive would
require grading and fill activities. Including appropriate measures to limit water-home
erosion would mitigate impacts.
City of Dublin 36
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.
Environmental Checklist and. Discussion
I
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
I
I
Would the project:
1) Expose people or structures to
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
a) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as described on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
(Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.)
b) Strong seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
d) Landslides?
I
I
I
I
I
I
2) Result in substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
3) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result ofthe
project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
4) Be located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
5) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Dublin 37
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
, \ I. c"
h'4"l~
Less Than Beneficia] Information
Significant No Impact Impact Souree(s)
Impact
o
o
o
o
o
[8J
[8J
o
o
o
o
o
[8J
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
[8J
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
[8J
o
6
1,6
1,6
1,6
1,6
6
6
Initial Study
December 2006
.. I
1:' ).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Soils
The project site includes moderately expansive soils, which may expand and contract as a
result of seasonal or man-made soil moisture conditions. Damage resulting from expansive
.soil conditions can be avoided by incorporating appropriate standard engineering practices
into the foundation design, as discussed in the geotechnical analysis. Implementation will
prevent substantial erosion and siltation during construction of the roadway.
Seismicity and Seismic Hazards
It is likely that the site and the proposed bridge facility will be subject to a moderate to major
earthquake after project construction. During such an earthquake, the potential for fault
offset through the site is low, however, strong shaking could occur at the site. The roadway
structure will be designed and constructed in a conformance with Uniform Building Code
Guidelines to avoid or minimize any potential damage from seismic shaking on the site.
Therefore, the project would not be subject to significant seismic or liquefaction hazards.
3. Conclusion
The project would not be exposed to significant geologic or soil hazards that could not be
mitigated by the use of standard engineering design and seismic safety techniques. (Less
Than Significant Impact)
City of Dublin 38
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
.-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.7
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATEIDALS
1. Settin2
Hazardous materials are commonly used by large institutions, commercial and industrial
businesses. Hazardous materials include a broad range of common substances such as motor
oil and fuel, pesticides, detergents, paint, and solvents. A substance may be considered
hazardous if, due to its chemical and/or physical properties, it poses a substantial hazard
when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or released into the
atmosphere in the event of an accident.
There is an existing petroleum pipeline (owned by Santa Fe Railway) running underground
between the Iron Horse Trail and eastern seasonal drainage, north of Houston Place and south
of Dougherty Road. This petroleum line is approximately lO-inches in diameter and runs
generally along and parallel to the northeasterly proposed right of way for the Iron Horse
Trail and Scarlett Drive Extension.
A hazardous materials data base search was conducted to indicate the likelihood of
encountering contamination from hazardous materials on property from which right-of-way
may be required during construction.6 The data base search yielded numerous sites within a
0.25 and I-mile radius of the Houston Place/Scarlett Drive intersection where hazardous
materials are generated, used, or stored and/or where some type of
spill/leakage/contamination has occurred. For most locations where soil or groundwater
contamination has been found, the source of the contamination was leaking storage tanks. In
virtually all of these cases the storage tank has been evaluated and the remediation process
has occurred, is ongoing, or is complete.
The sites adjacent to the project area where hazardous materials are known to be used or
stored, and/or where contamination has been reported are listed below in Table I. None of
the sites listed are within the project area or construction right-of-way.
Table l-Leakin2 Under2round Stora2e Tank (LUST) Summary
6253 Dougherty Road Case closed
6310 Houston Place Leak being confirmed
5965 Dougherty Road Case closed
Suspension of work letter
SSW BP 1/4-112 6400 Dublin Boulevard from Cleanup Fund
Preliminary site assessment
SSW Unoeal 114-1/2 6401 Dublin Boulevard underway
SSW Dublin Toyota Pontiac 1/4-112 6450 Dublin Boulevard Leak being confirmed
Preliminary site assessment
S Dublin Rock & Ready Mix 1/4-1/2 6393 Scarlett Court underway
SSE Charles Lemoane Property 1/4-112 6085 Scarlett Court Case closed
SSE Scotsman Group 114-1/2 6055 Scarlett Court Case closed
SSE Valley Nissan Volvo 114-1/2 6015 Scarlett Court Case closed
Note: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Incident Reports contain an inventory of reported leaking underground
storage tank incidents within a )I, mile of the project area.7
6 Environmental Data Resources, Inc. "Hazardous Materials Data Base Search for Houston Place/Scarlett Drive,"
April 2006.
7 Data originates from the State Water Resources Control Board Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information
System.
City of Dublin 39
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
ImP!iCt Mitigatiol\ Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
1) Create a significant hazard to the 0 0 C8J 0 0 1
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
2) Create a significant hazard to the 0 0 C8J 0 0 1
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
3) Emit hazardous emissions or 0 0 0 ~ 0 1
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school? ~ 0 0
4) Be located on a site which is 0 0 1
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment? ~ 0
5) For a project located within an 0 0 0 1
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles ofa public
airport or pUblic use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in
the project area? C8J 0
6) For a project within the vicinity of 0 0 0 I
a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project
area?
7) Impair implementation of, or 0 0 0 ~ 0 1
physically interfere with, an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
City of Dublin 40
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I,
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
>'.
I
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
Impact
I
I
Would the project:
8) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
o
o
o
f8l
o
I
Discussion: The project area is located within in an existing residential/commercial area,
and does not contain known releases of significant soil or ground water contamination.
While construction of the roadway extension and widening will require excavation, however,
it is unlikely that project construction will result in significant hazardous materials impacts
due to expose, upset or release of soil and ground water contamination.
I
I
In the unlikely event that hazardous materials are encountered during construction, the
following standard mitigation measures will be implemented as a part of the project.
1. If contamination is found, remediation/cleanup shall occur prior to the property being
acquired by the City. Remediation shall be overseen by one or more governmental
agencies, dependent upon the nature and extent of contamination.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2. If groundwater contamination has extended into the existing right-of-way, the City
will undertake an investigation to confirm contaminant concentrations. The results
and recommendations of the investigation shall be provided to the contractor so that
measures can be implemented (if appropriate) to ensure worker safety and proper
material handling.
As described in the setting section above, there is an existing 10-inch petroleum line along
the old Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. The below grade location of the petroleum
line will be avoided and not be disturbed as a result of grading and digging associated with
the project. Therefore, there is no potential for this line to be ruptured or damaged during
grading and construction activities.
Other Hazards
The project site is an existing roadway and vacant land. No one would live or work on the
site, with the exception of temporary construction workers. Therefore, the proposed roadway
extension and widening would not result in safety hazards associated with the Livermore
Municipal Airport. The proposed project would not affect the risk of wildland fires.
3. Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in significant hazardous materials impacts, as
described above. (Less Than Significant Impact)
City of Dublin 41
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
~.
3.8
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
1. Settin2
Drainage and Flooding
The Alameda Creek Watershed is comprised of five incorporated cities including Livermore,
Pleasanton, Dublin and the southeastern portions of San Ramon and Danville. Various
tributaries (i.e. natural and channelized streams) drain to canals and creeks throughout the
Livermore-Amador Valley.
Within the site area, there are two seasonal storm drainages which drain to the Chabot Canal.
One seasonal drainage is immediately to the east abutting the proposed alignment of the
Scarlett Drive extension, both north and south of Houston Place. The second seasonal
drainage is located to the west of the proposed extension site, south of Houston Place.
Drainage facilities throughout Dublin are required for storm water runoff. The drainages
adjacent to the project site offer storm water runoff drainage and detention for the
surrounding developments and roadways.
The Chabot Canal intersects the southern portion of the drainages just north of Dublin
Boulevard. The Canal enters the project area from the northeast. Chabot Canal is a grass
lined, trapezoidal channel conveying runoff from four square miles north of 1-580 south to
Arroyo Mocho. Chabot Canal drains into the lower portion of Arroyo Mocho watershed just
upstream of Hopyard Road. A double box culvert diverts the Canal under Dublin Boulevard
at the project site. The culvert will be extended approximately 170 feet under the proposed
roadway extension.
The Alamo Creek is the closest natural waterway from the project site. It is located
approximately 0.5 miles west of the project area. The Alamo Creek also has various
tributaries leading into it.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM)8, the Chabot Canal has a Base Flood Elevation Line of between 331-334 feet
within the project area.9 The Canal falls under Zone AE according to the FIRM10 and is
within a special flood hazard area inundated by the lOa-year flood.!l The remaining portion
of the project area is located in a Zone X.12 The existing Scarlett Drive roadway is located
outside of the laO-year flood plain while the proposed roadway extension portion of the site
is within the lOa-year flood plain boundary.
8 Source: FederalInsurance Rate Map for the City of Dublin, Federal Emergency Management Agency, September
1997. Community-Panel Number 060705-0001 B.
9 Referenced to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929.
10 Zone AE = Base flood elevations determined.
11 The 100-year flood, also referred to as the one-percent flood, has a one percent statistical probability of occurring
in any year, or an average return period of 100 years. The occurrence of a 100-year flood does not change the
probability ofa 100-year flood occurring in succeeding years. The 100-year flood is the standard design level of
protection set by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which is responsible for administration of
the National Flood Insurance Program.
12 Areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year flood with average depths ofless than one (l) foot or with drainage
areas less than one (1) square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood.
City of Dublin 42
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'1 L{ 6]( l,'
I
I
Water Quality
I
I
The water quality of streams, creeks, ponds, and other surface water bodies can be greatly affected by
pollution carried in contaminated surface runoff. Pollutants from unidentified sources, known as
"non-point" source pollutants, are washed from streets, construction sites, parking lots, and other
exposed surfaces into storm drains. Stormwater runoff often contains contaminants such as oil and
grease, plant and animal debris (e.g., leaves, dust, animal feces, etc.), pesticides, litter, and heavy
metals. In sufficient concentration, these pollutants have been found to adversely affect the aquatic
habitats to which they drain.
I
The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program was developed to reduce stormwater pollution. The
Program is a consortium of local agencies in Alameda County including: Alameda County
(unincorporated area), Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7, and
the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore,
Newark, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, Union City and San Leandro.
I
I
The program is part of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued
to the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG). The Federal Clean Water Act and the
California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act require that large urban areas discharging
stormwater into the San Francisco Bay or the Pacific Ocean have an NPDES storm water discharge
permit. All nine Bay Area counties have obtained these permits.
I
I
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion
I
I
I
I
I
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Souree(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
1) Violate any water quality standards 0 0 ~ 0 0 1,2
or waste discharge requirements?
2) Substantially deplete groundwater 0 0 0 ~ 0 1,2
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that
there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
3) Substantially alter the existing 0 0 ~ 0 0 I
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on-
or off-site?
I
I
I
I
City of Dublin 43
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
tfo I
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
4) Substantially alter the existing 0 0 [8J 0 0 1
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on-or off-site?
5) Create or contribute runoff water 0 0 [8J 0 0 1,2
which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
6) Otherwise substantially degrade 0 0 [8J 0 0 1
water quality?
7) Place housing within a 100-year 0 0 0 [8J 0 1,8
flood hazard area as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
8) Place within a 100-year flood 0 0 0 0 [8J 1,2
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood
flows?
9) Expose people or structures to a 0 0 0 0 [8J 1,2
significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
10) Be subject to inundation by seiche, 0 0 [8J 0 0 1,2
tsunami, or mudflow?
Discussion:
Drainage and Flooding
As described in Section 2.1, the project proposes: 1) to extend and widen the existing Scarlett
Drive roadway in order to provide a continuous roadway between Dublin Boulevard and
Dougherty Road; 2) to modify intersection signalization; and 3) to relocate and improve the
Iron Horse Trail. A seasonal drainage is located east of the entire length of the current and
future Scarlett Drive roadway alignment, and another seasonal drainage is located west of the
proposed roadway extension site. The extension and widening of Scarlett Drive would
encroach into the eastern seasonal drainage located between the Iron Horse Trail and the
existing Scarlett Drive roadway both north and south of Houston Place (refer to Figure 4).
The project would, therefore, result in temporary impacts to the drainage along the northeast
side of the roadway. This facility would be reconstructed further (approximately 20 feet) to
City of Dubiin 44
Iron Horse TraiUScarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
. 'I !'~.
,j. i(pr
the east. With reconstruction of the eastern drainage, impacts to the site area drainage would
be temporary and would not be significant.
I
The extension and widening of Scarlett Drive would also encroach onto the western seasonal
drainage located to the south of Houston Place adjacent to the western property line. The
project proposes to fill and pave over the seasonal drainage, therefore creating a permanent
impact to the western drainage of the site.
I
I
The proposed roadway expansion and widening project will slightly increase the amount of
impervious surfaces, thus resulting in an incremental increase in runoff rate and volume.
Given the small size of the project site, this increase will be minimal. Mitigation can reduce
the impacts of new development on increasing runoff rates to flood control drainages. The
project proposes to adhere to and incorporate the mitigation/BMPs outlined in the Zone 7
Flood Control Master Plan for increases in peak flows. Therefore, the project would not
result in significant impacts upon hydrology and flooding conditions.
I
I
I
Water Quality
Project construction activities could result in a disturbance to the seasonal drainages, canal
and underlying soils, thereby increasing the potential for sedimentation and erosion and
affecting water quality.
I
I
Construction activities related to the proposed project would generate dust, sediment, litter,
oil, and other pollutants that would contaminate runoff from the site. The proposed project
will incorporate the following avoidance measure to reduce water quality impacts:
The BMPs include, but are not limited to the following:
I
. Installation of an environmentally sensitive area (ESA) fence that will consist
of orange, plastic mesh construction fencing and will serve as a visual
demarcation of construction limits for the construction crew and equipment.
I
I
I
. Erosion control seeding with native grass and forb species.
. No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, cement, concrete, washings,
petroleum products or other organic or earthen material will be allowed to
enter into, or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into,
waters of the U.S./State. Poured concrete shall be completely dried before it
comes into contact with surface waters.
I
3.
Conclusion
I
I
Development of the proposed project, with incorporation of the avoidance measure described
above, would not result in significant drainage or water quality impacts. (Less Than
Significant Impact)
I
I
City of Dublin 45
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
~)\
3.9
LAND USE
1. Settin2
The project site is comprised of the existing Scarlett Drive roadway, which originates at
Dougherty Road and terminates at Houston Place, and the vacant land between Houston
Place and Dublin Boulevard. The existing roadway consists of a two lane roadway, a
signalized intersection at Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard. The vacant land will be the
future site of the Scarlett Drive extension. The site is an existing and designated roadway
corridor in the City's General Plan.
Scarlett Drive is bordered by medium-high density residential developments to the west, the
Iron Horse Trail, Southern Pacific Railway right-of-way and Camp Parks Reserve Forces
Training Area to the east, various commercial and manufacturing uses to the southwest, and
Dublin Boulevard and 1-580 to the south (refer to Figures 1-3).
The Iron Horse Trail is an existing public pedestrianlbicycle path located adjacent to the
existing roadway and vacant land. The trail is paved with asphalt concrete and is
approximately 10 feet wide. The roadway extension and widening will require the trail to be
relocated to the east of its current alignment (see discussion below).
Existing traffic trips to and from the surrounding residential areas currently access Dublin
Boulevard via Dougherty Road. The roadway extension and widening will complete a
missing component of the City's transportation network and will help alleviate congestion
and provide an alternative route to Dublin Boulevard.
2. Environmental Checklist and Discussion
LAND USE
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Infonnation
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source( s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incomorated
Would the project:
1) Physically divide an established 0 0 0 ~ 0 1
community?
2) Conflict with any applicable land 0 0 0 ~ 0 1,2,
use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan, local
coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
3) Conflict with any applicable habitat 0 0 0 ~ 0 1
conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
Discussion: The project does not propose a new land use. The project proposes the
extension and widening of the existing Scarlett Drive roadway, improvement of intersection
City of Dubiin 46
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
bi~1 '
signals and the relocation of the existing Iron Horse Trail. The widening would occur within'
the Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) right-of-way and the existing Iron Horse Trail
alignment. The extension would be on designated vacant land. The project would require
the acquisition of right-of-way from Alameda County, the developers of the adjacent
residential development and Camp Parks. However, this acquisition of right-of-way would
not divide or disrupt an established community. The project includes measures to avoid
impacts to sensitive species and habitat areas and would not conflict with any adopted habitat
or other conservation plans (refer to Section 2.4 Project Description and Section 3.4
Biological Resources). For these reasons, the project would not result in significant land use
impacts.
3. Conclusion
The project does not propose a new land use. The project proposes to widen and extend the
existing roadway, relocate the Iron Horse Trail and improve intersection signalization. The
proposed project is consistent with applicable land use plans and policies and would not
result in significant land use impacts. (No Impact)
City of Dublin 47
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
., *
It,
3.10
MINERAL RESOURCES
1. Settin2
The project area is located between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, and is within a
developed urban area. No known deposits of minerals exist within the project area.
2. Environmental Checklist and Discussion
MINERAL RESOURCES
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source( s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
1) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 ~ 0 2
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
2) Result in the loss of availability of a 0 0 0 ~ 0 2
locally-important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other
land use plan?
Discussion: The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource. No mineral resource recovery sites are located or designated within the proposed
site.
3. Conclusion
The project would not result in a significant impact from the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource. (No Impact)
City of Dublin 48
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.11 NOISE
l DO vb t
1. Settin2
Background Information
Noise is an issue which influences quality of life and can influence lifestyle and health.
Noise sensitivity thresholds are determined by the type of active land uses within an area. A
decibel is the measurement of sound, ranging from 0 dB, which is the first detection of sound
by the human ear, to 140 dB, the threshold of pain. To offer context for the varying levels of
sound, a 3 dB change in noise is nearly undetectable by the human ear and a 10 dB increase
is perceived as a doubling of loudness.
Sound levels are also adjusted or weighted because the human ear cannot detect all
frequencies of sound. The unit used for adjusted sound is known as the "A-weighted"
decibel or dBA. In addition to decibel and dBA measurements, there is a weighing system to
account for human sensitivity to night-time noise called the Day-Night sound level, or
LDN13, as well as a measurement for outdoor activities called the Equivalent Sound Level
(Leq)14. There are specific moments when noise levels are higher (e.g. air traffic, lawn
mower use) or lower (e.g. during lulls in traffic or nighttime), but overall each descriptor of
sound offers a way for a location's noise exposure to be measured.
Due to the outdoor nature of this project, noise references will be in dB and Leq units.
According to the City of Dublin's General Plan Noise Element, the area adjacent to the
project site is categorized as a residential community noise environment. This land use
designation provides for noise level standards of 60 decibels (dB) or less as normally
acceptable.
Applicable Noise Standards and Policies
The City of Dublin's General Plan and municipal codes are used in this noise assessment.
The State of California and the City of Dublin have each established regulations, plans, and
policies which are designed to limit noise exposure at noise sensitive land uses. These
include: 1) the Dublin Noise Element of the 2002 General Plan, 2) the Dublin Municipal
Code: Noise Regulations, and 3) the State CEQA Guidelines.
13 Ldn stands for Day-Night Level and is a 24-hour average of noise levels, with a 10 dB penalty applied to noise
occurring between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM.
14 Leq stands for the Noise Equivalent Level and is a measurement of the average energy level intensity of noise
over a given period oftime such as the noisiest hour.
City of Dublin 49
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
City of Dublin General Plan
The Noise Element of the City of Dublin's General Plan sets forth goals and policies in
support of minimizing impacts to noise levels throughout the City.
The following General Plan Guiding Policy is applicable in this noise assessment:
Policy 1: Guiding Policy
A. Where feasible, mitigate traffic noise to the levels indicated by the Land Use
Compatibility for Community Noise Environments (see Table 2).15
Table 2: Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments
Community Noise Exposure (dB)
Residential
Motels, hotels
(60 rooms ot
less)
Schools,
churches, nursing
homes (60 rooms
or less)
Neighborhood
arks
60-70
70-80
Over 80
60-70
70-80
Over 80
60-65
65-70 Over 70
60 or less
Offices: Retail
commercial 70 or less 70-75 75-80 Over 80
Industrial 70 or less 70-75 Over 75
* Conditionally acceptable exposure requires noise insulation features in building deisgn. Conventional
construction, but with closed windows and fresh air su I systems or air conditionin will normally suffice.
Source: California Office of Noise Control, 1976, as modified b Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc.
Dublin Municipal Code: Noise Re2ulations
Chapter 5.28 of the Dublin Municipal Code establishes guidelines for permissible nOIse
levels throughout the City. Sections that pertain to the project are as follows:
Section 5.28.010: Findings
The City Council finds that the making, creation or maintenance of loud, unnecessary,
unnatural, unusual or habitual noises which are prolonged, unusual, and unnatural in their
time, place and use affect and are a detriment to the public health, comfort, safety, welfare,
15 City of Dublin General Plan. Environmental Resources Management. Noise Element. 2002.
City of Dublin 50
Iron Horse TraiVScarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
) :
! "e t.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Jt!lfAt
.,J
and prosperity of the residents of the city. The provisions of this chapter are enacted for the
purpose of securing and promoting the public health, comfort, safety, welfare, and prosperity
and the peace and quiet of the city and its inhabitants. (Ord. 4-84 S I)
"4
\.
Section 5.28.020: Unreasonable Noise Not Permitted
A. It is unlawful and a nuisance for any person within the city persistently to maintain, emit,
cause, mechanically or otherwise, or permit any animal owned by him or in his possession or
control to make any loud, or disturbing, or unnecessary, or unusual or habitual noise or any
noise which annoys or disturbs or injures or endangers the health, repose, peace or safety of
any reasonable person of normal sensitivity present in the area.
B. The standards which shall be considered in determining whether a violation of the
provisions of this chapter exists shall include, but shall not be limited to the following:
1. The level, intensity, character and duration of the noise;
2. The level, intensity and character of background noise, if any;
3. The time when and the place and zoning district where the noise occurred;
4. The proximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; and
5. Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant. (Ord. 4-84 S 2)
Section 5.28.030: Violation-Penalty
Each violation of this chapter shall constitute a separate offense, and persons violating this
chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, shall be punished by
a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a
period not exceeding thirty (30) days, or both such fine and imprisonment. (Ord. 4-84 S 3)
State CEQA Guidelines
The CEQA Guidelines and thresholds regarding noise impacts are outlined in the
"Environmental Checklist" below.
Existing Noise Conditions
The predominant long term noise source in the vicinity of the Scarlett Drive project area is
vehicular traffic noise, especially in the vicinity of major roadways such as Dublin Boulevard
and Dougherty Road. Based on prior measurements in the site area, it is estimated that
existing noise levels exceed the maximum City exterior noise exposure level of 65 dBA for
residential neighborhoods.16
The portion of the project site north of Houston Place is located approximately 50 feet from
residential uses, which are considered noise-sensitive uses (refer to Figure 3). The project
area south of Houston Place is adjacent to industrial and commercial uses such as an auto
repair shop and storage facility. According to the General Plan land use compatibility for
community noise environments, the conditionally acceptable maximum outdoor noise level is
between 60-70 dBA, while interior areas have a maximum noise level of 45 dBA.
16 City of Dublin. Archstone Communities Apartments Initial Study. September 1999.
City of Dublin. Trumark Townhomes Initial Study. September 1999.
City of Dublin 51
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
.-"'"'l'
.iil
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport.
2. Environmental Checklist and Discussion
NOISE
Less Than
PotentiaIly Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project result in:
1) Exposure of persons to or generation 0 0 [8] 0 0 1, 7
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
2) Exposure of persons to, or 0 [8] 0 0 0 1, 7
generation of, excessive
groundbome vibration or
groundbome noise levels?
3) A substantial permanent increase in 0 0 [8] 0 0 1,7
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing
without the project? 0
4) A substantial temporary or periodic 0 ~ 0 0 1, 7
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
5) For a project located within an 0 0 0 ~ 0 1,7
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
6) For a project within the vicinity of a 0 0 0 ~ 0 1, 7
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels?
Discussion:
Long- Term Noise Impacts
As described previously, the project proposes to extend and widen the existing roadway,
relocate the Iron Horse Trail, provide signal modifications at two intersections, and install
signalization at one intersection. The proposed roadway connection would not itself generate
increased traffic; rather, it would accommodate existing traffic trips as well as future traffic
trips from approved development in the vicinity.
City of Dublin 52
Iron Horse TraiVScarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
II I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
leu ~ rri f <<
By connecting the two, currently discontinuous termini of Scarlett Drive, the project would
improve the capacity of the roadway network and would alter travel patterns on the
immediate site area. The proposed roadway improvement, therefore, will increase the
number of traffic trips and will increase travel speeds along Scarlett Drive, which will cause
an increase in traffic noise levels along Scarlett Drive. The incremental increase in traffic
noise on Scarlett Drive would be partially offset by decreases in traffic trips on Dougherty
Road and Dublin Boulevard.
I
I
The character of the noise environment at sensitive receptors in the immediate vicinity will
change as a result of the project. Vehicular traffic along Scarlett Drive will become a
steadier source of noise at the nearest receptors.
I
I
The Trumark Townhomes and Archstone Communities residential developments located
between Scarlett Drive and Dougherty Road, north of Houston Place, were constructed in
1999-2000. Both of these developments anticipated future interior and exterior noise levels
in excess of the indoor and -outdoor noise standards as a result of vehicular traffic emanating
from Dougherty Road and the planned construction of Scarlett Drive. Noise mitigation was
implemented to reduce exterior and interior noise levels to acceptable levels for each of these
developments. I? Therefore, the project would not significantly impact these residences.
I
I
Short- Term Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts
I
Construction of the project, which is anticipated to last approximately six to nine months,
will result in short-term increases in noise levels in the vicinity of the site. Construction
work will consist of:
I
· Removal of existing pavement
· Grading and leveling
· Placement of asphalt paving
· Re-paving and contouring of trail and channel
· Installation of lighting and landscaping
I
I
I
I
The construction of the project would generate noise, and would temporarily increase noise
levels at existing residential areas adjacent to the project site. Noise impacts resulting from
construction depend on the noise generated by the various pieces of construction equipment,
the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance between construction
noise sources and noise sensitive areas. No pile driving will be required during project
construction, thus eliminating a major noise contributor.
I
I
Construction-generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about six (6) dBA per doubling of
distance between the source and receptor. Shielding by buildings or terrain often result in
much lower construction noise levels at distant receptors.
Impact: Construction at the site could result in significant temporary noise and vibration
impacts to existing residences adjacent to the construction areas.
I
Mitigation: The project proposes to implement the following mitigation measures which
will reduce short-term construction noise and vibration to a less than significant level.
I
I
17 City of Dublin. Archstone Communities Apartments Initial Study. September 1999.
City of Dublin. Trumark Townhomes Initial Study. September 1999.
City of Dublin 53
Iron Horse TraiVScarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
Pb j l.
3.11.1 Noise generating activity shall be restricted to between the hours of 8 :00 AM to 5 :00
PM on weekdays unless otherwise approved in writing by the Dublin Building
Official for structural construction and the City Engineer for grading activities.
3.11.2 All internal combustion engine driven equipment shall be equipped with intake and
exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
3.11.3 A "disturbance coordinator" shall be designated to be responsible for responding to
any local complaints about construction noise and/or vibration. The disturbance
coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early,
bad muffler, etc.) and would require that reasonable measures warranted to correct
the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the
disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to
neighbors regarding the construction schedule. (The City shall be responsible for
designating a noise disturbance coordinator and the individual project sponsor shall
be responsible for posting the phone number and providing construction schedule
notices).
3. Conclusion
With implementation of the mitigation measures described above, the project would not
result in significant construction-related noise impacts. (Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation Incorporated)
City of Dublin 54
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
I Dlf Ob I
I
1.
Settin2:
I
I
According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the City of Dublin's
population for 2000 was 29,973 with 9,325 households. The average household size for 2000
was 2.65 persons per household. IS
I
The City of Dublin strives to have a balance between the number of jobs and the number of
employed residents. The City's jobslhousing ratio is somewhat imbalanced, with an
employment level of 16,540 jobs and a labor force of 14,864 employed residents. 19
2. Environmental Checklist and Discussion
I
I
POPULATION AND HOUSING
-
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
1) Induce substantial population growth 0 0 0 ~ 0 1
in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
2) Displace substantial numbers of 0 0 0 ~ 0 i
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
3) Displace substantial numbers of 0 0 0 ~ 0 1
people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Discussion: The proposed project consists of the extension and widening of Scarlett Drive,
the relocation of the Iron Horse Trail, the modification of signalization at two intersections,
and the installation of signalization at one intersection. The project has been proposed to
complete a missing component of the roadway network, in order to accomplish existing and
planned development in the site vicinity. The project does not propose any housing
development. The proposed project will not induce population or job growth, nor will it
displace either housing or persons.
I
I
3. Conclusion
The proposed project will not result in population and housing impacts. (No Impact)
I
I
I
18 US Census Bureau. www.census.gov.
19 Association of Bay Area Governments. Proiections 2005.
City of Dublin 55
Iron Horse TraiVScarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
i'-'
J
, \' \.
)
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES
The project site is located within the City of Dublin. The existing public services, such as fire
service, police service, and school and park facilities, for the City of Dublin are described below.
1. Settine
Fire Service
The City of Dublin fire protection services are provided under contract with the Alameda
County Fire Department (ACFD). The Department (ACFD) provides fire suppression
services, first responder/paramedic services, advanced life support, automatic external
defibrillator, and basic life support care. The ACFD has a total of three fire stations, three
fire engines, one truck company, three chiefs and 36 line personnel. The nearest Dublin fire
station is Station No. 17, located at 6200 Madigan, approximately two miles east of the
project area.
Police Service
Police protection services for the City of Dublin are performed under contract with the
Alameda County Sheriffs Office. Patrol, criminal investigation, crime prevention and
business office functions are performed at 100 Civic Plaza. Dispatch and some data
processing functions are handled at Sheriffs Office facilities in Oakland and San Leandro.
The Alameda County Sheriffs Office (ACSO) has over 1500 employees, both sworn and
professional staff.
Schools
The Dublin Unified School District (DUSD) consists of five elementary schools, two middle
schools, a comprehensive high school, and a continuation high school.
Parks
The City of Dublin provides parklands, open space, and community facilities for public
recreation and community services. Park and recreation facilities vary in size, use, and type
of service. The City of Dublin has a total of 10 parks. In addition to parks there is the
Emerald Glen Activity Center, Dublin Senior Center, the Stager Community Gymnasium,
and the Dublin Swim Center.
The Iron Horse pedestrian and bicycle recreation trail ("the Trail") also runs through Dublin
and is located adjacent to the existing and proposed roadway. The Trail extends 12.69 miles
from Pleasanton to Contra Costa County and is operated and maintained by the East Bay
Regional Parks District.
City of Dublin 56
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~eD J (p
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion
I
PUBLIC SERVICES
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Infonnation
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
1) Result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, the
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the -
construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of
the public services:
Fire Protection? 0 0 0 0 ~ 1
Police Protection? 0 0 0 0 ~ 1
Schools? 0 0 0 0 ~ 1
Parks? 0 0 0 ~ 0 I
Other Public Facilities? 0 0 0 ~ 0 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Discussion: As described previously, the project proposes the expansion and widening of
Scarlett Drive between Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, the relocation of the Iron
Horse Trail, the modification of signalization at two intersections, and the installation of
signalization at one intersection. Because the project does not propose any new buildings or
land uses, the project would not increase the demand for public services, including fire and
police protection, schools, or parks, and would not require construction or expansion of
public facilities. By connecting the currently discontinuous termini of Scarlett Drive, the
project would increase accessibility to adjacent land uses, which would bean incremental
benefit to fire and police protection and access to the Dublin High School.
I
I
I
3. Conclusion
I
I
The proposed project would result in an incremental benefit to the City's ability to provide
fire and police protection. The project would not impact the City's ability to provide other
public services. (No Impact)
I
I
I
City of Dublin 57
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
3.14 RECREATION
L Settin2
The city of Dublin provides parklands, open space, and community facilities for public
recreation and community services. Park and recreation facilities vary in size, use, and type
of service. As mentioned previously in Section 3.13 Public Services, the City of Dublin has a
total of 10 parks. In addition to parks there is the Emerald Glen Activity Center, Dublin
Senior Center, the Stager Community Gymnasium, and the Dublin Swim Center.
The Iron Horse pedestrian and bicycle recreation trail ("the Trail") also runs through Dublin
and is located adjacent to the existing and proposed roadway. The Trail extends 12.69 miles
from Pleasanton to Contra Costa County and is operated and maintained by the East Bay
Regional Parks District.
2. Environmental Checklist and Discussion
RECREATION
Less Than
P otentiaU y Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
1) Increase the use of existing 0 0 0 ~ 0 1
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
2) Does the project include recreational 0 ~ 0 0 0 I
facilities or require the construction
or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Discussion: The proposed Scarlett Drive extension and widening would relocate the Iron
Horse Trail. The path would be relocated parallel to its existing alignment approximately 20
feet to the east. Therefore, while there would be a temporary disruption to the Trail, the
recreational path would still exist after the project is completed. The project does not
propose any construction or physical development which would affect existing recreational
areas.
During the course of construction, the portion of the Iron Horse Trail running through the
proposed roadway extension and widening area will be closed and unusable. A detour would
be provided via Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard. This closure and detour is only
temporary during construction and the trail will be relocated upon completion of the roadway
improvements. Pedestrians and bicyclists would still have full access to all portions of the
trail north and south of the project site.
City of Dublin 58
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
r
l I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It 0 D,~ 1 ~ t',
The project does not propose any development which would increase the use of or need Ifor
recreational areas. For this reason, the proposed extension and widening of Scarlett Drive,
and modification of intersection signalization would not affect recreational uses. The
relocation of Iron Horse Trail would only temporary affect its use during construction.
I
3.
Conclusion
I
The proposed project would not result in any impacts to recreational facilities with the
proposed mitigation measures. (Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cit'j of Dublin 59
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
II \ D '
3.15
TRANSPORTATION
1. Existin2 Settin2
The existing roadway network serving the project area includes Interstate 580, an eight-lane
freeway that runs east-west through the Tri- Valley Area and westward to Castro Valley and
eastward to Stockton. Interstate 680 also runs north-south from San Jose to Walnut Creek
and beyond. Dublin Boulevard is a major arterial street with six lanes running east-west.
Dougherty Road is also an arterial street with four lanes running north-south. Both arterials
border the project area.
As described previously, the existing Scarlett Drive is two lanes originating at Dougherty
Road extending southeast for approximately 0.5 miles, and terminating at Houston Place with
no signalized intersection. South of Dublin Boulevard, Scarlett Drive resumes and continues
south, terminating at Scarlett Court.
2.
Environmental Checklist and Discussion
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Infonnation
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
Would the project:
1) Cause an increase in traffic which is D 0 I8J D 0 1,2
substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street
system (Le., result in a substantial
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio of roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
2) Exceed, either individually or 0 0 0 0 ~ 1,2
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? 0
3) Result in a change in air traffic 0 0 0 ~ 1
patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial
safety risks?
4) Substantially increase hazards due to 0 0 0 ~ 0 1,2
a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible land uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
5) Result in inadequate emergency 0 0 0 0 ~ 1
access?
6) Result in inadequate parking D 0 0 ~ 0 1
capacity?
City of Dublin 60
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! '
! I
',I'
~;i'
TRANSPORT A nON/TRAFFIC
I
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
Impact
I
I
Would the project:
7) Conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
o
o
o
~
o
I
I
I
Discussion: The project does not propose any new urban development, and therefore would
not itself generate traffic trips or impact circulation. Rather, the project would improve
traffic circulation by providing an alternate route to Dougherty Road from Dublin Boulevard,
therefore, improving the level of service at the Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road
intersection. By connecting the two termini of Scarlett Drive, the project would
incrementally improve the capacity of the roadway network. The project would alter travel
patterns in the immediate site area, however, this would improve levels of service in the
vicinity.
I
The proposed improvements would require a small amount of temporary truck trips to and
from the site during construction. Prior to construction, the contractor must obtain approval
from the City of Dublin for the haul routes. The allotted time for construction is between
I 80-270 calendar days, including mobilization, submittal review, and actual construction.
I
I
I
Given the small number of truck trips and the short duration of the construction period,
construction traffic will not significantly impact traffic operations or circulation within the
site area.
3. Conclusion
I
The proposed project will not generate long-term traffic trips or negatively impact traffic
circulation. The project will generate a minimal amount of short-term construction traffic.
Considering the short duration of the construction period for the proposed project, the project
would not result in significant traffic impacts. (Less Than Significant Impact, Possible
Beneficial Traffic Impacts)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cirj of Dublin 61
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
II ~; o<b
1. Settin2
There is an existing petroleum pipeline (owned by Santa Fe Railway) running underground
between the Iron Horse Trail and eastern seasonal drainage, north of Houston Place and south
of Dougherty Road. This petroleum line is approximately 10-inches in diameter and runs
along and parallel to the northeasterly proposed right-of-way for this project.
Existing fiber optic cable (owned by Alameda County) is located between the eastern
drainage and the old railroad road bed. The fiber optic cable runs from Dougherty Road to
Dublin Boulevard within this project.
Two existing PG&E owned 60KV transmission poles and power lines are located at the north
and south end of the project site. As part of the proposed project work, these poles will need
to be relocated adjacent to their current locations. The PG&E poles and wires are within an
existing easement and the new location will also be in an easement or in a public right-of-
way.
Outfall piping is located in the eastern seasonal drainage, just south of the brush willow
shrubs, approximately across from Houston Place. The drainage to these outfall pipes
originates in the Camp Parks facility to the east of the project site. An existing storm drain
culvert is also located at the southern portion of the project site where the Chabot Canal
intersects with the eastern and western drainages, under Dublin Boulevard (the project
proposes extending the culvert 170 feet to the east into the existing Camp Parks facility
lands).
No other utility infrastructure is present at the site.
2. Environmental Checklist and Discussion
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source(s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incomorated
Would the project:
1) Exceed wastewater treatment 0 0 0 ~ 0 1,2
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
2) Require or result in the construction 0 0 ~ 0 0 1,2
of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
City of Dubiin 62
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
\I tOD
I
I
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source( s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incoroorated
Would the project:
3) Require or result in the construction 0 0 ~ 0 0 1,2
of new stormwater drainage facilities
or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could
cause significant environmental
effects?
4) Have sufficient water supplies 0 0 ~ 0 0 I,2
available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources,
or are new or expanded entitlements
needed? -
5) Result in a determination by the 0 0 0 ~ 0 1
wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity
to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments?
6) Be served by a landfill with 0 0 0 [8] 0 1,2
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
7) Comply with federal, state, and local 0 0 0 ~ 0 1,2
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Discussion: As described previously, the project does not propose construction or physical
development of any land uses. The proposed roadway extension and widening would not
generate substantial additional demand for utilities and services. Street lighting is proposed
along the western side of Scarlett Drive, between Houston Place and Dublin Boulevard. The
lighting would be consistent with adjacent street lighting north of Houston Place on Scarlett
Drive and be duplicated on the east side of the Scarlett Drive Extension. The project would
use a small amount of water demand for irrigation of proposed landscaping and would not
trigger additional demand for utilities and services.
3. Conclusion
I
I
I
I
I
The proposed project would not require substantial new utility lines and would not exceed the
capacity of existing utility systems. (Less Than Significant Impact)
City of Dublin 63
Iron Horse TraiVScarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
II
3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Less Than
Potentially Significant Less Than Beneficial Information
Significant With Significant No Impact Impact Source( s)
Impact Mitigation Impact
Incorporated
1) Does the project have the potential to degrade 0 ~ 0 0 0 Pages
the quality of the environment, substantially 10 to
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, 63
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples ofthe major periods of
California history or prehistory? -
2) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 ~ 0 0 Pages
individually limited, but cumulatively 10 to
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" 63
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
3) Does the project have environmental effects 0 0 ~ 0 0 Pages
which will cause substantial adverse effects 10 to
on human beings, either directly or 63
indirectly?
4) Does the project have the potential to achieve 0 0 0 0 ~ Pages
short-term environmental goals to the 10 to
disadvantage of long-term environmental 63
goals?
Discussion: The project proposes the expansion and widening of the Scarlett Drive between
Dougherty Road and Dublin Boulevard, the relocation and enhancement of the Iron Horse
Trail, the modification of signalization at two intersections, and the installation of
signalization at one intersection. The proposed project would not create significant noise, air
quality, or land use impacts, nor would it create any other significant impacts to the site. The
project would not result in significant environmental impacts with the implementation of the
mitigation measures described in this report.
Conclusion:
The proposed project would not result in unavoidable or unmitigatable significant impacts.
(Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated)
City of Dublin 64
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHECKLIST INFORMATION SOURCES
II to
1. CEQA Guidelines - Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental specialist
preparing this assessment, based upon a review of the site and surrounding conditions, as
well as a review of the project plans.
2. City of Dublin. 2005 General Plan.
3. Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program. Alameda County Important Farmland. 2000.
4. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines. 2001.
5. Live Oak Associates, Inc. Biological Resources Report. May 2006.
6. Lowney Associates. Geotechnical Investigation for Park Sierra Apartments. Dublin,
California. June 1997.
City of Dublin b:l
Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4.
REFERENCES
II
...
,.
.J,
(.-
Alameda County Fire Department. http://www.acgov.org/fire/. May 24,2006
Association of Bay Area Governments. Projections 2000: Forecasts for the San Francisco Bay Area
to the Year 2020. December 1999.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA
Guidelines. 2001.
California Air Resources Board. Top 4 Measurements and Days Above Standard. 2003. State of
California. 8 December 2003. <http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html>.
California Environmental Protection Agency. California Clean Air Act. 1988.
City of Dublin. Education. May 24, 2006.
http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/DepartmentSu b. cfm ?PL=com&SL=schoo I.
City of Dublin. 2002 General Plan.
City of Dublin. City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Department: Dublin City Parks. May
24, 2006. http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us/DepartmentSub.cfm+PL+Rec+SL+prkfac >
City of Dublin. City of Dublin Recreation and Community Services Department. May 24,2006.
http://www.ci.dubEn.ca.us/DepartmentSubLeveI2 .cfm+PL +exp+S L +parkscom+dsp ly ID+616
Cooper-Clark and Associates. Geotechnical Investigation City of San Jose's Sphere of Influence.
Technical Report and Maps. 1974.
Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program. Alameda County Important Farmland. 2000.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. Environmental Site Assessment: Hazardous Materials Survey of
Contamination Sites. April 11, 2006.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Hazard Mapping. 17 December 2003. FEMA. 17
December 2003.
Live Oak Associates, Inc. Biological Resources Report. May 10, 2006.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Clean Air Act. 1990.
U.S. Census Bureau. May 2006.
www.census.gov
Zone 7 Water Agency. Stream Management Master Plan EIR. March 2006.
City of Dublin 66
Iron Horse TraiVScarlett Drive Improvements Project
initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5. CONSULTANTS
, ' · I
,. "(,' ~..~)'
'r..
David J. Powers and Associates, Inc.
Environmental Consultants and Planners
San Jose, California
Judy Shanley, Principal
John Schwarz, Principal Project Manager
Karli Grigsby, Assistant Project Manager
Stephanie Francis, Graphic Artist
Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
Hazardous Materials Survey
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
EnvironmentallBiologicallEcological Consulting Services
San Jose, California
Michele Korpos, Project Manager
City of Dublin 67
Iron Horse TraiVScarlett Drive Improvements Project
Initial Study
December 2006
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)l<qUD\
Appendix A: Live Oaks Associates, Inc., Biological
Constraints to Ro~d Widening and Extension of Scarlett
Drive
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 'dD 1i~,
\,,)
LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC.
an Ecological Consulting Firm
29 November 2006
Ms. Karli Grigsby
David J. Powers & Associates
1885 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
RE: Biological Constraints to the Scarlett Drive Iron Horse Trail Extension Project,
Dublin, CA (PN: 917-01)
Dear Karli:
Per your request, Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) conducted a reconnaissance survey of the
approximately 2,600 linear foot road widening and extension project located on Scarlet Drive,
including a crossing over the Chabot Canal in Dublin, California. Based on the information
gathered during the survey conducted on 28 April 2006 and our general knowledge of the area,
this report identifies probable constraints to future site development related to sensitive biotic
resources, significant biotic habitats, regional fish and wildlife movement corridors, and existing
local, state, and federal natural resource protection laws regulating land use. Provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the federal Clean Water Act (CW A), the state
and federal endangered species acts (CESA and FESA, respectively), California Fish and Game
Code, and California Water Code could greatly affect project costs, depending on the natural
resources present on the site. A discussion of the relevant goals, policies and laws is attached
(Attachment 1).
INTRODUCTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Scarlett Drive Iron Horse Trail Extension project (hereinafter the "project" or
"site") is to extend Scarlett Drive beyond Dublin Boulevard and meet up with the existing
Scarlett Drive roadway at Houston Place, widen the existing roadway to accommodate more
travel lanes, upgrade existing signaling, install intersection signalization at Dublin Boulevard and ~
the proposed Scarlett Drive extension, and relocate and enhance the Iron Horse Trail. There are
several components to the widening and extension of Scarlett Drive that could potentially be
constrained by biotic resources, including portions of the 2,600-foot long extensi<;m of Scarlett
Drive from Dublin Boulevard to Houston Place (to a 4- lane roadway); widening of existing
Scarlett Drive roadway north of Dublin Boulevard to a 4 lane roadway, requiring the fill of two
San Jose Office: 6830 Via Del Oro, Suite 205 . San Jose, CA 95119 · Phone 408-281-5885 . Fax: 408-224-1411
Oakhurst Office: P.O. Box 2697 · 49430 Road 426, Suite B . Oakhurst, CA 93644 · Phone: 559-642-4880 · Fax 559-642-4883
10 t
seasonal drainages; relocating the 10 to 12-foot wide bicycle/pedestrian path (Iron Horse Trail);
and extending the box culvert on the south end of proposed roadway extension, resulting in some
fill to Chabot Canal.
CURRENT CONDITIONS
The site currently consists of the Iron Horse Trail, to the east of the existing road and within the
footprint of the proposed extension, a manrnade seasonal drainage to the east of the existing road
and to the east and west of the area proposed for the extension. These drainages lead to the
natural bottom Chabot Canal. The vegetation of the site consists mainly. of ruderal, roadside
vegetation, with several native species and hydrophytes. There is an "island" of willows within
the eastern drainage.
The site is located within a mixed-use area. To the immediate 'east ofthe site is the Camp Parks
Military Rese.rve (separated from the site by a cyclone fence topped with circular barbed wire);
to the immediate west of the site is a medium-density residential development. The site's
southern boundary is Dublin Boulevard (a commercial thoroughfare), and its north boundary is
Dougherty Road. The site can be found on the Dublin U.S.G.S. 7.5' quadrangle at the following:
generally southeast 1;4 of the northwest 1;4 of Section 6, Township 3 South, Range 1 East (see
Figure 1). '
Of the ten special status plant species listed in Attachment 2, only 4 occur within three-miles of
the site. These include San Joaquin Spearscale (A triplex joaquiniana), Congdon's Tarplant
(Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii), Hairless Popcorn-flower (Plagiobothrys glaber), and
Saline Clover (Trifolium depauperatum var. hydrophilum). Several state and federally listed
animals, as well as species of special concern have also been documented within three-miles of
the site and may even occur on-site. These include the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma
californiense), California red-legged frog (Ran a aurora), western pond turtle (Emmys
marmorata), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). This report eval,uates the site's suitability
as habitat for these and other species.
BIOTIC HABITATS
The site is located in a mixed-use area of the City of Dublin. Uses include medium- to high-
density housing, commercial, and Camp Parks Military Reserve. A portion of the Iron Horse
Trail is located within the proposed development area.
Two biotic habitats were identified on the study area. For purposes ofthis report, these biotic
habitats have been defined as ruderal grassland and manmade seasonal drainages.
Ruderal Grassland
Ruderal grasslands dominate the site. Vegetation consists mainly of grasses and forbs of
European origin, though several native species occur as well. Species observed during the 28
April 2006 reconnaissance survey included slender wild oats (Avena barbata), soft chess
(Bromus hordaceous), barnyard barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), Italian ryegrass
(Lolium multiflorum), sour grass (Oxalis sp.), scarlet pimpernel (Anagallis arvensis), black
mustard (Brassica nigra), red-stemmed filaree (Erodium circutarium), cranesbill (Geranium
2
Gavilan - Coyote Valley Constraints Analysis
Live Oak Associates, Inc,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I :'
dissectum), prickly wild lettuce (Lactuca serriola), pea (Lathyrus sp.), cheeseweed (Malva
parviflora), burclover (Medicago polymorpha), California poppy (Eschcholzia californica),
bristly ox tongue (Picris echioides), and wild radish (Raphanus sativus).
Ruderal grasslands offer habitat to a variety of avian and terrestrial vertebrates. Though the site
provides only several strips of linear habitat, it provides suitable habitat for a number of these
species. Some of these species are residents while a good many more use a variety of other
habitats as well.
The ruderal areas ofthe study support or are likely to support several common species of reptiles
and including the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) observed on-site, southern
alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and gopher
snake (Pituophis melanoleucus).
Bird species that do or may use the site include the great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret -
(Ardea alba), snowy egret (Egretta thula), white-tailed kite (Elan us leucurus), northern harrier
(Circus cyaneus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius),
killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) observed on-site, rock dove (Columba livia) observed on-site,
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) white wash observed,
black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), loggerhead shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) observed on-site, black-
throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), Brewer's blackbird
(Euphagus cyanocephalus) observed on-site, and house sparrow (Passer domesticus). Several
species of raptars, listed above, may occasionally forage on the invertebrates, reptiles and
mammals of the site; though the site offers only marginal foraging habitat for raptors.
Small and larger mammals are common in ruderal grasslands. Evidence of small fossorial
mammal presence was noted during the survey by the various rodent burrows that occurred on
the site. Burrows of California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), Botta's pocket gopher
(Thomomys bottae), and California vole (Microtus californicus) were observed. Other small
mammals likely present include the western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis) and the
ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus). These small mammals attract a variety of predators, including
various snakes and raptors as previously discussed, but also larger mammals. Opossum
(Didelphis virginiana) are expected to visit the site, and tracks ofraccoon (Procyon lotor) were
observed along the edge of the eastern drainage chanriel. Large mammals such as the coyote
(Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), bobcat (Lynx rufus) and deer (Odocoileus
hemionus columbianus) are not expected to occur on-site due to its location within an urban
setting.
Manmade Seasonal Drainages
Two manmade seasonal drainages occur on-site, one to the east ofthe existing road and proposed
extension, the other to the west of the proposed extension. The east drainage begins near the
northern boundary of the site as a gentle depression and swales out to a shallow but fairly wide
(approximately 8-feet wide) area exhibiting algal matting, indicating this portion of the drainage
remains wet or moist for several months. The wide area of the drainage supports a dense thicket
of willows (Salix sp.) and two sapling oaks (Quercus lobata and Q. agrifolia). These oaks have
3
Gavilan - Coyote Valley Constraints Analysis
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
~'''} <""')
",.
~".,
stems less than 3-inches in circumference. The drainage is deeper and narrower (approximately
4 to 5-feet wide) to the south of the willow thicket and contained standing water in several places
during the April site visit. Algal matting and hydrophytic vegetation (e.g., Typha sp.) occur in
the southern portion of the east drainage. The standing pools of water were between 2 to 6-
inches deep.
The west drainage was much deeper (water between 6 and lO-inches deep) and narrower
(approximately 3 to 4-feet wide) than the east drainage. This drainage has banks that are densely
vegetated. Many of the grasses are the same ruderal species as in the grassland, though several
other plant species are also present including cattail, rush (Juncus sp.), and poison hemlock
(Conium maculatum). Duckweed (Lemna sp.) is also present in the water of this drainage.
Dr. Mark Jennings, authority on California fish and herps, visited the site on 8 May 2006 to
assess its potential to support habitat for such special status species. Dr. Jennings noted that the
east drainage was dry (no standing pools), and the west drainage contained only 4 to 6-inches of
water. The west drainage supports a small population of western tree frog (Hyla regilla).
Avian species observed in the drainages include mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and red-winged
blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Other avian species expected to utilize the drainages include
the snowy egret (Egretta thula), great egret (Casmerodius albus), great blue heron (Ardea
herodias), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), and black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans) among
others.
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
A number of special status plants and animals occur in the vicinity of the study area. Nine
U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute quadrangles were used in the search for special status plants and animals in
the vicinity of the study area, including Dublin, Diablo, Tasahara, Livermore, La Costa Valley,
Niles, Newark, Hayward, and Las Trampas Ridge. These species, and their potential to occur in
the study area, are listed in Attachment 2. The locations of nearby sightings of special status
species have been shown in Figure 2.
Threatened, Endangered Or Special Status Plants And Animals That Deserve Further
Discussion
Most of the special status plant and animal species listed in Attachment 2 are either absent or
may occur rarely or occasionally on-site and sufficient information exists to evaluate the
potential impacts future development mayor may not have on them. No special status plant
species are expected to occur on-site, therefore none need further mention. Animal species
warranting further discussion include California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog,
western pond turtle, and burrowing owl. Although species-specific protocol-level surveys have
not been conducted for these species, a habitat assessment and a search of historic records were
conducted to establish the likely presence or absence on the site for these species. The potential
for these species to be found on-site are discussed below. Detailed discussions that include an
analysis of their legal status and life histories can be found in Attachment 3.
4
Gavilan - Coyote Valley Constraints Analysis
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. )2 ~ 6b ) lY
California Tiger Salamander (Amhystoma californiense). Federal listing status:
Threatened; State listing status: Species of Concern
Potential to Occur On-Site. California tiger salamanders (CTS) have been documented in ponds
on the northeastern portion of Camp Parks Military Reserve, approximately 2 miles to the
northeast of the site. Dr. Jennings indicated that CTS are not expected to occur on-site. He has
surveyed the Camp Parks Reserve in the past, and does not believe the CTS that occur on the
northeastern portion of the reserve lands would migrate to the project site.
California Red-Legged Frog (Rana draytonil). Federal listing status: Threatened; State
listing status: Species of Concern. .
Potential to Occur On-Site. Records of California red-legged frogs (CRLF) exist in the CNDDB
and cite that the frogs have been found associated with Chabot Canal (Figure 2). Dr. Jennings
has conducted surveys of this area for over 15 years and does not believe CRLF would enter the
site due to the fact the drainages are seasonal and suitable breeding habitat is absent. CRLF
require deep, shaded pools for breeding.
Western Pond Turtle (Emmys marmorata). Federal listing status: None; State listing
status: Species of Special Concern.
Potential to Occur On-Site. Western pond turtles (WPT) have also been documented on the
Camp Parks Military Reserve (Figure 2). It is possible that WPT could forage on-site, especially
in the west drainage.
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). Federal listing status: None; State listing status:
Species of Concern.
Potential to Occur On-Site. White wash was observed at the aprons of two ground squirrel
burrows to the east of the east drainage. The CNDDB indicates several observation of burrowing
owl (BUOW) within three miles of the site (Figure 2). Therefore, BUOW are considered present
on-site.
POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS TO FUTURE SITE DEVELOPMENT
The proposed project is a road widening and extension project consisting of approximately 2,600
linear feet. There are several components to the widening and extension of Scarlett Drive that
could potentially be constrained by biotic resources, including extending Scarlett Drive from
Dublin Boulevard to Houston Place (to a 4- lane roadway) resulting in filling the two seasonal
drainages; widening of existing Scarlett Drive roadway north of Dublin Boulevard to a 4 lane
roadway; relocating the 10 to 12-foot wide bicycle/pedestrian path (Iron Horse Trail); and
extending the box culvert on the south end of proposed roadway extension (resulting in some fill
to Chabot Canal.
Potential Constraints to Development from the Possible Presence of Special Status Species.
The site provides marginally suitable habitat for two special status plant species (saline clover
and Congdon's tarplant), both with CNPS IB status. To ensure the proposed project would not
negatively affect these species, presence/absence surveys should be conducted during their
5
Gavilan - Coyote Valley Constraints Analysis
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
1'2h~..'~,1 I, r
",/. U f {tU~
blooming seasons: April to June for the saline clover, and May to October for Congdon's
tarplant. Due to the extreme rainy season this winter, many plants ate blooming late, and neither
of these species were observed during the 28 April 2006 reconnaissance survey. Presence of
either of these species is not expected to greatly constrain the proposed project.
The site provides suitable or marginally suitable habitat for several animal species with special
status. Such species potentially affected by eventual site development or otherwise of concern to
state and federal resource agencies are discussed below:
1. California Tiger Salamander. The range of the California tiger salamander (CTS) is currently
restricted to the Central Valley and Coast Range of California from Butte County south to
Santa Barbara County. The preferred habitat of the CTS is ephemeral ponds, vernal pools, or
stock-ponds that hold water for a minimum of four months surrounded by grassland habitats.
Year-round ponds are also used by CTS, but frequently these ponds may also support
competitors and predators (e.g., non-native fish and bullfrogs). Ephemeral waters provide
the breeding and larval development habitat, while small mammal burrows and deep cracks
in the soil in the upland habitats provide refugia for adult and juvenile CTS during the dry
season. High quality breeding habitats are usually (but not always) associated with upland
habitats that support moderate to high-density ground squirrel and/or Botta's pocket gopher
burrows (Thomomys bottae), which occur on site.
Breeding habitat for CTS is absent from the site because in years of normal rainfall the
seasonal drainages would not hold water long enough to support successful breeding. And
even this year, a year with unusually high rainfall, the eastern drainage exhibited no pooling
and waters within the western drainage were only 4 to 6-inches deep on 8 May 2006 (date
Dr. Jennings visited the site). It should be noted here that the site is not within designated
critical habitat for the California tiger salamander.
However, due to the fact that salamanders are known to occur on Camp Parks Reserve
(approximately 2 miles from the site), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) could
potentially claim that all waters of the site may meet the breeding criteria for the species, and
that the remainder of the site (ruderal grassland area) supports CTS upland estivation habitat.
The agencies may require presence/absence surveys on-site. The loss of potential CTS
habitat might be considered a significant effect, whether or not the species is detected on-site.
2. California Red-legged Frog. California red-legged frogs (CRLF) have been observed in a
number of aquatic and terrestrial habitats throughout their historic range. Larvae, juveniles,
and adult frogs have been collected from natural lagoons, dune ponds, pools in or next to
streams, streams, marshlands, sag ponds, and springs, as well as human-created stockponds,
secondary and tertiary sewage treatment ponds, wells, canals, golf course ponds, irrigation
ponds, sand and gravel pits (containing water), and large reservoirs (Jennings 1988). During
wet periods (especially in the winter and early spring months), red-legged frogs can move
long distances (e.g., 1 mile) between aquatic habitats, often over areas that are considered to
be unsuitable for frogs (e.g., roads, open fields, croplands, etc.).
The key to the presence of frogs in these habitats is the presence of perennial (or near
perennial) water and the general lack of introduced aquatic predators such as largemouth
6
Gavilan - Coyote Valley Constraints Analysis
Live Oak Associates, inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
)2Ltt)
I
t
bass, green sunfish, and bluegill (L. macrochirus), crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus and
Procambarus larkia), and bullfrogs.
As noted in Attachment 2, the site does not support breeding habitat for the CRLF. However,
due to the fact that red-legged frogs are known to occur in Chabot Canal, the Service could
potentially claim that all waters of the site may be potential habitat for the species, and that
the remainder of the site (ruderal grassland area) supports upland estivation habitat for
CRLF. The agencies may require presence/absence surveys on-site. The loss of potential
CRLF habitat might be considered a significant effect, whether or not the species is detected
on-site.
3. Western Pond Turtle. As noted in Attachment 2, the western pond turtle (WPT) is known
to breed within lands of Camp Parks, approximately 2 miles from the site. It is possible for
WPT to enter the site via the Chabot Canal, as it is likely that the species utilizes the Canal
for breeding and migrating purposes. WPT spend the majority of their time in the water;
however they require basking areas and dry land in which to lay their eggs. If the species
were present on-site, it would be found in the west drainage, however no WPT were
observed during surveys on either 28 April or 8 May 2006. The project is expected to fill
both the eastern and western drainage, and to have a temporary impact to Chabot Canal when
expanding the culvert. Therefore, the main consideration is to avoid "take" of WPT during
construction, should they be present on-site, which would be determined by conducting a
pre-construction survey within 48 hours of construction. The loss of potential foraging
habitat for the WPT may be considered a significant effect, and mitigation for this species is
expected. This mitigation could be accomplished by purchasing credits at a mitigation bank.
4. Western Burrowing Owl. As noted above, burrowing owl sign was observed on the aprons of
two ground squirrel burrows. Therefore, BUOW are considered present on-site. It does not
appear that BUOW are breeding on-site, rather it appears they utilize the site for foraging and
are breeding on nearby lands.
Nonetheless, pre-construction protocol-level presence/absence surveys should be conducted
to avoid potential impacts to individual burrowing owls (consistent with state and federal
law) and their habitat. Should owls be found to be utilizing burrows prior to construction,
they may be passively relocated following the guidelines set forth in the "Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation" and the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation
Guidelines (Burrowing Owl Consortium 1997), documents outlining survey and mitigation
standards acceptable to the California Department of Fish and Game. Mitigation for impacts
to loss of BUOW habitat will likely be necessary. This mitigation can be accomplished by
purchasing credits at a mitigation bank.
Other Special Status Species. In addition to the four species discussed above, it is possible that
the Service will consider that the site contains suitable, albeit marginal, habitat for the San
Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). The agencies have been taking a fairly conservative
approach to habitat loss for this species throughout its current and historic range.
Other special status species that could occur on-site (e.g., white-tailed kite) do so incidental to
home range and migratory movements; therefore, site development would clearly deprive
7
Gavilan - Coyote Valley Constraints Analysis
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
1~1tJ.t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
various raptor species of a small amount of marginal foraging habitat. Such habitat is still
regionally abundant, and the loss of such habitat on site would probably not be regionally
significant.
Potential Constraints to Development from the Presence of Riparian Habitats and Other
Sensitive Habitats
Riparian habitats and other sensitive habitats are absent from the site, with the exception of
potentially jurisdictional waters, which are discussed further below. Therefore, the project
would not be constrained by such a feature.
Potential Constraints to Development from the Presence of Jurisdictional Waters
Waters of the United States and other possible jurisdictional waters (i.e. those subject to the
jurisdiction ofthe State of Cali fomi a and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB))
are believed to be present on-site. A wetland delineation should be conducted and submitted to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for verification. Due to the fact the project intends to
fill two seasonal drainages that may be jurisdictional (approximately 2,000 linear feet), and will
result in fill to Chabot Canal, a Waters of the U.S., the applicant will need to obtain permits from
the Corps, California Department ofFish and Game and/or the RWQCB.
Potential Constraints to Development Resulting from On-site Wildlife Movements
The project does not constitute a "movement corridor" for native wildlife. Although species may
migrate to the site via the Chabot Canal, the waters of the site do not connect to any other open
space, as various types of development surround the site. Many migratory species that now pass
through the study area are neo-tropical migrant birds that are likely to pass through and over the
site even after the road is widened and extended.
Potential Constraints to Development from Local Ordinances and Habitat Conservation
Plans (HCPs)
Currently, there is not a known HCP in effect that covers the area of the subject site.
CONCLUSION
There are several biological resources that may constrain development on this site. The site
supports areas with the potential to support sensitive species-mainly the western pond turtle.
The potential presence of this species, and the known presence of burrowing owl, could result in
the preservation of suitable habitats either on or off-site for one or both of these species. While
we believe that neither the CTS or CRLF occur on site, we cannot be certain that the Service
would not request ( or require) that protocol-level surveys for one or both of these species be
conducted. The same may be true for the San Joaquin kit fox as several nearby projects within
the last 3 to 4 years have needed to provide habitat set-asides for presumed impacts to this
species (though there are no known occurrences in this region of Alameda County).
Consultation with the USFWS via the Federal Endangered Species Act would be required if the
Service were to determine that CTS, CRLF or kit fox could potentially occur on-site. There are
8
Gavi!an - Coyote Valley Constraints Analysis
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I o!'
't
two types of consultation that could occur with the Service. The first is a Section 7
Consultation-assuming there would be a federal nexus for the project (e.g., the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers which would be involved for permitting the loss of any jurisdictional wetland
areas). The second type of consultation that would be required, assuming no federal nexus, is the
project specific Section 10 Consultation or project specific Habitat Conservation Plan. The main
difference between these two consultation types, in terms of the effect on the applicant and
proposed project, is timing. The permitting process for Section 7 Consultations has a 135-day
clock associated with it, but it typically takes 6 months to a year to complete, while the process
for Section 10 Consultations usually requires 2 to 3 years (and in some cases longer) to
complete. The mitigation measures discussed above would form the basis for the consultation
process.
It should be kept in mind that any mitigation for WPT and BUOW might compensate for any
perceived loss to CTS or CRLF habitat. It should also be kept in mind that should the Service
require mitigation for CTS or CRLF, it is presently requesting that applicants provide at least 3: 1
mitigation to loss; however, there may be opportunities to negotiate a lower ratio if the need
anses.
In summary, development of the site is technically feasible, but not without a significant effort to
resolve some of the biological resource issues.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding our analysis of this site.
Sincerely,
Michele Korpos
Project Manager/
Wildlife Ecologist
9
Gavilan - Coyote Valley Constraints Analysis
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
ATTACHMENT 1
1
'" ,
>00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Gavilan - Coyote Valley Constraints Analysis
Live Oak Associates. Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r'f' !
i-j
CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
As noted in Section 1.0 of this report special status plants and animals (i.e. threatened and
endangered species, candidate species for threatened C?r endangered status, species of
special concern, etc.), animal movement corridors, and wetlands are all biotic resource
issues that may be regulated according to provisions of federal and state laws. These
issues can affect how a property is used or developed. The discussion below addresses
possible constraints of development associated with sensitive biOlogical resources
occurring within the Scarlett Drive project area in Dublin, California. This discussion
recognizes that not all impacts are significant and, therefore, establishes the criteria by
which significance is determined. The discussion also examines state and federal laws
that determine how sensitive habitats are developed.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
General plans, area plans, and specific projects are subject to the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of CEQA is to assess the
impacts of proposed projects on the environment before they are constructed. For
example, site development may require the removal of some or all of its existing
vegetation. Animals associated with this vegetation could be destroyed or displaced.
Animals adapted to humans, roads, buildings, pets, etc., may replace those species
formerly occurring on a site. Plants and animals, which are state and/or federally listed
as threatened or endangered may be destroyed or displaced. Sensitive habitats such as
wetlands and riparian woodlands may be altered or destroyed. These impacts may be
considered significant or not. According to Guide to the California Environmental
Quality Act (Remy et al. 1999), '''Significant effect on the environment' means a
substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions
within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna,
ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic interest." Specific project impacts to
biological resources may be considered "significant" if they will:
2
Gavilan - Coyote Valley Constraints Analysis
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
l?
) "'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
· have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
. have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the
California Department ofFish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
. have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means;
. interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
. conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as
a tree preservation policy or ordinance;
. conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan (Remy et al. 1999).
Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15065 states that a project may trigger the
requirement to make a "mandatory findings of significance" if "the project has the
potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory."
RELEVANT GOALS, POLICIES, AND LA WS
Threatened and Endangered Species
State and federal "endangered species" legislation has provided the California
Department ofFish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
with a mechanism for conserving and protecting plant and animal species of limited
distribution and/or low or declining populations. Species listed as threatened or
endangered under provisions of the state and federal endangered species acts, candidate
3
Gavilan - Coyote Valley Constraints Analysis
Live Oak Associates. Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ '::1'.
1 . i..' i~
I' ~
~ :~
species for such listing, state species of special concern, and some plants listed as
endangered by the California Native Plant Society are collectively referred to as "species
of special status." Permits may be required from both the CDFG and USFWS if activities
associated with a proposed project will result in the "take" of a listed species. "Take" is
defined by the state of California as "to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to
hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill" (California Fish and Game Code, Section 86).
"Take" is more broadly defined by the federal Endangered Species Act to include "harm"
(16 USC, Section 1532(19), 50 CFR, Section 17.3). Furthermore, the CDFG and the
USFWS are responding agencies under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). Both agencies review CEQA documents in order to determine the adequacy of
their treatment of endangered species issues and to make project-specific
recommendations' for their conservation.
Migratory Birds
State and federal law also protect most birds. The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(FMBTA: 16 U.S.c., scc. 703, Supp. 1, 1989) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in
migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the
Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs.
Birds of Prey
Birds of prey are also protected in California under provisions of the State Fish and Game
Code, Section 3503.5, 1992), which states that it is "unlawful to take, possess, or destroy
any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or
destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any
regulation adopted pursuant thereto," Construction disturbance during the breeding
season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to
nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive
effort is considered "taking" by the CDFG.
4
Gavilan - Coyote Valley Constraints Analysis
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
~, } /, ~7
,. )I~i'
Wetlands and Other "Jurisdictional Waters"
Natural drainage channels and wetlands are considered "Waters of the United States"
(hereafter referred to as ''jurisdictional waters"). The filling or grading of such waters is
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) by authority of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 1991). The extent of jurisdiction
within drainage channels is defined by "ordinary high water marks" on opposing channel
banks. Wetlands are habitats with soils which are intermittently or ,permanently
saturated, or inundated. The resulting anaerobic conditions select for plant species
known as hydrophytes that show a high degree of fidelity to such soils. Wetlands are
identified by the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils (soils saturated
intermittently or permanently saturated by water), and wetland hydrology according to
methodologies outlined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual
(USACE 1987).
All activities that involve the discharge of fill into jurisdictional waters are subject to the
permit requirements of the USACE (Wetland Training Institute, Inc. 1990). Such permits
are typically issued on the condition that the applicant agrees to provide mitigation,
which results in no net loss of wetland functions or values. No permit can be issued until
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues a certification (or waiver of
such certification) that the proposed activity will meet state water quality standards. The
RWCQB is also responsible for enforcing National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits, including the General Construction Activity Storm Water
Permit. All projects requiring federal money must also comply with Executive Order
11990 (Protection of Wetlands). .
The California Department of Fish and Game has jurisdiction over the bed and bank of
natural drainages according to provisions of Section 1601 and 1603 of the California Fish
and Game Code (CDFG 1995). Activities that would disturb these drainages are
regulated by the CDFG via a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Such an agreement
5
Gavilan - Coyote Valley Constraints Analysis
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I <)j I I (..b\ , "+
r ,/ '1 r :P't'
typically stipulates that certain measures will be implemented which protects the habitat
values of the drainage in question.
6
Gavilan - Coyote Valley Constraints Analysis
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
':')l~<:
';'",:'
'::~J;?~~
.' ,'.~1.
, ',',,~, i;:;~;~~IY::, ~,~~ , , "'~~:~
\ 'c'~" ,,,;,,, , ';!l.. ~ .~:~\:=] I ,~I ':~' :-0', Ii,~ '.>i':'l")\'""~',, '
\' ",'~ c.:.' ' ,,, , "j <,,' " ", " ?if7:'-"-,),
;,\ v ~~I :?f' ~ -;u', r3~-' r ~ ~:]f < \:\{,:~'- ~~~ ~
;\ ",. . .' tV' 'J-' ",' "I" JI ,-,,-:<04'
"~~;::.-.::"eleas~nton 'li:;'=':J'::-', gbtor!eri'dge-9i'~:';:;:;"-;'~<;""
''\ ',~,_c;lt'-""Oe=~)I:;:JJ"', I "11 \. '"
----I~,~\~et10~~\~~I, ,J, i '0,':1 'I \: '
;'--Ir-~~~ Ii \'"ko~"l{.:aS ( 'fij ';1 ," '\
.;,or: 1 '::c-f!,.\'l.YL-:;> I' !, I ~ ,_ "='::'=="p'" ,
....~ II ~l-~-. l'~"'" j ili\. ..-..,.../ ---- ,
"1b I,'i', ,\ \l.~~ Ii; '::Qf =';,!.:'-':':C---'jl I "
, (!),~,-',U', "\@I0 " ," "~ ,',
.~;0 ,:,,:~~~i' ..l,~~:~~: -d r= ==:'l~:>' "' ,~O~\~,
..'''; \.\ ::~~,Oo. \;'==- ~ .~ ~ ~\...'a'
. ;i1! ..' " ~~;~,J], /tc<" ,,~~*~
!Regional MaPI
I
I
I
"-';'''''''-
I
1/4
10....-_
:(j
--..
app;:o~matescale '
I
- ",<,1', ~. , ~" ! .>,'1
I
,.
. .~~.
I
See
Vicinity Map
(left)
I
*
I
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
I
'.
1"-
Scarlett Drive
Site 1 Vicinity Map
Figure #
I
, '.~-
.......
917 -01
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
;."o!
ATTACHMENT 2
Sources of information for this table included California's Wildlife, Volumes I, II, and III
(Zeiner et al. 1988), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFG 2005), Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (USFWS 2006), Annual Report on the Status of
California State Listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants (CDFG 2006),
and The California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular
Plants of California (CNPS 2001).
ATTACHMENT 2. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT DO OR COULD
OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
PLANTS (adapted from CDFG, 2005 and CNPS, 2001)
Species Listed as Threatened or Endangered under the State and/or Federal Endan!!ered Snecles Act
Species Status Habitat *Occurrence in the Study Area
Large-flowered Fiddleneck FE,CE Crismontane woodland and Absent. The site does not support
(Amsinckia grandiflora) CNPS 18 valley and foothill grasslands suitable habitat for the large-flowered
btwn 275-550m; Blooms April fiddleneck.
to May
Palmate-bracted Bird' s-beak FE,CE Occurs on chenopod scrub and Absent. The site is outside the known
(Cordylanthus palmatus) CNPS1B alkaline valley and foothill range for palmate-bracted bird's beak.
grasslands btwn 5-155m.
Blooms May to October
Contra Costa Goldfields FE, Occurs cismontane woodland, Absent. Habitat for this species is
(Lasthenia conjugens) CNPS 18 alkaline playas, vernal pools and absent from the site.
valley and foothill grassland,
btwn 0-470 m, blooms March to
June.
er special status nlants listed bv CNPS
Soecies Status Habitat *Occurrencein the Study Area
San Joaquin Spearscale CNPS1B Occurs on chenopod scrub, Absent. Suitable habitat for this species
(A triplex joaquiniana) meadows and seeps, playas and is absent from the site.
alkaline valley and foothill
grasslands btwn I and 185m.
Blooms April to October
Big-Scale Balsamroot CNPS1B Occurs on chaparral, Absent. The site does not support
(Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. crismontane woodland, valley habitat for this species.
macrolepis) and foothill grassland,
sometimes serpentine, btwn 90-
1400m. Perennial, blooms
March-June.
Congdon's Tarplant CNPS 18 Occurs in mesic alkaline areas Unlikely. Although the site supports
(Centromadia parryi ssp. within valley and foothill marginally suitable habitat for this
congdonii) grasslands, above I m in tarplant, it is not expected to occur here.
elevation. Blooms May to
October
Fragrant Fritillary CNPSIB Occurs on serpentine or clay Absent. Suitable habitat for this species
(Fritillaria liliacea) soils within coastal scrub, valley is absent from the site.
and foothill grassland, and
coastal prairie, above 3m in
elevation. Perennial bulb,
blooms. February-April.
Hairless Popcorn-flower CNPS IA Occurs on alkaline soils within Absent. The site supports potentially
(Plagiobothrys glaber) meadows, seeps, marshes and suitable habitat for this species.
swamps, btwn 15 and 180m in However, this species is presumed
elevation. Blooms March to extinct in the area of the site; the only
May. suspected areas of persistence in the
state are in Antioch and Hollister,
according to the CNPS.
Saline Clover CNPS1B Occurs in marshes and swamps, Unlikely. The site supports somewhat
(Trifolium depauperatum var. vernal pools and alkaline valley alkaline soils and marginally suitable
hydrophilum) and foothill grasses btwn 0 and habitat for this species.
300m. Blooms April to June.
Caper-fruited Tropidocarpum CNPS IA Occurs on alkaline soils within Absent. Marginally suitable habitat is
(Tropidocarpum capparidium) valley and foothill grasslands, present on-site for this species.
between 1 and 455m in However, the last known occurrence in
elevation. Blooms March-April. the region was in 1907.
Oth
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rl.
~/ l)
I
ATTACHMENT 2. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT DO OR COULD
OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
ANIMALS (adapted from CDFG 2005 and USFWS 2006)
S . L d I S
I
I
species iste as Threatened or Endangered under the State and or Federal Endanl!ered ;pecles Act
Species Status Habitat *Occurrence in the Study Area
California Tiger Salamander FT,CSC Breeds in vernal pools and Absent. The site supports marginal
(Ambystoma californiense) stock ponds of central habitat for CTS, and they are known to
California; adults estivate occur in ponds on the northeastem
in grassland habitats portion of Camp Parks Military
adjacent to the breeding Reserve. However, these ponds are in
sites. excess of2 miles from the site, and the
site is otherwise isolated from any
known population of CTS.
California Red-legged Frog FT,CSC Rivers, creeks and stock Absent. The site does not support
(Rana aurora draytonii) ponds of the Sierra foothills habitat for the CRLF.
and coast range, preferring
pools with overhanging
vegetation.
Alameda whip snake FT,CT Valley foothill mixed oak Absent. The site does not support
(Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) woodlands; usually found habitat for the Alameda whipsnake.
on south-facing slopes and
ravines where grasslands
and shrubs form a mosaic
with oaks.
San Joaquin kit fox FE,CT Annual grasslands with Absent. Due to the site's location
(Vulpes macrotis mutica) friable soils for digging within an urban setting, and the lack of
burrows that support a any evidence of the species, San
suitable prey base, found Joaquin kit fox would not occur on-site.
mostly in the San Joaquin
Vallev.
e era an I ate species an tate Species of SDecial Concern
Species Status Habitat *Occurrence in the Study Area
Western Pond Turtle CSC Open slow-moving water of Possible. Potential WPT habitat occurs
(Emmys marmorata) rivers and creeks of central on-site. This species occurs on the
California with rocks and lands of Camp Parks, and could reach
logs for basking. the site via the Chabot Canal.
White-tailed Kite CP Open grasslands and Unlikely. The site supports marginal
(Elanus leucurus) agricultural areas foraging habitat for the white-tailed kite.
throughout central
Califomia.
Northern Harrier CSC Frequents meadows, Unlikely. The site supports marginal
(Circus cyaneus) grasslands, open foraging habitat for the northem harrier.
rangelands, freshwater
emergent wetlands;
uncommon in wooded
habitats.
Sharp-shinned Hawk CSC Breeds in the mixed conifer Unlikely. Marginal foraging habitat
(Accipiter striatus) forests of the northern exists on-site for wintering sharp-
Sierra Nevada. This shinned hawks.
species winters in a variety
of habitats of the state.
Cooper's Hawk CSC Breeds in oak woodlands, Unlikely. The site supports marginal
(Accipiter cooperii) riparian forests and mixed foraging habitat for the Cooper's hawk.
conifer forest of the Sierra
Nevada, but winters in a
variety of lowland habitats.
I
I
I
I
I
I
F die d'd
S
dS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
13-1 ~~'t) \ /.:)
I
ATTACHMENT 2. LIST OF SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES THAT DO OR COULD
OCCUR IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
ANIMALS Cont'd. (adapted from CDFG 2005 and USFWS 2005)
I
Species Listed as Threatened or Endan~ered under the State and/or Federal Endam!ered Species Act
Species Status Habitat *Occurrence in the Study Area
Golden Eagle CP Typically frequents rolling Unlikely. As the site consists of a
(Aquila chrysaetos) foothills, mountain areas, relatively narrow strip ofland, it supports
sage-juniper flats and only marginal foraging habitat for the
desert. golden ealZle.
Prairie Falcon CSC Distributed from annual Unlikely. No suitable nesting habitat
(Falco mexicanus) grasslands to alpine exists on-site. However, the site provide
meadows; requires cliffs or marginal foraging habitat for the
rock outcroppings for occasional winter migrant.
nesting.
Peregrine Falcon CE Individuals breed on cliffs Possible. While no suitable nesting
(Falco peregrinus anatum) in the Sierra or in coastal habitat exists within the'area of the
habitats; occurs in many proposed trail, the site may support
habitats of the state during foraging habitat.
migration and winter.
Burrowing Owl CSC Found in open, dry Present. White wash was observed on
(Athene cunicularia) grasslands, deserts and the aprons of two ground squirrel
ruderal areas. Requires burrows during the 28 April 2006
suitable burrows. This reconnaissance visit, though no
species is often associated individual owls were observed. It is
with California ground possible that burrows of the site are only
squirrels. used by BUOW as satellite burrows.
Loggerhead Shrike CSC Nests in tall shrubs and Possible. The site supports marginal
(Lanius ludovicianus) dense trees, forages in foraging habitat for the loggerhead
grasslands, marshes, and shrike, however breeding habitat is
ruderal habitats. absent.
California Horned Lark CSC Short-grass prairie, annual Absent. The site does not provide
(Eremophila alpestris actia) grasslands, coastal plains, suitable foraging or nesting habitat for
open fields. the homed lark, and no larks were
observed on-site.
Tricolored blackbird CSC Breeds near fresh water in Absent. The site does not support
(Agelaius tricolor) dense emergent vegetation. suitable areas of habitat for the tricolored
blackbird (e.g., dense emergent
vegetation).
Pallid Bat CSC Grasslands, chaparral, Unlikely. Marginal foraging habitat
(Antrozous pallidus) woodlands, and forests of occurs for the pallid bat on-site, however
California; most common roosting habitat is completely absent.
in dry rocky open areas
providing roosting
opportunities.
California Mastiff Bat CSC Forages over many habitats, Unlikely. The site provides marginally
(Eumops perotis califomicus) requires tall cliffs or suitable foraging habitat for the
buildings for roosting. California mastiff bat; however, roosting
habitat is absent within the project.
American Badger CSC Occurs in grasslands, and Absent. The site supports only the most
(Taxidea taxus) open areas of scrubland and marginal habitat for the badger. No
forests with friable soils badger burrows were observed during
that are uncultivated. site visits.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Present: Species observed on the sites at time of field surveys or during recent past.
Likely: Species not observed on the site at time of field surveys, however it most likely occurs on-site
Possible: Species not observed on the sites, but it could occur there from time to time.
Unlikely: Species not observed on the sites, and would not be expected to occur there except, perhaps, as a
transient.
I
I
I
I
I.
Absent: Species not observed on the site, and precluded from occurring there because habitat requirements
not met.
STATUS CODES
I
FE
FT
FPE
FC
I
1
CNPS
IA
18
2
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
Federally Endangered
Federally Threatened
Federally Endangered (Proposed)
Federal Candidate
California Native Plant Society Listing
Plants Presumed Extinct in California
Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in
California and elsewhere
Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in
California, but more common elsewhere
CE
CT
CR
CP
CSC
3
4
California Endangered
California Threatened
Califomia Rare
California Protected
California Species of Special Concern
Plants about which we need more
information - a review list
Plants of limited distribution - a watch list
}
.,'
t\
."',
L}
LEGEND
.....idcblofed..b.!~ckbird ".
'.'ft-'i'colored blackbird
. '.
. Special status species observation
.AmEZhcan badger.. . "...... - Sources:
.California red~i~g d fr~SJ.. ~~;",,, Califomia Dep. ofFish & Game Natural Diversily Database
CalifdrniindElri~fFa
'CaUJ€lrt"lla 'tiger salamander
#' '. O..i
> /...
don's tar. Iit-
,; ./ Ccilifornia linderiella
~ nia tl~r salamander
'. Iqalifqrma..red-Iegge,d frog
r1~lIa \"" /
";C~ij~ornia ti~er s~lamander
: ...: ::s. . \ ~,
'~'t ......,. ..
l~i:\':itW";X\\. \ \1, J
ieg: 'Calif6f'1ig\~~a-legged frog
<(California t,lbler s,aramanc[~r
I- ~ ! California tigel salamander
o ; :; " ')
z .', "C~lifornia rest-Ieg~ed frog
~). \'" ..;.' .' ~ S~ JoaqUi~ spearscale
O"Gallfortlla r~ql-leggE!di frog \ ,"
. sa;hHe~11 , er i i /
.
'\ "i>
t.? :' ",4'"""cJ
::J!
:ni
l'Oi
l..! '
(l,):
'E\.
0.>;
0.>\
I... '.
s:. ""
1-\
"
'.
"
".
*
-""
..........:.......
.......
1 mile 0
------
- - -;pp7c;ximate scale
1 mile
,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
,...1-.
Scarlett Drive
Special-status Species
Project # Figure #
917-01
2
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I 1-;") ';
. t. I'
\ .~j
t ~)
ATTACHMENT 3
Life History, Biology and Ecology of Special Status Species that may Constrain the Project
I
Scarlett Drive
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
llc
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Federal listing status:
Threatened; State listing status: Species of Concern
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the California tiger salamander as Threatened
under the authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act on 3 September 2004. The
California tiger salamander was listed because it has been extirpated from approximately
55 per cent of its historic range (Long 1992, Shaffer et al. 1993, Jennings and Hayes
1994). Remaining populations are currently threatened by a wide variety of human
impacts, including: urban development, conversion of natural habitat to agriculture,
construction of reservoirs and water diversions, introduction of exotic predatory animals,
and other anthropogenic factors such as rodent control programs, vehicular-related
mortality, etc. (Sorensen 1994, Fisher and Shaffer 1996, Jennings 1998). To date, the
USFWS has not released a Draft Recovery Plan for the California tiger salamander. On
10 August 2004, the USFWS released a proposed rule for designating critical habitat for
the California tiger salamander (Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Tiger
Salamander, Central Population; Proposed Rule) USFWS 2004). Approximately
382,666 acres fall within the boundaries of what the USFWS proposes to designate as
critical habitat. It is important to note that only those areas that support the critical
elements for the salamander will be classified as critical habitat. Thus, the precise
acreage of critical habitat is expected to be smaller than 382,666 acres.
The California tiger salamander is a large terrestrial salamander with adults attaining a
total length of over 8 inches (203 millimeters) [Stebbins 1951). Adult males are
generally slightly larger than females. Dorsally, the background color appears to be jet
black--normally with an overlain pattern of white or yellow spots, or bars (Stebbins 1985,
Petranka 1998). Undersurfaces are highly variable in pattern, ranging from nearly
uniform white or pale yellow to variegated white or pale yellow and black (Jennings and
Hayes 1994). These salamanders have relatively small, but protruding eyes that have
black irises (Jennings and Hayes 1994).
Juvenile salamanders are 1.7-2.8 inches (42-70 mm) from the tip of the snout to the rear
of the vent (SYL) and have the same coloration pattern as adults. Salamanders that are
recently metamorphosed often have a pale yellowish-brown, tan, or greenish-colored
dorsum with dark flecks and blotches. These blotches soon fade to a white or yellow
color after only a few weeks. Larval salamanders range in size from 0.4-6.6 inches (11-
150 mm) in total length with a pale yellowish-brown, tan, or dark-colored dorsum
(Anderson 1968). External gills and legs are prominent features on all salamander larvae
over 2 weeks old (Storer 1925).
Life History and Ecology. Breeding of adult California tiger salamanders has been
observed from late November through February, following the onset of warm rains
(Storer f925, Barry and Shaffer 1994). Based on observations during the 1990's
(Jennings, unpub. data) salamanders often do not breed during periods of aseasonally
cold rains or during drought (whether breeding ponds are filled with water or not) [Barry
and Shaffer 1994]. Both males and females engage in nocturnal breeding migrations
traveling up to I mile (1.6 km) [Austin and Shaffer 1992) or more from subterranean
refuge sites (e.g. small mammal burrows) [Loredo et al. 1961) to egg deposition sites
2
Scarlett Drive
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
J~~tD !
'(
(long-lasting rain pools) [Twitty 1941, Andersen 1968]. Adult salamanders are possibly
stimulated to move to breeding sites by the vibrations of rainwater falling on the soil, as
adult male salamanders have been observed (after preceding night(s) of rainfall)
wandering on the dry soil of rain pools that had not yet filled (Jennings, unpub. data).
Males generally precede females during the breeding season by 1-2 weeks (Shaffer et al.
1993, Loredo et al. 1996). Following underwater courtship from one or more males,
females deposit moderate-sized [0.13- 0.21 inches (3.6-5.9 mm) diameter] eggs singly on
vegetation and other debris in the shallow margins of rainwater pools (Storer 1925).
Under rare conditions, fertilized eggs may be deposited in small groups of 2-4 (or more)
on submerged vegetation (Twitty 1941). Large females may deposit up to 350 eggs per
season, although most females only deposit 100-200 eggs (Jennings, unpub. data). Adult
salamanders apparently leave breeding ponds soon after spawning (Storer 1925),
although they may forage for up to a month in the general area if conditions continue to .
be moist (Barry and Shaffer 1994). Most salamanders soon return to estivation habitats
in small mammal burrows where they spend approximately 9-10 months underground
until the next winter rains (Barry and Shaffer 1994).
Embryos of California tiger salamanders hatch in approximately 14-28 days after being
laid (Storer 1925, Twitty 1941) and the resulting gilled, aquatic larvae [OAI-0.43 inches
(1O.5-11 mm) in length] require a minimum of about 10-12 weeks to complete
development through metamorphosis. At metamorphosis, young salamanders have
attained a total length of about 2.6 inches (75 mm) [Anderson 1968, Feaver 1971].
Metamorphosis is apparently initiated by receding water levels in breeding ponds and
most larval salamanders do not metamorphose until they are as large as possible (Feaver
1971). Although the native breeding habitat for this species normally dries each year and
metamorphosis is paramount under such conditions, there are a few observations of larval
salamanders over wintering in artificially constructed, permanent ponds. The over
wintering of larvae (especially to sexual maturity) is common in many closely related
.species of mole salamanders (Ambystoma spp.) found in other parts of North America
(Stebbins 1985, Petranka 1998).
California tiger salamander larvae are carnivorous and feed on just about any organism
they can overpower--including smaller conspecifics (Feaver 1971). Larger larvae have
been observed to feed on the larvae of Pacific treefrogs (Hyla regilla), California toads
(Bufo boreas halophil us) and western spadefoots (Scaphiopus hammondii), as well as
many aquatic invertebrates (Anderson 1968, Feaver 1971). Since salamander larvae are
very cryptic in coloration, they are often hard to observe in the turbid waters of breeding
habitats.
Following metamorphosis (normally from early May through July), juveniles emigrate en
masse at night from the drying breeding pond after spending a few hours or days near the
pond margin (Holland et al. 1990). Traveling distances of I mile (1.6 km) or more from
breeding sites, juvenile salamanders wander into small mammal burrows or deep cracks
in the soil, which they use as refugia during the hot summer and fall months (Shaffer et
al. 1993, Loredo et al. 1996). Juveniles will also wander into certain man-made
structures such as wet basements, wells, underground pipes, and septic tanks drains
3
Scarlett Drive
Live Oak Associates. Inc.
v.
[Storer 1925]. Mortality of juveniles can be high during this transition period due to the
stress of metamorphosis and the problems of finding a suitable refuge site before the sun
comes up. Juveniles probably feed on the rich invertebrate fauna that is normally
associated with small mammal burrows and grow rapidly over the next several months.
Data suggest that most individuals require 2 years to become sexually mature, but some
individuals may be slower to mature during periods of drought or aseasonal rainfall
(Shaffer et al. 1993).
Adult salamanders apparently eat the same food organisms as juvenile salamanders
(Morey and Guinn 1992) and may live as long as 20+ years in the wild based on the
longevity of other closely related species in captivity (Snider and Bowler 1992).
Although predation to salamanders is minimal in underground refugia, juveniles and
adults are known to be eaten by bullfrogs, garter snakes, and probably black-crowned
night herons and raccoons when they are present on the surface during the wet winter and
spring months (Morey and Guinn 1992). Larvae are eaten by a wide variety of predators
including garter snakes, bullfrogs, California red-legged frogs, herons, terns (Sterna
spp.), and apparently fish when the latter are introduced into breeding ponds (Baldwin
and Stanford 1987; Shaffer et al. 1993; Fisher and Shaffer 1996).
Anecdotal evidence indicates that salamanders have a high degree of site fidelity to their
breeding ponds and also to the small mammal burrows they use for refugia (Shaffer et al.
1993). For example, a gravid, adult, female California tiger salamander removed from a
breeding site and transported to a newly-created mitigation pond, moved a straight line
distance of approximately 0.9 mile (1.4 km) back to the original point of capture over a 3-
week period (Duke et al. 1998). Sites used for reproduction are typically natural pools
that fill with rainwater and artificial stock ponds; however, salamanders have also been
observed to breed in springs, wells, artificial reservoirs, quarry ponds, man-made canals,
and rarely, in the slack waters of oxbows in small- to medium-sized streams. Such sites
may, or may not contain dense amounts of aquatic and streamside vegetation. The
highest numbers of larvae appear to occur in aquatic habitats that are largely devoid of
any vegetation and contain very turbid water. Salamanders may also turn up in certain
man-made structures (e.g. wet basements, wells, swimming pools, underground pipes,
and septic tank drains [Storer 1925, Pickwell 1947]), sometimes many years after their
local breeding site has been destroyed by urbanization.
Juvenile and adult salamanders typically use the burrows of California ground squirrels
(Spermophilus beecheyi) and pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae) as underground refugia
(Storer 1925, Jennings and Hayes 1994, Jennings 1996, Loredo et al. 1996), but may use
a variety of burrows including cracks within the soil which may extend up to IS-feet (4.6-
m) deep from the soil surface (Jennings, unpub. data). Juvenile and adult salamanders
are especially common in situations where piles of concrete, rock, or other rubble are
mixed with dirt and are located near breeding sites (Jennings, unpub. data). This is
probably because such sites are attractive to burrowing rodents that create extensive
tunnel and burrow systems that in turn are used by juvenile and adult salamanders.
4
Scarlett Drive
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
'"
D
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I Y f.t,
l .~
~'t
California Red-Legged Frog (Rana drayton;'). Federal listing status:
Threa~ened; State listing status: Species of Concern.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the California red-legged frog as Threatened
under the authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act on May 23, 1996. The frog
was listed because it had been extirpated from 70 percent of its historic range and
remaining populations are currently threatened by a wide variety of human impacts (66
FR 14626). On March 13, 2001 the FWS made the Final Determination of Critical
Habitat for the California red-legged frog. On July 2, 2002, FWS greatly reduced the
Critical Habitat for the California red-legged frog after a settlement in a lawsuit. FWS
plans to redraw the critical habitat map for this species by 2005.
The California red-legged frog is the largest native frog in California with adults attaining
a length of 3.4-5.4 inches (85-138 mm) snout-to-vent length (SVL) (Jennings and Hayes
1994). On the dorsal surface, the background color varies from brown to gray to reddish-
brown, normally with some dark mottling peppered around spots with light-colored
centers (Stebbins 1985). The distribution of reddish pigment is highly vari",ble, but is
usually restricted to the groin and undersurfaces of the thighs, legs, and feet (Jennings
and Hayes 1994). This red coloration is not diagnostic for species identification. Two
distinctive, prominent folds of skin ("dorsolateral folds"), run in a complete line from the
rear of the eyes to the groin. The groin has a distinctly mottled pattern of black on a
light-colored background. Juvenile frogs range from 1.5-3.4 inches (40-84 mm) SVL and
have the same coloration as adults except that the dorsolateral folds are normally yellow
or orange colored (Stebbins 1985). This coloratiot:l is distinct even at a distance. Larval
frogs range from 0.6-3.1 inches (14-80 mm) SVL.
Life History and Ecology. Adult California red-legged frogs have been observed
breeding from late November through early May after the onset of warm rains (Storer
1925, Jennings and Hayes 1994). Male frogs typically attract females by emitting low
short calls in small mobile groups of 3-7 individuals (Jennings and Hayes 1994).
Females move toward the calling groups and amplex a male. Following amplexus, the
females move to chosen oviposition sites where they attach an egg mass of 2,000-6,000
moderate-sized (2.0-2.8 mm diameter) eggs to an emergent vegetation brace such as tule
stalks, grasses, or willow roots located just below the water surface (Storer 1925, Livezey
and Wright 1947). Once laid, the egg mass will swell with water for about 24 hours,
finally reaching the size of a softball. Males usually remain at the breeding sites for
several weeks after reproduction before moving to foraging habitats, while females
immediately remove to foraging habitats.
California red-legged frog embryos hatch about 6-14 days following fertilization. The
resulting larvae (8.8-10.3 mm) require 14-28 weeks to reach metamorphosis, which
usually occurs between July and September, although there are scattered observations of
overwintering larvae in perennial ponds such as at the arboretum at Golden Gate Park in
San Francisco (Jennings, pers. comm.). Tadpoles generally metamorphose at 65-85 mm
total length (Storer 1925) and the newly emerged juvenile frogs are generally 25-30 mm
SVL. Larvae are thought to graze on algae, but they are rarely observed in the field
5
Scarlett Drive
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
Dn j{a ~;,
because they spend most of their time concealed in submergent vegetation, algal mats or
detritus (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Post-metamorphic frogs grow rapidly feeding on a
wide variety of invertebrates.
Males typically reach sexual maturity at 2 years and females at 3 years; however, frogs of
both sexes may reach sexual maturity in a single year if resources are sufficient
(Jennings, pers. comm.). Conversely, frogs may take 3-4 years to reach maturity during
extended periods of drought (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Based on limited field data,
California red-legged frogs appear to live up to 10 years in the wild (Jennings, pers.
comm.). Adult frogs apparently eat a wide variety of animal prey including invertebrates,
small fishes, frogs, and small mammals.
California red-legged frogs have been observed in a number of aquatic and terrestrial
habitats thmughout their historic range. Larvae, juveniles, and adult frogs have been
collected from natural lagoons, dune ponds, pools in or next to streams, streams,
marshlands, sag ponds, and springs, as well as human-created stockponds, secondary and
tertiary sewage treatment ponds, wells, canals, golf course ponds, irrigation ponds, sand
and gravel pits (containing water), and large reservoirs (Jennings 1988). The key to the
presence of frogs in these habitats is the presence of perennial (or near perennial) water
and the general lack of introduced aquatic predators such as largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and bluegill (L.
macrochirus), crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus and Procambarus larkia), and bullfrogs.
The habitats observed to contain the largest densities of red...Jegged frogs are associated
with deep-water pools (27 inches [>0.7 meters] deep) with stands of overhanging willows
(Salix spp.) and an intermixed fringe of cattails (Typha latifolia), tules (Scirpus spp.), or
sedges (Carex sp.) (Hayes and Jennings 1988). However, California red-legged frogs
have also been observed to inhabit stock ponds, sewage treatment ponds, and artificial
(=concrete) pools completely devoid of vegetation (Storer 1925; Jennings, pers. comm.).
Continued survival of frogs in all aquatic habitats seems to be based on the continued
presence of ponds, springs, or pools that are disjunct from perennial streams. Such
habitats provide the continued basis for successful reproduction and recruitment year
after year into nearby drainages that may lose frog populations due to stochastic events
such as extreme flooding or droughts. Juvenile frogs are often observed sunning
themselves during the day in the warm, surface-water layer associated with floating and
submerged vegetation (Hayes and Tennant 1986). Adult frogs are largely nocturnal and
are known to sit on stream banks or on the low hanging limbs of willow trees over pools
of water where they can detect small mammal prey (Hayes and Tennant 1986, Jennings
and Hayes 1994). Radio tracking studies conducted in lagoons and the lower portions of
streams along the Central Coast of California show that adult red-legged frogs will move
within the riparian zone from well-vegetated areas to pools of water to hydrate during
periods of time when many of the Central Coast streams are dry except for isolated pools
(Rathbun et al. 1993). During wet periods (especially in the winter and early spring
months), red-legged frogs can move long distances (e.g., 1 mile) between aquatic
habitats, often over areas that are considered to be unsuitable for frogs (e.g., roads, open
fields, croplands, etc.). Such activities can result in frogs ending up in isolated aquatic
habitats well away from the nearest known frog populations.
6
Scarlett Drive
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
/Y<6b~b I
Western Pond. Turtle (Emmys marmorata). Federal listing status: None; State listing
status: Species of Special Concern.
In 1992, based on concerns about widespread population declines due to the extensive
loss of habitat, overexploitation, and introductions of non-native aquatic predators (57 FR
4561, Jennings and Hayes 1994), the D.S.Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was
petitioned to list the western pond turtle (Emmys marmorata) as an endangered species
under the authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act (Sorensen and Propp 1992).
The FWS subsequently ruled that the petition was not warranted. However, the
California Department of Fish and Game has subsequently included this organism in its.
list of "Species of Special Concern" and no longer allows the "take" of this species
without the expressed permission of the Department (California Department of Fish and
Game 2002).
The western pond turtle is the only native aquatic (freshwater) turtle in California and it
is found in a wide variety of aquatic habitats including streams, lakes and ponds. Adult
turtles are moderate-sized [4.7-8.3 inches (120-210 mm) carapace length], and are
generally brown or khaki-colored (Stebbins 1985). Carapace coloration is usually a dark
brown or dull yellow-olive, with or without darker streaks or vermiculations radiating
from the centers of the scutes (Ernst et al. 1994, Jennings and Hayes 1994). Hatchling
and first-year juvenile turtles have long tails and carapaces that are usually brown or olive
in dorsal coloration, with shell lengths generally between 0.99-4.3 inches (25-110 mm).
Life History and Ecology. Adult western pond turtles typically mate in late April or
early May, although mating can occur year-round (Holland 1985). The nesting season is
from late April to early August (Storer 1930, Rathbun et al. 1992, Jennings and Hayes
1994). Gravid females emigrate from their aquatic habitats to an unshaded, upland
location that may be a considerable distance [1,312.4 feet (400 m) or more] from the
riparian zones (Storer 1930, Rathbun et al. 1992); however, if nesting substrates and
exposures are suitable, most nest locations are located close to riparian zones (Jennings,
pers. comm.). Shallow nests (Rathbun et aI. 1992) are usually placed in well-drained clay
or silt soils (Jennings and Hayes 1994) with females depositing from 1-13 (6 average)
eggs within the nest. The white eggs are elliptical-oval, approximately 1.2-1.7 inches
(30.0-42.6 mm) long by 0.7-0.9 inches (18.5-22.6 mm) wide. The eggs have a hard outer
calcium shell [ca. 3.9-4.7 inches (10-12 cm)], although eggs laid in excessively moist
substrates have a high probability of failing because of the thin permeable shells
(Feldman 1982). Females can lay more than one clutch of eggs a year (Goodman 1997b)
and may dig several "false" nests lacking eggs to deter potential predators (Rathbun et al.
1993). Incubation temperatures determine the gender of hatchlings (Ewert et al. 1994).
Young turtles hatch with carapace lengths between 0.99-1.1 inches (25-29 mm) (Ernst et
al. 1994) after an incubation period of 3-4.5 months (Buskirk 1992, Goodman 1997a).
Most hatchling turtles are thought to emerge from the nest and to move to aquatic sites in
the spring (Buskirk 1992), where they typically double their length the first year and
grow rapidly over the next 4-5 years (Storer 1930, Holland 1985). Sexual maturity
7
Scarlett Drive
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
probably occurs between 7 and 11 years of age with males maturing at slightly smaller
sizes and ages than females (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Western pond turtles are known
to live over 42 years in the wild (Jennings and Hayes 1994), although most individuals
have a much shorter life span of around 20-25 years (Bury 1972).
Young turtles spend most their time feeding in shallow water that is dominated by
relatively dense vegetation of submergents, short emergents, or algal mats (Jennings and
Hayes 1994). Juveniles and adults preferloticaquatic habitats with basking sites such as
rocks and logs (Bury 1972). Juveniles and adults seem to remain in pond environments
except when such ponds dry up, or at higher elevations when turtles may disperse into
terrestrial environments to hibernate (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Bury and Holland, in
press). In stream environments, juveniles and adults show considerable variation with
regards to movements and the timing of movements into terrestrial environments (Reese
and Welsh 1998). The largest turtle populations have been observed in slack- or slow-
water habitats, which have abundant basking sites and underwater refugia (Bury 1972).
The presence of dense stands of submergent or emergent vegetation, and abundant
aquatic invertebrates resources, as well as suitable nearby nesting sites and the lack of
native and exotic predators, are also important components (Bury 1972, Jennings and
Hayes 1994, Bury and Holland, in press). Some turtles will leave the stream during the
summer when water conditions are low and water temperatures are elevated [>950F
(>350C)], while others will not. However, almost all turtles seem to leave streams during
the winter months when large flood events are common (Reese and Welsh 1998).
Additionally, some turtles will move considerable distances [e.g., 1,148 feet (350 m)] to
overwinter in terrestrial habitats such as leaf litter or under the root masses of trees
(Rathbun et at. 1992, Reese and Welsh 1998). Some individual turtles have displayed
site fidelity for hibernation and nesting sites from year to year (Bury and Holland, in
press).
Western pond turtles often move about from pool to pool in stream situations, sometimes
on a daily basis during seasons of activity (Bury 1972, Reese and Welsh 1998).
Distances moved along streams can be up to 3.1 miles (5 kilometers) [Bury and Holland,
in press]. These turtles also have the ability to move several miles (kilometers) if their
aquatic habitat dries up, and can tolerate at least 7 days without water, or 7 days of being
immersed in full strength salt water (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Bury and Holland, in
press) .
Juvenile and adult western pond turtles feed largely on the same food items although
juveniles feed more on smaller aquatic invertebrates (Bury 1986). These turtles are
dietary generalists that are highly opportunistic (Ernst et al. 1994), and will consume
almost anything that they are able to catch and overpower (Holland 1985). Western pond
turtles are eaten by a wide variety of natural predators during their life span. Known
predators include: bald eagles,. ospreys, great blue herons, gulls, river otters, mink,
raccoons, gray foxes, coyotes, black bears, introduced bullfrogs, and introduced
largemouth bass (Bury 1972). Humans, especially near urban areas, also illegally collect
juvenile and adult turtles.
8
Scarlett Drive
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
I Lr <2:
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ r. f'
1 .~
/'1 (
Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). Federal listing status: None; State listing
status: Species of Concern.
The burrowing owl is considered a California species of special concern. This decision
was based on the fact that the burrowing owl's population levels were decreasing due to
habitat destruction, roadside nesting (vulnerability to human interference) and indirectly,
ground squirrel poisoning.
The burrowing owl is a small, long-legged, semi-fossarial bird that averages a height of
9.5 inches, has an average wingspan of 23 inches, and weighs an average of 5.25 ounces.
Burrowing owls are unique, as they are the only owl that regularly lives and breeds in
underground nests. In California, these birds typically occur in the Central and Imperial
Valleys, primarily utilizing ground squirrel burrows (or the burrows of other animals,
e.g., badgers, prairie dogs and kangaroo rats) found in grasslands, open shrub lands,
deserts, and to a lesser extent, grazing and agricultural lands. Burrowing owls in this
region are typically found in lower elevations, and have strong site fidelity. Pairs have
been known to return to the same area year after year, and some pairs are known to utilize
the same burrow as the previous year.
Life History and Ecology. Burrowing owls feed on various small mammals including
deer mice, voles, and rats. They also prey on various invertebrates including crickets,
beetles, grasshoppers, spiders, centipedes, scorpions and crayfish. Peak hunting periods
occur around dusk and dawn.
The breeding season for the burrowing owl runs from February to August, with a peak
between April and July. Clutch size varies from six to 12 eggs, with an average of seven
to nine eggs. Females generally produce only one clutch per year. The female incubates
the eggs for a month, while the male provides her food. The male continues to provide
food during the brooding period. The young remain in their burrow for approximately
two weeks after hatching, and become fully independent oftheir parents between eight to
ten weeks of age. Burrowing owls are a fairly short-lived species, with an average life
expectancy of 4.8 years. The oldest known wild burrowing owl was eight years and eight
months old at the time of its death.
Burrowing owls are subject to predation by larger mammals (e.g., feral cats, bobcats, fox
and coyotes). They are also susceptible to anthropogenic effects such as collisions with
automobiles, and destruction or disruption of their nests, especially during the breeding
season. The burrowing owl may also be affected by ground squirrel eradication efforts.
Burrowing owl numbers have been in decline over the past 30 to 40 years, in California.
The decline in numbers is due mainly to habitat destruction by way of development and
. agricultural practices. -
9
Scarlett Drive
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
Scarlett Drive
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
16!!blw
San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Federal listing status: Endangered;
State listing status: Threatened.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the San Joaquin kit fox as Endangered under
the authority of the Federal Endangered Species Act on II March 1967. The kit fox was
listed because it had been extirpated from much of its historic range. On 27 June 1971,
the State of California listed the kit fox as Threatened; and in 1998, the USFWS adopted
a final recovery plan for the San Joaquin kit fox.
Life History and Ecology. The kit fox (Vulpes macro tis) is one of nine species in the
genus Vulpesin the family Canidae in the order Carnivora. The San Joaquin kit fox is
one of seven subspecies of kit fox and is considered the most genetically distinct
(Mercure et a1.l993). The San Joaquin kit fox is the smallest North American canid
(member of the dog family, Canidae). Adult males weigh approximately 2.3 kilograms
(approximately 5 lbs.) and adult females weigh 2.1 kilograms (approximately 4.6Ibs.), on
average (MorrellI972).
Historically, the San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) occurred extensively
throughout California's Central Valley and parts of the Salinas and Santa Clara valleys.
Kit fox currently inhabit some areas of suitable habitat on the San Joaquin Valley floor
and in the surrounding foothills of the coastal ranges, Sierra Nevada, and Tehachapi
Mountains, from southern Kern County north to Contra Costa, Alameda, and San Joaquin
Counties on the west, and near La Grange, Stanislaus County on the east side of the
Valley and some of the larger scattered islands of natural land on the Valley floor in
Kern, Tulare, Kings, Fresno, Madera, and Merced Counties. Kit foxes also occur
westward into the interior coastal ranges in Monterey, San Benito and Santa Clara
Counties (Pajaro River watershed), in the Salinas River watershed, Monterey and San
Luis Obispo Counties, and in the upper Cuyama River Watershed in northern Ventura
and Santa Barbara Counties and southeastern San Luis Obispo County (description taken
from the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California,
USFWS 1998, p.124).
Kit foxes prefer habitats of open or low vegetation with loose soils. In the northern
portion of their range, they occupy grazed grasslands and to a lesser extent valley oak
woodlands. In the southern and central portion of the Central Valley, kit foxes are found
in Valley Sink Scrub, Valley Saltbrush Scrub, Upper Sonoran Subshrub Scrub and
Annual Grassland (USFWS 1998). Kit foxes are also found in grazed grasslands, urban
settings and in areas adjacent to tilled or fallow fields (see USFWS 1998).
The kit fox requires underground dens to raise pups, to avoid predators (Golightly and
Ohmart 1984), and to regulate temperature and avoid other adverse environmental
conditions. In the northern portion of their range, burrowing mammals, primarily ground
squirrels (Spermophilus californicus) usually provide these holes. Dens are usually
located on loose-textured soils on slopes less than 40 degrees (O'Farrell 1980). Natal
pupping dens are generally found on slopes of less than 6 degrees (O'Farrell and McCue
1981). Dens have been recorded at the elevation of 363 meters (1,200 feet) (Grinnell et.
al. 1937, USFWS 1983, USFWS 1998).
10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
') ,~' 1
,"<,~~ V
Iltt t
Pairs may share home ranges all year but may use different dens (USFWS 1998). Kit
foxes breed from late December to March (Morrell 1972, Zoellick et al. 1987). One litter
of two to six pups is born sometime between February and late March (Egoscue 1962,
Morrell 1972, McGrew 1979, Zoellick et al. 1987). Males provision the female and pups
for some period after birth. Dispersal distances vary considerable. A six-year study at Elk
Hills Petroleum Preserves in California showed that pups dispersed an average distance
of 5.0 miles (Scrivner et. al. 1987, USFWS 1998).
Age range of kit fox varies from 2 years to over 10 years in captivity (McGrew 1979). Kit
foxes in the wild have been known to live to 7 (Egoscue 1962) and even 8 years (Berry et
al. 1987). However, kit foxes have high mortality rates as adults (0.50) and as juveniles
(0.70) (Morrell 1972, Ralls and White 1995).
11
Scarlett Drive
Live Oak Associates, Inc.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ i'J ! ,(
Appendix B: Live Oak Associates, Inc., Rare Plant Surveys
Conducted on the Scarlett Drive Property
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
..,;w
,;: ; ,~ .
,.
{'
LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC.
an Ecological Consulting Firm
19 September 2006
Ms. Karli Grisby
David Powers & Associates
1885 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
RE: Results of Rare Plant Surveys Conducted on the Scarlett Drive Property in Dublin,
CA (PN: 917-02)
Dear Karli:
Per your request, Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) conducted a rare plant survey on the Scarlett
Drive project site in Dublin, California. The site currently consists of the Wild Horse trail, to the
east of the existing road and within the footprint of the proposed extension, a manmade seasonal
drainage to the east of the existing road and to the east and west of the area proposed for the
extension. These drainages connect to the natural bottom Chabot Canal. The vegetation of the
site consists mainly of ruderal, roadside vegetation, along with several native species and
hydrophytes. There is an "island" of willows within the eastern drainage.
The site is located within a mixed-use area. To the immediate east of the site is the Camp Parks
Military Reserve (separated from the site by a cyclone fence topped with circular barbed wire);
to the immediate West of the site is a high-density residential development. The site's southern
boundary is Dublin Boulevard (a commercial thoroughfare), and its north boundary is Dougherty
Drive. The site can be found on the Dublin U.S.G.S. 7.5' quadrangle at the following: generally
southeast 14 of the northwest 14 of Section 6, Township 3 South, Range 1 East (see Figure 1).
Two biotic habitats were identified on the study area. For purposes of this report, these biotic
habitats have been defined as ruderal grassland and manmade seasonal drainages.
The site was surveyed on 7 July 2006 for two special status plant species that were identified in our
constraints analysis conducted in May 2006. Species surveyed for included Congdon's tar plant
(CNPS 1B; Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii) and saline clover (CNPS IB; Trifolium
depauperatum var. hydrophilum). Each species was listed as "possible" in the Constraints Analysis
for Scarlett Drive, Dublin, CA (LOA 2006) and are discussed in more detail below.
· Congdon's Tar Plant. This member of the Aster Family (Asteraceae) has been neither state
nor federally listed as threatened or endangered. The CNPS has placed this species on its
List IB (Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere). There are
San Jose Office: 6830 Via Del Oro, Suite 205 · San Jose, CA 95119 . Phone: 408-281-5885 · Fax: 408-224-1411
Oakhurst Office: PO. Box 2697 . 49430 Road 426, Suite B . Oakhurst, CA 93644 · Phone: 559-642-4880 · Fax 559-642-4883
lto
five records of Congdon's tarplant to the north and east within a three-mile radius of the site.
This annual herbaceous species, blooms between May and October, and is found on valley
and foothill grasslands that support alkaline soils between 1 and 230 meters.
. Saline Clover. This member of the Legume Family (Fabaceae) has been neither state nor
fedenllly listed as threatened or endangered. The CNPS has placed this species on its List 1 B
(Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere). This annual
herbaceous species, blooms between April and June, depending on rainfall and spring
temperatures. Populations have not been documented within three miles of the site, but
individuals have been reported numerous times within Alameda County. Saline clover
occurs in marshes and swamps, vernal pools, and alkaline valley and foothill grasslands.
SUR VET METHODS
Special status plant species surveys were conducted on 7 July 2006. During the surv~y, Ms. Pamela
Peterson, LOA plant ecologist, walked the portions of the site supporting suitable habitat for the
particular special status species known to occur in the project vicinity, ensuring 100% visual
coverage of these areas. All plant species observed were recorded in. a field notebook. A complete
list of plant species observed on the site can be found in Appendix A.
A literature search preceded the 2006 survey and focused on the habitat requirements and the
guidelines for conducting special status plant surveys. Specifically, this literature search involved a
review of the CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines (Appendix B), the California Department ofFish
and Game Resource Agency's Guidelinesfor Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare,
Threatened and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities (Appendix B), the Online Inventory of
Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2006), and querying the California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) (California Department ofFish and Game 2006). The purpose of the CNDDB query was
to identify the nearest known populations of the special status plant species to the project site
(reference sites).
RESULTS
The special status plant species surveys conducted in July 2006 confirmed that both Congdon's tar
plant and saline clover are absent from the site. Based on the findings of the 2006 survey and the
current development plan, we conclude that the eventual development of the Scarlet Drive project
will not adversely impact special status plant species. No further surveys are necessary or warranted
to address this issue.
If you have any questions, please call me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Michele Korpos
Project Manager/
Wildlife Ecologist
I'
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
15ft;
f
t
APPENDIX A
VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE PROJECT STUDY AREA
The plant species listed below have been observed on the Scarlet Drive study area during site surveys
conducted by Live Oak Associates, Inc., in 2006. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland
indicator statlls for each plant has been shown following the common name of the plant species.
OBL - Obligate
FACW - Facultative Wetland
FAC - Facultative
F ACU - Facultative Upland
UPL - Upland
+/- - Higher/lower end of category
NR - No review
NA - No agreement
NI - No investigation
APIACEAE - Carrot Family
Conium maculatum
Foeniculum vulgare
ASTERACEAE - Sunflower Family
Baccharis pilularis
Centaurea solstitialis
Conyza canadensis
Cynara cardunculus
Gnaphalium luteoalbum
Hyporhaeis sp.
Lactuca serriola
Picris echioides
Sonchus oleraceus
Xanthium strumarium
BRASSICACEAE - Mustard Family
Brassica nigra
Raphanus sativus
CHENOPODIACEAE - Goosefoot Family
Salsola tragus
CVPERACEAE - Sedge Family
Cyperus eragrostis Tall Cyperus
Scirpus acutus Common Tule
CONVOLVULACEAE - Morning-Glory Family
Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed
FABACEAE - Legume Family
Lotus scoparius
FAGACEAE - Oak Family
Quercus lobata
GERANEACEAE - Geranium Family
Geranium dissectum
MAL V ACEAE - Mallow Family
Malvella leprosa
Poison Hemlock
Wild Fennel
FACW
UPL
Coyote Brush
Yellow Star Thistle
Canadian Horseweed
Artichoke Thistle
Common Cudweed
Cat's Ear
Prickly Wild Lettuce
Bristly Oxtongue
Common Sow Thistle
Rough Cocklebur
NI
UPL
FAC
UPL
FACU
UPL
FAC
FAC
UPL
FAC+
Black Mustard
Wild Radish
UPL
NI
Russian Thistle
NI
FACW
OBL
UPL
Deerweed
FAC
Valley Oak
FAC
Cransebill
UPL
Alkali Mallow
FACW
Wild Oat
Ripgut Brome
Bermuda Grass
Saltgrass
Watergrass
Italian Ryegrass
Harding Grass
Rabbitsfoot Grass
~~ (LP I'
UPL 1
UPL I
FAC
I
UPL
UPL 1
FAC
FACW
FACW I
UPL
FACW+
FACW+
FAC I
FACW-
FACW I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ONAGRACEAE - Evening Primrose Family
Epilobium brachycarpum Annual Fireweed
PAPA VERACEAE - Poppy Family
Eschscholzia californica California Poppy
PLANTAGINACEAE - Plantain Family
Plantago lanceolata English Plantain
POACEAE - Grass Family
Avena fatua
Bromus diandrus
Cynodon dactylon
Distichlis spirata
Echinochloa crus-galli
Lolium multiflorum
P halaris aquatica
Polypogon manspeliensis
POL YGONACEAE - Buckwheat Family
Polygonum arenastrum
Rumex crispus
SALIACEAE - Willow Family
Salix laevigata
Prostrate Knotweed
Curly Dock
Red Willow
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1St
APPENDIX B
CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY BOTANICAL SURVEY GUIDELINES
&
GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT ON RARE,
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED PLANTS AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES BY THE
RESOURCE AGENCY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
I
') ..;) I
I
CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines
(from CNPS Inventory, 6th Edition, 2001)
I
The following recommendations are intended to help those who prepare and review environmental documents
determine when a botanical survey is needed, who should be considered qualified to conduct such surveys, how
surveys should be conducted, and what information should be contained in the survey report. The California Native
Plant Society recommends that lead agencies not accept the results of surveys unless they are conducted and
reported according to these guidelines.
I
1. Botanical surveys are conducted in order to determine the environmental effects of proposed projects on all
botanical resources, including special status plants (rare, threatened, and endangered plants) and plant (vegetation)
communities. Special status plants are not limited to those that have been listed by state and federal agencies but
include any plants that, based on all available data, can be shown to be rare, threatened, or endangered under the
following definitions:
I
I
A species, subspecies, or variety of plant is "endangered" when the prospects of its survival and reproduction are in
immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation,
predation, competition, or disease. A plant is "threatened" when it is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable
future in the absence of protection measures. A plant is "rare" when, although not presently threatened with
extinction, the species, subspecies, or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be
endangered if its environment worsens.1
I
I
Rare plant (vegetation) communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution. These communities
mayor may not contain special status plants. The most current version of the California Natural Diversity Database's
List of Califomia Terrestrial Natural Communities2 should be used as a guide to the names and status of
communities.
1
Consistent with the California Native Plant Society's goal of preserving plant biodiversity on a regional and local
scale, and with California Environmental Quality Act environmental impact assessment criteria3, surveys should also
assess impacts to locally significant plants. Both plants and plant communities can be considered significant if their
local occurrence is on the outer limits of known distribution, a range extension, a rediscovery, or rare or uncommon in
a local context (such as within a county or region). Lead agencies should address impacts to these locally unique
botanical resources regardless of their status elsewhere in the state.
I
I
2. Botanical surveys must be conducted to determine if, or to the extent that, special status or locally significant plants
and plant communities will be affected by a proposed project when any natural vegetation occurs on the site and the
project has the potential for direct or indirect effects on vegetation.
I
3. Those conducting botanical surveys must possess the following qualifications:
I
a. Experience conducting floristic field surveys;
b. Knowledge of plant taxonomy and plant community ecology and classification;
c. Familiarity with the plants of the area, including special status and locally significant plants;
d. Familiarity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to plants and plant collecting; and,
e. Experience with analyzing impacts of a project on native plants and communities.
I
4. Botanical surveys should be conducted in a manner that will locate any special status or locally significant plants or
plant communities that may be present. Specifically, botanical surveys should be:
I
a. Conducted in the field at the proper times of year when special status and locally significant plants are both
evident and identifiable. When special status plants are known to occur in the type(s) of habitat present in
the project area, nearby accessible occurrences of the plants (reference sites) should be observed to
determine that the plants are identifiable at the time of survey.
b. Floristic in nature. A floristic survey requires that every plant observed be identified to species, subspecies,
or variety as applicable. In order to properly characterize the site, a complete list of plants observed on the
site shall be included in every botanical survey report. In addition, a sufficient number of visits spaced
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I'. /"
v
,,,'
~'.I#\.
;,)
throughout the growing season is necessary to prepare an accurate inventory of all plants that exist on the
site. The number of visits and the timing between visits must be determined by geographic location, the
plant communities present, and the weather patterns of the year(s) in which the surveys are conducted.
c. Conducted in a manner that is consistent with conservation ethics and accepted plant collection and
documentation techniques4.5. Collections (voucher specimens) of special status and locally significant plants
should be made, unless such actions would jeopardize the continued existence of the population. A single
sheet should be collected and deposited at a recognized public herbarium for future reference. All
collections shall be made in accordance with applicable state and federal permit requirements. Photography
may be used to document plant identification only when the population cannot withstand collection of
voucher specimens.
d. Conducted using systematic field techniques in all habitats of the site to ensure a thorough coverage of
potential impact areas. All habitats within the project site must be surveyed thoroughly in order to properly
inventory and document the plants present. The level of effort required per given area and habitat is
dependent upon the vegetation and its overall diversity and structural complexity.
e. Well documented. When a special status plant (or rare plant community) is located, a California Native
Species (or Community) Field Survey Form or equivalent written form, accompanied by a copy of the
appropriate portion of a 7.5-minute topographic map with the occurrence mapped, shall be completed,
included within the survey report, and separately submitted to the California Natural Diversity Database.
Population boundaries should be mapped l;lS accurately as possible. The number of individuals in each
population should be counted or estimated, as appropriate.
5. Complete reports of botanical sUrveys shall be included with all environmental assessment documents, including
Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declarations, Timber Harvesting Plans, Environmental Impact Reports,
and Environmental Impact Statements. Survey reports shall contain the following information:
a. Project location and description, including:
1. A detailed map of the location and footprint of the proposed project.
2. A detailed description of the proposed project, including one-time activities and ongoing activities
that may affect botanical resources.
3. A description of the general biological setting of the project area.
b. Methods, including:
1. Survey methods for each of the habitats present, and rationale for the methods used.
2. Description of reference site(s) visited and phenological development of the target special status
plants, with an assessment of any conditions differing from the project site that may affect their
identification. .
3. Dates of surveys and rationale for timing and intervals; names of personnel conducting the surveys;
and total hours spent in the field for each surveyor on each date.
4. Location of deposited voucher specimens and herbaria visited.
c. Results, including:
1. A description and map of the vegetation communities on the project site. The current standard for
vegetation classification, A Manual of California Vegetation6, should be used as a basis for the
habitat descriptions and the vegetation map. If another vegetation classification system is used, the
report must reference the system and provide the reason for its use.
2. A description of the phenology of each of the plant communities at the time of each survey date.
3. A list of all plants observed on the project site using accepted scientific nomenclature, along with
any special status designation. The reference(s) used for scientific nomenclature shall be cited.
4. Written description and detailed map(s) showing the location of each special status or locally
significant plant found, the size of each population, and method used to estimate or census the
population.
5. Copies of all California Native Species Field Survey Forms or Natural Community Field Survey
Forms and accompanying maps.
d. Discussion, including:
1. Any factors that may have affected the results of the surveys (e.g., drought, human disturbance,
recent fire).
2. Discussion of any special local or range-wide significance of any plant population or community on
the site.
3. An assessment of potential impacts. This shall include a map showing the distribution of special
status and locally significant plants and communities on the site in relation to the proposed
activities. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the plants and communities shall be
discussed.
4. Recommended measures to avoid and/or minimize direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts.
\ L?'
II
e. References cited and persons contacted.
f. Qualifications of field personnel including any special experience with the habitats and special status plants
present on the site.
I
References Cited
I
1 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, &15065 and &15380.
I
2 List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities. California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity
Database. Sacramento, CA.
3 California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Appendix G (Initial Study Environmental Checklist).
I
4 Collectinq Guidelines and Documentation Techniques. California Native Plant Society Policy (adopted March 4,
1995) .
I
5 Ferren, W.R., Jr., D.L. Magney, and TA Sholars. 1995. The Future of California Floristics and Systematics:
Collecting Guidelines and Documentation Techniques. Madrotio 42(2):197-210.
I
6 Sawyer, J.G. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Veaetation. California Native Plant Society.
Sacramento, CA. 471 pp.
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ib
"i\L
~, J
GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON RARE, THREATENED AND
ENDANGERED PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES
August 1997
The Department of Fish and Game recognizes the importance of research in promoting the conservation,
appreciation, and understanding of California's rare, threatened, and endangered plants and plant communities.
Under Section 1907(a) and Section 2081 (a) of the Fish and Game Code, the Department may authorize, through
permits and Memoranda of Understanding, the take and possession of State-listed species for scientific, educational,
and management purposes. The Department's Species Conservation and Recovery Program (SCARP) handles this
permitting process for State-listed plant species. The Research Permit is typically the vehicle by which SCARP will
authorize research on these species. To apply for a permit, use the Proposal Format for Research Projects
involving State-Listed Plants, below.
The following information is intended to guide you in planning research on State-listed plant species.
1. The Department generally will not authorize collection of more than 5% of the seed or vegetative growth
produced by any population of a listed species during any given year. In your proposal, please justify the amount
you would like to collect.
2. Moving plants, seeds, or pollen from one location or population of the plant to another is generally
discouraged, unless it is part of an overall recovery program, because of the possibility of genetic contamination
of local natural populations. Proposals involving such movement must include justification of why this design is
necessary and must address the possibility or likelihood of contamination. Methods to prevent any possible
genetic contamination should be discussed.
3. If your research will include any reintroduction activities, the following criteria must be met: (a) sites chosen
for reintroduction must have permanent protection in the event the reintroduction succeeds, and (b) the
Investigator(s) must agree to monitor for a period that is long enough to assess the success of the reintroduction
(we generally recommend seven years). Before planning a reintroduction, you should consider and include in
your proposal the following factors: habitat suitability, probability of success, potential genetic contamination, and
long-term protection and management needs (including funding sources).
4. Research should be conducted in a manner that is consistent with conservation ethics. Collections of
voucher specimens of rare or suspected rare species should be made only when such actions will not jeopardize
the continued existence of the population and in accordance with applicable State and Federal permit
regulations, and generally are not needed from sites which have already been vouchered. Voucher specimens
should be deposited at recognized public herbaria for future reference. Photography should be used to document
plant identification and habitat whenever possible, but especially when the population cannot withstand collection
of voucher specimens. The Investigators should take all precautions to minimize damage to rare species, the
associated soil, and vegetation during field work.
5. Principal Investigators should possess the following qualifications:
a. Experience as a botanical field investigator with plant identification skills and experience in
experimental design, field methods, plant ecology, and at least a rudimentary knowledge of population
genetics;
b. Familiarity with the flora and fauna of the area, including rare species; and
c. Familiarity with the appropriate State and Federal statutes related to rare plants and plant
collecting.
6. Any unused seed collected from a State-listed species should be deposited at Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden or
another facility which has the expertise and equipment necessary for seed storage, under direct arrangement with that facility
and with Department approval. Research permits are issued only for scientific research projects. If your project is related to a
mitigation effort, contact the Department regarding a 208I(b) incidental take permit.
')<" ~
~1 '.'''\
,';
SCARLETT DRIVE JIRON HORSE
TRAIL EXTENSION PROJECT
ADDENDUM
TO
INITIAL STUDY REPORT
(Based on comments received within
The 30-day Public Review Period)
ATTACHMENT 5.
}~4 ~
REVISIONS TO THE TEXT OF THE INITIAL STUDY
The following section contains revisions to the text of the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) for the Iron Horse Trail/Scarlett Drive Improvements Project, dated
December 2006. Revised or new language is underlined. All deletions are shown '.'/ith a line through
the text.
Section 2.4
Project Description
REVISE the text on page 9 under 6. Extension of Culvert as follows:
The existing Chabot Canal culvert under Dublin Boulevard is a box culvert with a dividing wall
down the center (see Photo 7). An 8 foot by 8 foot double-box culvert structure would be extended
approximately 170 feet to the north within the Chabot Canal to support the proposed Scarlett Drive
and Iron Horse Trail. The proposed culvert extension would be designed to match the existing box
culvert and to accommodate 100-year flood flows.
Section 3.4
Biological Resources
ADD the following text to page 25 under Regulated Habitats:
San Francisco Bav ReJ!ional Water Oualitv Control Board
The State Water Quality Control Board was created by the 1949 Dickey Water Pollution Control Act.
The State WQCB has primary responsibility for overseeing and enforcing the State's pollution
abatement programs, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Svstem (NPDES) and
Section 401 (State Water Quality Certification) of the Clean Water Act. The San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) was created by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act of 1969 to oversee their programs on a day-to-day basis at the regiona11evel. The City
of Dublin is currently permitted under the NPDES, and the project will likely not require an
amendment to that permit. However the project improvements include work within the Chabot
CanaL which triggers RWQCB oversight for State Water Qualitv Certification.
Furthermore, the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) cannot issue a Section 404 permit without
State Water Qualitv Certification. Section 401 certification requires that a project not degrade
identified beneficial uses, meet the stated water quality objectives of the basin, and not degrade any
existing high quality waters. This tyPe of project would need to implement best management
practices (BMP) during construction in order to ensure no discharges of sediment into Waters of the
State.
) J.t. > ,.;'.
....A i
~ ,.
REVISE the text on pages 29-30 under Regulated Habitat as follows:
u.s. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps)
No riparian habitat is present on the project site. As stated previously, a total of approximately two
(2) acres of potentially jurisdictional, seasonal aquatic habitat is believed to be present on-site. The
roadway widening and extension of Scarlett Drive and the associated grading would impact 1.6 acres
of seasonal aquatic habitat to the east and west of the existing Scarlett Drive. In addition, the culvert
extension and associated fill at the future intersection of Scarlett Drive and Dublin Boulevard would
temporarily impact approximately 0.5 acres of the Chabot Canal. The total proposed amount of fill
for both of the seasonal drainages and the Chabot Canal would be approximately 4,527 CY or 2.8
acres (assuming 2: 1 slope to conform to Camp Parks). This area \vould be filled and either covered
'.'lith pavement (permanent impact) or a box culvert extension (temporary impact).
Impact: The project would result in fill of jurisdictional wetlands within the two drainages
east and west of the proposed roadway and within the Chabot Canal.
Mitigation: The mitigation measures described below would reduce impacts to the wetland
habitat to a less than significant level. The project applicant would incorporate
measure 3.4.1 and eitflef measures 3.4.2 and 3.1.3 or measure 3.1.1 into the project.
3.4.1 A formal wetland delineation would be conducted and submitted to the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) for verification of jurisdictional wetlands on-site. The
RWQCB will also be contacted, as appropriate, to determine whether non-Corps
iurisdictional Waters of the State are present at the proiect site.
Prior to construction, the proiect applicant shall apply for and obtain a Section 404
permit from the Corps and Section 401 certification from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. The proiect proponent would comply with the conditions of these
regulatory documents.
3.4.2 As mitigation for the permanent loss of wetlands, impacted seasonal aquatic habitat
would be replaced, either in conjunction v.'ith mitigation for proposed wetland
impacts associated with the Scarlett Dri'/e road'.vay project or at an approved local
mitigation bank or adjacent property, such as the Oh10ne Preserve Conservation Bank
in Livermore. Impacted wetlands would be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2: 1
(replaced:impacted). To mitigate impacts to wetlands, approximately four (4) acres
of wetlands would be created. "^~ detailed 'Hetland restoration plan would be prepared
in consultation ','lith a qualified restoration biologist. Such as plan ',vould provide the
follovling:
3.1.2.1
Replacement of lost '.vet1and habitat.
3.1.2.2
Location of on site restoration opportunities, complete with an analysis of
the technical approach to create high quality v/etlands.
3.1.2.3
Prior to construction, the project applicant shall apply for and obtain a
Section 101 permit from the Corps and Section 101 certification from the
Regional \Vater Quality Control Board. The project proponent would
comply ',vith the conditions of these regulatory documents.
llt>~utl
3.1.3 In addition to the conditions contained in the regulatory documents, the project
proponent v/ould comply with the follo'.ving additional recommendations:
3.1.3.1
A detailed plan would be created for v/etland construction that includes
excavation elcvations, location of hydrologic connections and soil
amendments, is necessary.
3.1.3.2
Planting, maintenance and monitoring plans "'/QuId be prepared In
consultation with a qualified habitat restoration specialist.
3.1.3.3
Constructed '.vetlands shall be monitored for a period of five (5) years and
the sitc shall achievc 80 perccnt cover by nativc marsh plant spccies by
Year 5. Specific performancc criteria 'Hill bc dctcrmined and monitored
for site success.
.JA.A. Alternatively to measures 3.4.2 and 3.1.3, thcThe replacement of lost habitat
functions and values of the seasonal aquatic habitat eaH:will be achieved through
participation in a nearby mitigation bank. The appropriate acreage and location
would be set in consultation with state and federal resource agencies.
The proiect proposes to provide mitigation for impacted habitat at the Ohlone
Preserve Conservation Bank, located at 1556 Catalina Court in Livermore. At least
four (4) acres of wetland mitigation credits shall be purchased at the Oh10ne Preserve
Conservation Bank.
In the event mitigation at the Ohlone Preserve Conservation Bank is unavailable
when proiect construction commences, the City will provide in-kind replacement
habitat at another mitigation bank in the region, approved by the resource agencies.
Section 3.8
Hydrology and Water Quality
REVISE the second paragraph under Drainage and Flooding on page 42 as follows:
Within the site area, there are two existing seasonal storm drainages~ which provide drainage and
detention of over land surface water flows during heavy storm events and drain to the Chabot Canal.
One seasonal drainage is immediately to the east abutting the proposed alignment of the Scarlett
Drive extension, both north and south of Houston Place. The second seasonal drainage is located to
the west of the proposed extension site, south of Houston Place. Drainage facilities throughout
Dublin are required for storm water runoff. The drainages adjacent to the project site offer storm
water runoff drainage and detention for the surrounding developments and roadways.
11.0 ltc,
REVISE the second paragraph on page 45 as follows:
There are two existing, manmade seasonal drainages at the proiect site, one along the western and
eastern sides of the Scarlett Drive roadway. These drainages convey over-land surface water flows
during heavy storm events. The extension and widening of Scarlett Drive would also encroach onto
the western seasonal drainage located to the south of Houston Place adjacent to the western property
line. The project proposes to fill and pave over the seasonal drainage, therefore, the creating a
permanent impact to the ';(estern drainage of the site. the capacity of this ditch to temporarily store
over-land surface runoff and convey this runoff to the Chabot Canal would be lost as a result of the
proiect. The proposed Scarlett Drive roadwav would be designed and sloped to convey surface
runoff to the southwestern and eastern sides of the roadway, where it would be detained and treated
in the proposed vegetated swales prior to discharge into the Chabot Canal.
REVISE the discussion under Water Quality on page 45 as follows:
Proiect Construction
Project construction activities could result in a disturbance to the seasonal drainages, canal and
underlying soils, thereby increasing the potential for sedimentation and erosion and affecting water
quality.
Construction activities related to the proposed project would generate dust, sediment, litter, oil, and
other pollutants that would contaminate runoff from the site. The proposed project will incorporate
the following avoidance measure to reduce water quality impacts:
The BMPs include, but are not limited to the following:
· Installation of an environmentally sensitive area (ESA) fence that will consist of
orange, plastic mesh construction fencing and will serve as a visual demarcation of
construction limits for the construction crew and equipment.
· Erosion control seeding with native grass and forb species.
· No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, cement, concrete, washings,
petroleum products or other organic or earthen material will be allowed to enter into,
or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into, waters of the
U.S./State. Poured concrete shall be completely dried before it comes into contact
with surface waters.
Post-Construction
The proiect would comply with Alameda County Clean Water Program (ACCWP) NPDES Permit
(Order R2-2003-00211 NPDES Permit No. CAS0029831 ).
The proiect proposes to utilize structural and non structural control measures and management
practices to minimize the addition of runoff volume and pollution to the stormwater system,
including the use of open vegetated swales and natural depressions, storm water retention or
detention structures, and oil/water separators, or, a combination of these practices. The proposed
BMPs will be required to comply with the NPDES C.3 permit provisions.
I ,I ..,."., I
{ v/6 t)b &; (
The exact location(s) and size(s) of the detention areas described below would be subject to the
approval of Zone 7.
· BMPs to reduce the volume of runoff from the site, such as detention/retention units or
infiltration structures, shall be designed to treat stormwater runoff equal to:
1. the maximized stormwater quality capture volume for the area, based on historical rainfall
records, determined using the formula and volume capture coefficients set forth in Urban
Runoff Dualitv Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ ASCE Manual of Practice No.
87, (1998), pages 175-178 (e.g., approximately the 85th percentile 24-hour storm runoff
event); or
2. the volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80 percent or more capture, determined in
accordance with the methodology set forth in Appendix D of the California Stormwater Best
Manarzement Practices Handbook, (1993), using local rainfall data.
· BMPs designed to increase flow capacity, such as swales, sand filters, or wetlands, shall be sized
to treat:
1. 10% of the 50-year peak flow rate; or
2. the flow of runoff produced by a rain event equal to at least two times the 85th percentile
hourly rainfall intensity for the applicable area, based on historical records of hourly rainfall
depths; or
3. the flow ofrunoffresulting from a rain event equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour intensity.
The selected BMPs must:
1. Address significant erosion potential and sediment control (C.3.a.iv).
2. Reduce post-construction pollutant loads from a site to the maximum extent practicable
(C.3.b.i).
3. Ensure that post-project runoff pollutant levels do not exceed pre-project pollutant levels for
projects that discharge directly to listed impaired water bodies under Clean Water Act
Section 303(d)(C.3.b.ii).