The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAttachmt 16 Response to Comments Vargas Mit Neg Declr RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE VARGAS PROJECT April 2007 Attachment 16 Table of Contents Introduction.................................................................................................. .............3 Clarifications to Text........................................................ ............................... .............3 Written Comments and Responses.......................................................................... .........4 Responses to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.. ........................... ........... ....12 Responses to the Dublin San Ramon Services District.............................. ........................... ..19 Responses to the Alameda County Local Agency Formation Commission..... .......................... .....21 Responses to the State of California Department ofFish and Game......................................... ..26 Responses to the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District: Zone 7.. .. ... ...... . ............ ... ... .. ... ....... ... ... .. ..... ... . .. . .. . .. ... . .. ... .... .. ... ... . ... ... ....... ...30 Responses to the Alameda County Public Works Agency.................................................... ...33 Responses to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.................................................... ..38 Appendices .............................................................................................................41 A: Map of Annexation Area B: Verification of Sufficient Water Supply C: Kit Fox Protection Plan Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Proj ect March 2007 2 Introduction On March 5, 2007, the City of Dublin distributed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Vargas Project to public agencies and the general public. In accordance with CEQA section 21091.b, the public comment period for the MND was 30 days. The review period began on March 5, 2007 and ended on April 3, 2007. During the public review period, the City received seven comment letters from state, local and regional agencies. Two of these letters were received after the public comment period ended. All comments on the MND and the City's responses to the comments are included in this document. Each letter has been numbered and each comment has been assigned a number. Each comment letter has been reproduced and is followed by the responses to the comment, generally in order of occurrence. The responses provide the City's good faith reasoned analysis to the environmental issues raised in the comments. Some of the comments propose revisions to the MND text, which revisions are set forth below. Clarifications to text The discussion on page 84, under subsection d discusses the two entrances to the Project from Tassajara Road. Mitigation Measure 33 requires the southern entrance to the Project site to line up with the southern entrance on the Casamira Valley sit located east of the project site across the road. The discussion does not discuss the northern entrance which will not be located at a signalized intersection. The following text is added to clarify the northern entrance to the Vargas site: The northerly access to the Vargas site does not align with the northerly access to the Casamira Valley site. Therefore, the northern entrance to the Vargas site is proposed to be used for emergency access only, and public access to the northerly entrance shall be prohibited. A break in the median on Tassajara Road will be provided to allow emergency access into the site. Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 3 Written Comments and Responses on the Draft MND The written comments received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the responses to those comments are provided in this section. Each comment letter is reproduced in its entirety and is followed by the City's response to each comment. Deletions are shown in strike out and additions are shown in bold. The City received the following letters: Comment Letter I: California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (dated March 15,2007) Comment Letter 2: Dublin San Ramon Services District (dated March 19,2007) Comment Letter 3: Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission (dated March 20, 2007) Comment Letter 4: State of California Department ofFish and Game (dated March 26,2007) Comment Letter 5: Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District: Zone 7 (dated April 2, 2007) Comment Letter 6: County of Alameda Public Works Agency (dated April 2, 2007, received April 4, 2007) Comment Letter 7: United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (dated April 3, 3007, received April 4, 2007) Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 4 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region e Linda S. Adams Secretary for Environmental Protection 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, California 94612 (510) 622-2300 . Fax (510) 622-2460 hllp:/ /www.waterboards.ca.gov/san franciscobay. Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor Date: MAR 1 5 2007 File No. 2198.09 (BKW) Erica Fraser, Senior Planner City of Dublin, Planning Division City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project SCH Number: 2007032020 Dear Ms. Fraser: Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) staff have reviewed the March 2007, Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Vargas Project in the City of Dublin, Alameda County (Project). The Project includes the construction of 33 detached residential units on a five-acre parcel west of Tassajara Road, south of the Alameda-Contra Costa County Line. Water Board staff have the following comments on the MND. Comment 1 Discussion of Water Board jurisdictional waters and wetlands in Section IV (page 47), Section IV b,c (page 54), and Appendix A, Section 2.2.2 (page 5 of Appendix A). The MND discusses "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction" and theareas under the jurisdiction of the California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). However, the MND does not discuss waters of the State under the jurisdiction of the Water Board. The discussions of wetlands and jurisdictional waters in the MND should be expanded to clarify that the Water Board has regulatory authority over wetlands and waterways under both the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the State of California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Division 7). Under the CW A, the Water Board has regulatory authority over actions in waters of the United States, through the issuance of water quality certifications (c.ertifications) under Section 401 of the CWl'., which are issued in combination with permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), under Section 404 of the CWA. When the Water Board issues Section 401 certifications, it simultaneously issues general Waste Discharge Requirements for the project, under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Activities in areas that are outside of the jurisdiction of the ACOE (e.g., isolated wetlands, vernal pools, or stream banks above the ordinary high water mark) are regulated by the Water Board, under the authority of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. In addition, channels that have either been modified by human activities or have been created by human activities, but which convey surface runoff that enter the channel through gravity flow may also be regulated as waters of the State. Activities that lie outside of ACOE jurisdiction, but within Water Board jurisdiction, may require the issuance of either individual or general waste discharge requirements (WDRs) from the Water Board. 1.1 1.2 1.3 RECEIVED Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 years MAR 1 G Z007 a Recycled Paper DUBLIN PLANNING Ms. Fraser - 2 - MND, Vargas Project, Dublin The MND should be revised to describe the need to obtain WDRs from the Water Board for any Project impacts to channels or wetlands at the Project site. The 0.086 acres of ACOE jurisdictional waters and 0.397 acres of ACOE jurisdictional wetlands on the Project site (page 54) are waters of the State, subject to the jurisdiction of the Water Board. Comment 2 Mitigation Measure 18 (page 54). This mitigation measure states that, prior to receiving building or grading permits, the developer shall apply for and receive all required permits for formal delineation form the ACOE for the jurisdictional waters at the Project site. This is a legal requirement; it is not a mitigation measure. In addition, the Water Board must be contacted to determine ifthere are non-ACOE jurisdictional waters of the State at the Project site. Comment 3 Mitigation Measure 19 (page 54). This mitigation measure states that the Project developers shall retain a qualified biologist to develop a plan to mitigate impacts to wetlands at a 2: I ratio and impacts to waters of the United States at a I: 1 ratio, through the creation of new wetlands, or as otherwise approved by the Corps of Engineers. The MND should note that mitigation for these impacts is also subject to review and approval by the Water Board. The proposed mitigation lacks sufficient detail for Water Board staff to evaluate whether or not the mitigation would be adequate to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level. The amount of mitigation required for an impact is a function of both the proposed mitigation project and distance between the location of the impact and the location of the mitigation site. The mitigation required for an impact increases as a function of the distance between the impact location and the mitigation location. Since the proposed location is not yet identified, the amount of mitigation required cannot be evaluated. In addition, the amount of mitigation required is greater for "out of kind" mitigation (i.e., mitigation habitats that are different from the type of impacted habitat). Since no details are provided for the proposed mitigation, it is not clear yet whether or not the Project is proposing to provide "in-kind" mitigation. The amount of mitigation required may also be a factor or the likelihood of success at the mitigation site. Since no details of the proposed mitigation project are provided in the MND, it is not possible for Water Board staff to evaluate the feasibility of the proposed mitigation. Proposed mitigation measures should be presented in sufficient detail for readers of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document to evaluate the likelihood that the proposed remedy will actually reduce impacts to a less than significant level. CEQA requires that mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect be adequate, timely, and resolved by the lead agency. In an adequate CEQA document, mitigation measures must be feasible and fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 years r/.fjYcled Paper 1.4 1.5 1.6 Ms. Fraser - 3 - MND, Vargas Project, Dublin other legally binding instruments (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4). Mitigation measures to be identified at some future time are not acceptable. It has been determined by court ruling that such mitigation measures would be improperly exempted from the process of public and governmental scrutiny which is required under the California Environmental Quality Act. Based on the information provided in the MND, it is not possible to evaluate the adequacy of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the Project to a less than significant level. Comment 4 Section VIII (page 62) The discussion of stormwater discharges includes the following statement, "[F]ederal regulations were issued in November 1990, and were recently updated to expand the authority of the RWQCB to include permitting of storm water discharges from municipal storm sewer systems, industrial processes and construction sites which will disturb an area which is larger than one acre." This sentence appears to conflate municipal stormwater permits and permits for construction activity. While it is true that construction sites that will disturb one or more acres ofland are required to comply with General NPDES permit for construction activities, the current municipal stormwater permit for Alameda County requires treatment measures for projects that will create or recreate more than 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces. The Project is in the area covered by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP). Under the NPDES Municipal Storm water Permit (Order R2-2003-0021; NPDES Permit No. CAS0029831) that was issued to ACCWP, all projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces are required to provide post-construction best management practices (BMPs) for storm water management. Provision C.3 of the NPDES Permit specifies the criteria to be used in sizing these BMPs. Comment 5 Section VIII, Mitigation Measure 25 (pages 63 and 64) Mitigation Measure 25 states that the Project will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce impacts form construction and post-construction activities to a less than significant level. However, the MND does not discuss the proposed post-construction stormwater treatment BMPs, or the proposed locations of these BMPs on the Project site layout, at any level of detail. Text on page 64 states that a water quality detention pond will be constructed adjacent to Tassajara Creek to treat surface water runoff from a portion of the Project site. Treatment measures for the remainder of the site are not discussed in the body of the MND. The MND also does not describe how the proposed detention pond was sized or demonstrate that sufficient land area has been set aside for an adequately sized pond. Therefore, it is not possible to evaluate whether or not the Project can attain the treatment requirements of the Alameda County Clean Water Program's NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit. Also, it is not acceptable to discharge untreated Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 years (ftycled Paper 1.7 1.8 1.9 Ms. Fraser - 4 - MND, Vargas Project, Dublin stormwater from developed portions of the site to the storm drain system in Tassajara Road, as is proposed on page 64. Text in Appendix D is also not consistent with the body of the MND. Appendix D states that a basin is not feasible and proposes to use swales for most of the developed area of the site. Appendix D also proposes to use CDS separators to treat runoff from some portions of the developed Project site. CDS units belong to a class of treatment devices referred to as "hydrodynamic separators". Water Board staff discourage the use of hydrodynamic separators as the sole means of treating runoff at a new residential site. These devices are more appropriate at dense infill sites that lack adequate surface area for landscape-based treatment devices. At a new development, it is possible to design the project to set aside sufficient surface area for appropriate stormwater treatment BMPs. In addition, hydrodynamic separators are only appropriate if used in combination with BMPs that are capable of removing the fine particulate matter that is not amenable to removal by hydrodynamic separators, and in combination with filter media that permanently absorbs hydrocarbons. " At this stage of the CEQA process, sufficient design detail should be provided to ensure that the Project has set aside sufficient land area for appropriately sized treatment measures. As was stated above in Comment 3, proposed mitigation measures should be presented in sufficient detail for readers of the CEQA document to evaluate the likelihood that the proposed remedy will actually reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Post-construction BMPs are required to provide treatment that meets the maximum extent practicable (MEP) treatment standard in the Clean Water Act. Treatment consistent with the MEP standard is defined in the NPDES permit. To meet the MEP standard, treatment BMPs are to be constructed that incorporate, at a minimum, the following hydraulic sizing design criteria to treat stormwater runoff. As appropriate for each criterion, local rainfall data are to be used or appropriately analyzed for the design of BMPs. Volume Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BMPs whose primary mode of action depends on volume capacity, such as detention/retention units or infiltration structures, shall be designed to treat stormwater runoff equal to: I. the maximized storm water quality capture volume for the area, based on historical rainfall records, determined using the formula and volume capture coefficients set forth in Urban Runoff Quality 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, detorminoo in acconl,,"cc with the 7 '01 forth in Appondix D of Iho Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the $an Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 years / 6ycled Paper 1.10 1.11 1.12 Ms. Fraser - 5 - MND, Vargas Project, Dublin California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook. (1993), using local rainfall data. Flow Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BMPs whose primary mode of action depends on flow capacity, such as swales, sand filters, or wetlands, shall be sized to treat: 1. 10% of the 50-year peak flow rate; 2. or 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 of runoff resulting from a rain event equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour intensity. Water Board staff strongly encourage the use of landscape-based stormwater treatment measures, such as biofilters and vegetated swales, to manage runoff from project sites. Since landscape-based stormwater treatment measures require that some of the site surface area be set aside for their construction, the proper sizing and placement of these features should be evaluated early in the design process to facilitate incorporation of the features into the site landscaping. Water Board staff discourage the use of inlet filter devices for stormwater management. filtration systems require a maintenance program that is adequate to maintain the functional integrity of the systems and to ensure that improperly maintained filtration devices do not themselves become sources of stormwater contaminants or fail to function. Water Board staff have observed problems with the use of inlet filter inserts, since these devices require high levels of maintenance and are easily clogged by leaves or other commonly occurring debris, rendering them ineffective. Research conducted by the California Department of Transportation has demonstrated that inlet filters can be clogged by a single storm event. The study found that these devices required maintenance before and after storm events as small as 0.1 inch of rain. In addition, trash, debris, and sediment in the catchment had a significant impact on the frequency of maintenancel. Therefore, adequate maintenance of inlet filters to provide MEP water quality treatment would be prohibitively expensive and impractically time consummg. Water Board staff recommend that the project proponents refer to Start at the Source, a design guidance manual for storm water quality protection, for a fuller discussion of the 1 Othmer, Friedman, Borroum and Currier, November 2001, Performance Evaluation of Structural BMPs: Drain inlet inserts (Fossil Filter™ and StreamGuard™) and Oil/Water Separator, Sacramento, Caltrans. Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 years 6ycled Paper 1.13 1.14 Ms. Fraser - 6 - MND, Vargas Project, Dublin selection of stormwater management practices. This manual provides innovative procedures for designing structures, parking lots, drainage systems, and landscaping to mitigate the impacts of stormwater runoff on receiving waters. This manual may be obtained from the [Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program's web site (www.scvurppp.orq)] or bye-mailing a request to the e-mail address in the last paragraph of this letter. Additional innovative techniques for incorporating structural stormwater best management practices (BMPs) into urban design, such as infiltration planter boxes, can be found in Portland, Oregon's 2002 Stormwater Management Manual, which can be obtained at www.cleanrivers-pdx.org/techresources/2002swmm.htm. Comment 6 Section VIII, Mitigation Measure 26 (page 64) Mitigation Measure 26 refers to the construction of a water quality detention pond above the banks of Tassajara Creek. However, the MND does not discuss how the treated stormwater will be conveyed to Tassajara Creek. It is likely that the outfall from the pond to the creek will require permits from the ACOE, Water Board, and/or CDFG. In addition, mitigation may be required for any impacts associated with the outfall. These potential impacts and mitigation measures are not addressed in the MND If you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 622-5680 or bye-mail at bwines(cV,waterboards.ca. gov. 1.15 Sincerely, '72 W#t,~ j..)/1r~t"l Brian Wines Water Resources Control Engineer cc State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 USACE, San Francisco District, Attn: Regulatory Branch, 1455 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 941 03-1398 . CDFG, Central Coast Region, Attn: Robert Floerke, Regional Manager, P.O. Box 47, Yountville CA 94599 CDFG, Central Coast Region, Attn: Janice Gan, P.O. Box 47, Yountville CA 94599 United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Attn: Chris Nagano, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters Jor over 50 years r!f1ycled Paper Ms. Fraser - 7 - MND, Vargas Project, Dublin United States Department of the Interior, fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Attn: Kim Squires, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 years r!ftyc/ed Paper Comment Letter 1: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Comment 1.1: The Mitigated Negative Declaration does not discuss waters of the State as being under the jurisdiction of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). Response: The above comment is noted. The last paragraph on page 47 of the MND, under the heading of "Wetlands" is clarified as follows (new text in bold). In order to further clarify the following mitigation measures, additional language has been included which requires the developer to follow all permit conditions of approval. A jurisdictional delineation of Waters of the United States has been submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (US ACE) for the Vargas property, but the USACE has not yet verified this delineation. The Section 404 Delineation Map submitted to the USACE indicates that approximately .483 acres of USACE jurisdictional habitats have been identified on the Vargas property. The location of these jurisdictional wetlands and jurisdictional waters can be found in Exhibit 12. In addition to the USACE, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board also has regulatory authority over wetlands and waterways under the federal Clean Water Act and the State of California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Mitigation Measure 18 on page 54 of the MND is hereby clarified as follows: Mitigation Measure 18: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit or grading permit, the developer shall apply for and receive all required permits for formal delineation, water quality certifications and individual or general waste discharge requirements from the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the jurisdictional waters and jurisdiction wetlands on the Project site. The Applicant shall follow all requirements and conditions included in the permit. Comment 1.2: The discussions of wetlands and jurisdictional waters in the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be expanded to clarify that the Water Board has regulatory authority over wetlands and waterways under both the Federal Clean Water Act and the State of California's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. In addition, channels that have either been modified by human activities or have been created by human activities, but which convey surface runoff that enter the channel through gravity flow may also be regulated as waters of the State. Response: The above comment is noted. Please see the response under Comment 1.1 for clarifications to page 47 of the MND and Mitigation Measure 18. No other channels are present on the site (other than what is shown on Exhibit 12 of the MND). Comment 1.3: Activities that lie outside of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction, but within the Water Board jurisdiction, may require the issuance of either individual or general waste discharge requirements (WDRs) from the Water Board. The Mitigated Negative Declaration should be revised to describe the need to obtain WDRs from the Water Board for any Project impacts to channels or wetlands at the Project site. The 0.086 acres of US ACE jurisdictional Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 12 waters and 0.397 acres of US ACE wetlands on the Project site are waters of the State, subject to the jurisdiction of the Water Board. Response: The above comment is noted. Please refer to the clarified Mitigation Measure 18 under Comment 1.1. Comment 1.4: Mitigation Measure 18 on page 54 of the MND requires the developer to apply for and receive all required permits for formal delineation from the Army Corps of Engineers for jurisdictional waters which is a legal requirement, not a mitigation measure. The Water Board must be contacted to determine if there are non Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional waters of the State at the Project site. As clarified in Mitigation Measure 18, the developer is required to contact the Water Board. Response: While the permit noted above is a requirement, the requirement of this permit has been included in the MND to show how this regulation applies to the Vargas Project. Additionally Mitigation Measure 18 includes a timing requirement which enables Staff to verify that the required permits have been granted prior to issuing any permits to develop the site. Comment 1.5: Mitigation Measure 19 on page 54 should note that mitigation for impacts to wetlands and waters of the United States are also subject to the review and approval by the Water Board. In response to comments received from the Fish and Wildlife Service the Mitigation Measure has also been clarified to require that the USACE and the Water Board determine if the biologist is qualified to perform the work. Response: The above comment is noted. Mitigation Measure 19 is hereby clarified to include the following text (noted in bold): Mitigation Measure 19: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit or a grading permit, the Project developers shall retain a qualified biologist (as determined by the City and the USACE and California Regional Water Quality Board) to develop a plan to mitigate impacts to .397 acres of wetlands at a 2: I ratio and impacts to .086 acres of Waters of the United States, not including wetlands, at a 1: I ratio (total mitigation for US.^.CE jurisdictional waters will total .88 acres) through creation of new wetlands, or as otherwise approved by the Corps of Engineers and/or the California Regional Water Quality Board. Comment 1.6: Mitigation Measure 19 does not have sufficient detail regarding the proposed location of the wetlands mitigation. Because the location is not defined, the amount of mitigation required cannot be evaluated. Response: As noted above, Mitigation Measure 19 requires mitigation of the loss in jurisdictional wetlands and jurisdictional waters. Final permitting and review of the proposed mitigation will be done by the USACE and/or by the Water Board in accordance with Section 401 and Section 404 under the Clean Water Act. Mitigation Measure 19 specifically requires that wetlands be replaced at a ratio of2:1 for jurisdiction wetlands and at a ratio of 1: 1 for jurisdictional waters requires a finite amount of acreage (.88 acres) as mitigation. The mitigation measure also requires that a qualified biologist prepare the mitigation plan which shows the wetland area to be created which will then be reviewed by the USACE and/or the Water Board during the permitting process. Because the mitigation measure requires a specific amount of wetlands and waters mitigation, the requirement for permits and includes monitoring Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Proj ect March 2007 13 to ensure that the permit procedures are carried out, the City has determined that the propose mitigation is adequate under CEQA. Comment 1.7: The Project is in the area covered by the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP). Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit (Order R2-2003-0021, NPDES Permit No. CAS0029831) that was issued to ACCWP, all projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surfaces are required to provide post construction best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater management. Provision C.3 of the NPDES Permit specifies the criteria to be used in sizing these BMPs. Response: The above comment is noted. Water quality and regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Water Board are discussed in the third paragraph on page 62. As noted in the comment, municipal stormwater permits and permits for construction are separate permits. As noted in the comment above, the Applicant will be required to comply with Best Management Practices for stormwater management. The text in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the MND discusses the need for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce impacts from stormwater runoff. In order to clarify the purposes of the SWPPP, the following mitigation measure is clarified as follows: Mitigation Measure 26: In accordance with the City's Municipal Stormwater Permit, Section C.3, a drainage and hydrology study shall be submitted to the City of Dublin Public Works Department, including historic drainage flows from the site, estimated increases in the amount of stormwater runoff, and the ability of downstream facilities to accommodate flow increase and post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) for stormwater management (as provided under the provisions of Section C.3 of the NPDES Permit) shall be submitted prior to the issuance of grading permits. This report shall also document the project's fair share contribution to fund any improvements in downstream facilities that are required to support this project and shall be submitted with the Stage 2 Rezone and Site Development Review plans. Comment 1.8: Mitigation Measure 25 states that the Project will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce impacts from construction and post-construction activities to a less than significant level. However, the MND does not discuss the proposed post-construction stormwater treatment best management practices (BMPs), or the proposed locations of these BMPs on the Project site layout at any level of detail. Response: The MND included a Preliminary Hydrology and Drainage Plan prepared by RJA as Appendix D. The Plan provides for the detention of runoff to pre-development levels by over sizing a portion of the storm drain system to store peak flows. The plan also provides for the treatment of runoff through the use of swales to the extent practical with CDS centrifugal stormdrain manholes in the locations where swales cannot be located. Comment 1.9: The text on page 64 states that a water quality detention pond will be constructed adjacent to the Tassajara Creek to treat surface water runoff from a portion of the project site. Treatment measures for the remainder of the site are not discussed in the body of the MND. The MND does not describe how the proposed detention pond was sized or demonstrate that sufficient land area has been set aside for an adequately sized pond. Therefore it is not possible to evaluate whether or not the Project can attain the treatment requirements of the Alameda County Clean Water Program's NPDES Municipal Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 14 Stormwater Permit. Also it is not acceptable to discharge untreated stormwater from developed portions of the site to the storm drain system in Tassajara Road. Response: Appendix D in the MND included a preliminary hydrologic analysis which discussed the treatment of runoff from the site. In order to clarify how runoff from the site will be treated, the following clarification below the first paragraph on page 62 of the MND is provided: Approximately 48% of the site will be treated using a grassy swale along the street and bubble up systems in the front yards of the lots. The stormwater runoff from the double loaded street (approximately 14% of the site) will be treated using a media filter mechanical device. The stormwater runoff from the open space areas along the western and northern property line (38% ofthe site) will not be treated since no development is proposed in that area. The Plan, in Appendix D, also provides for the detention of runoff to pre-development levels by over sizing a portion of the storm drain system to store peak flows. The plan also provides for the treatment of runoff through the use of swales to the extent practical with CDS centrifugal stormdrain manholes in the locations where swales cannot be located. Comment 1.10: The text in Appendix D is not consistent with the body of the MND. The text states that a basin is not feasible and proposes to use swales for most of the developed area of the site. Response: RJA, the preparers of Appendix D indicated that a detention pond, in the size typically needed, would not be practical due to the proposed density of the development and the size of the property. The site plan in the Appendix shows the location of a smaller "Detention/Water Quality Pond." Upon further review, RJA clarifies that the "Detention" notation on the site plan is a drafting error and that the pond will only be used for water quality. The pond will be shallow and will be used as a swale. The MND is hereby clarified to remove all references to "detention." Comment 1.11: Appendix D proposes to use CDS separators to treat runoff from some portions of the developed Project site. CDS units belong to a class of treatment devices referred to as "hydronamic separators." Water Board staff discourage the use ofhydronamic separators as the sole means of treating runoff at a new residential site. Sufficient design detail should be provided to ensure that the Project has set aside sufficient land area for appropriately sized treatment measures. Response: Stormwater will be treated to the maximum extent practical by the use of grassy swales or the water quality pond. In areas where topography or site design precludes the use of swales or ponds, runoff will be treated using CDS centrifugal storm drain manholes. As part of the City's conditions of approval for the project, the developer will be required to execute a post-construction operations and maintenance agreement (the standard Alameda County Clean Water Program format) with the City, requiring that the Homeowner's Association maintain all stormwater measures, and granting the City, Regional Board, and Mosquito Abatement District the right to inspect these measures. Comment 1.12: Post -construction BMPs are required to provide treatment that meets the maximum extent practicable (MEP) treatment standard in the Clean Water Act. Treatment consistent with the MEP standard is defined in the NPDES permit. To meet the MEP standard, treatment BMPs are to be Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 15 constructed that incorporate, at a minimum, the hydraulic sizing criteria to treat stormwater runoff included on pages 4-6 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board letter. Response: The above comment is noted. Mitigation Measure 25 is clarified to include the following (new text in bold): Mitigation Measure 25: The developer of the Vargas property shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which lists Best Management Practices to provide treatment that meets the minimum extent practicable (MEP) treatment standard in the Clean Water Act and incorporate the hydraulic sizing criteria to treat stormwater runoff as referred in pages 4-6 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board letter dated March 16,2007 to reduce construction and post-construction activities to a less-than-significant level. Measures may include, but shall not be limited to revegetation of graded areas, silt fencing and the use ofbiofilters within landscape areas. The SWPPP shall conform to standards adopted by the Regional Waster Quality Control Board and the City of Dublin. The SWPPP shall be approved by both agencies and shall obtain a Notice ofIntent from the State Water Resources Control Board prior to the issuance of grading permits. Comment 1.13: The Water Board strongly encourages the use of landscape-based stormwater treatment measure, such as biofilters and vegetated swales, to manage runoff from Project sites. The Water Board discourages the use of inlet filter devices for stormwater management. Response: As noted under Comment 1.10,48% of the site will be treated using grassy swales and 38% of the site will not be treated because no development will occur in these open space areas. Only 14% of the site will be treated using a media filter mechanical device. These devices will be centrifugal storm drain manholes; filter devices on individual inlets will not be used. Please refer to the City's responses to Comment 1.11 for additional information. Comment 1.14: The Water Board staff recommends that the project proponents refer to Start at the Source, a design guidance manual for storm water quality protection for a fuller discussion of the selection of stormwater management practices. Response: The above comment is noted. The developer has been mad aware that Start at the Source should b used as a design guidance manual. Comment 1.15: Mitigation Measure 26 refers to the construction of a water quality detention pond above the banks ofTassajara Creek. It is likely that the outfall from the pond to the creek will require permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, Water Board and/or California Department ofFish and Game. In addition, Mitigation may be required for any impacts associated with the outfall. These potential impacts and mitigation measures are not addressed in the MND. Response: Please refer to the City's response to Comment 1.10. The reference to "detention" pond has been removed from the MND and the pond will function as a swale. There will not be a direct outfall from the pond into Tassajara Creek; the pond will discharge to the on- site storm drain system and in turn to the Tassajara Road storm drain system, which will connect to an existing culvert crossing of Moller Creek to the south. Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 16 DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT ~=,- ;;~IlN SE~f,~~~\, ft., . ~.'d>' ~~ W \~~n' tI",C(I."n"N( g f, \(' 'lJ1IlW'~"I AI .t~/r.{, '\ (),JS;~ --- ;l/ / :(> iJ'-.!,ilfI. CE 19~~~" ~::.;::-"~~ 7051 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, California 94568 Phone: 925 828 0515 FAX: 925 829 1180 www.dsrsd.com March 19,2007 Erica Fraser, Project Planner City of Dublin - Community Development Dept. 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Subject: Vargas Property Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA 06-030) Dear Ms. Fraser: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above subject document. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration and has the following comment. The proposed project is within the current DSRSD Sphere of Influence and is included in the current DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan and Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update. The determination has been made that DSRSD has sufficient water availability and sewer treatment capacity to serve the proposed project upon annexation by DSRSD. Construction of pipelines and related appurtenances needed to serve the project area will be required. 2.1 The planned Configuration of the Zone 2 Water Facilities in Eastern Dublin along Tassajara Road has changed from what was specified in the 2005 Water Master Plan Update. Therefore extension of potable water service to the proposed development along Tassajara Road is not considered to be major infrastructure and shall be completed by the developer. A Public Facilities Planning Agreement shall be entered into between the property owner and DSRSD, which may include the completion of a water service analysis to determine how potable water service will be provided to the proposed development. 2.2 As specified in the 2005 DSRSD Water Master Plan Update extension of Recycled water service to the proposed development along Tassajara Road is not considered to be major infrastructure and shall be completed by the developer. 2.3 The Dublin San Ramon Services District is a Public Entity REC:IVEr' MAR 2 1 2007 DUBLIN PL.AI.....1NI..> Erica Fraser March 19,2007 Page 2 of 2 The current DSRSD Wastewater Collection System Master Plan update does not specify the extension of required sewer mains along Tassajara Road as reimbursable major infrastructure. Extension of these services shall be completed by the developer in accordance with all DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Wastewater Facilities", all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. 2.4 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact me at (925) 875-2255. ~' ~ RHO=:~AN ~L Senior Engineer ATJ/RNB:es cc: Dave Requa H:\ENGDEPT'CEQA\lnitial Study Mitigalcd NegDec VargllS Property.doc OvooIPile: DP-06-0JO Comment Letter 2: Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Comment 2.1: The proposed project is within the current DSRSD Sphere of Influence and is included in the current DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan and Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update. The determination has been made that DSRSD has sufficient water availability and sewer treatment capacity to serve the proposed project upon annexation by DSRSD. Construction of pipelines and related appurtenances needed to serve the project area will be required. Response: The above comment is noted. The developer of the Project will be required to construct pipelines and related appurtenances to serve the Project area. Comment 2.2: The extension of potable water service and recycled water service to the Project along Tassajara Road shall be completed by the developer. Response: The above comment is noted. The Applicant will be required to construct the extension of the potable water service and recycled water service to serve the Project. Comment 2.3: A Public Facilities Planning Agreement shall be entered into between the property owner and DSRSD. Response: The above comment is noted. The developer has been made aware that the property owner must enter into a Public Facilities Agreement with DSRSD. Comment 2.4: Extension of the required sewer mains along Tassajara Road shall be completed by the developer in accordance with all DSRSD "Standard Procedures, Specifications and Drawings for Design and Installation of Wastewater Facilities", all applicable DSRSD Master Plans and all DSRSD policies. Response: The above comment is noted. The Applicant will be required to construct the extension of the required sewer lines in accordance with all DSRSD requirements. Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 19 i i I I ~ LAFCO ALAMEDA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 1221 OAK STREET, SUITE 555 * OAKLAND, CA 94612 (510) 271-5142 FAX (510) 272-3784 3.1 · 3.2 · 3.3 · . 3.4 3.5 · Members Jocelyn Combs, Vice Chair Special District Member Katy Foulkes Special District Member Alternates Herbert Crowle Special District Member Executive Officer Crystal Hishida Graff Gail Steele County Member Nate Miley County Member Janet Lockhart, Chair City Member Marshall Kamena City Member Sblend Sblendorio Public Member Scott Haggerty County Member Jennifer Hosterman City Member Linda Sheehan Public Member March 20, 2007 Erica Fraser, AICP, Senior Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin CA 94568 Subject: Vargas Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Fraser: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Vargas Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) must evaluate the potential impadfs of proposed reorganizations in order to ensure that the Commission can make an informed decision. Therefort, we offer the following comments on the document: . Please include annexation proposal maps. There should be one for the City of Dublin proposed annexation, and one for the proposed annexation to the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD). Please provide a description of the City's affordable housing plan, including the impact of this proposed annexation on the City's plan to meet its regional housing allocations, whether any alternate housing is going to be provided, and whether such plans will induce development in other areas. Please provide a table of existing and proposed service providers in the project description. Please provide a discussion of the potential impacts of the proposed annexation to DSRSD. For example, are there any impacts from installation of infrastructure (e.g., transmission lines)? When water lines are extended to Casamira Valley and the other affected properties, will this induce growth on lands to northwest? Please provide an evaluation of the water supply demands and/or potential impacts. Should you have questions about the information above, please contact Barbara Graichen, LAFCo Planner at 916- 991-2177 or Mona Palacios, LAFCo Analyst at 510-272-3894. Sincerely, Hishida~ Executive Officer cc: Barbara Graichen, LAFCo Planner Mona Palacios, LAFCo Analyst V:\LAF\Dublin\Moller Ranch, Dublin\Vargas IS.MND response.3.20.07.DOC RECEIVED MAR 2 ~ 2007 DUBLIN PLANNING Comment Letter 3: Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Comment 3.1: Include Annexation proposal maps. Response: A map showing the annexation area is included in this document as Appendix A. Comment 3.2: Provide a description of the City' affordable housing plan, including the impact of this proposed Project on the City's plan to meet its regional housing allocations, whether any alternative housing is going to be provided and whether such plans will induce development in other areas. Response: The provision of affordable housing is required by Chapter 8.68, Inclusionary Zoning Regulations, of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. As required by this Ordinance, all new residential developments with 20 or more dwelling units are required to provide 12.5% of the total number of dwelling units as affordable units. The Zoning Ordinance specifies the allocation of units and allows for payment of an in-lieu fee for up to 40% of the required units. As stated in the Applicant's Stage 1 Development Plan the Applicant is proposing to construct 60% of the required number of affordable units on the site. The Applicant will then pay an in-lieu fee for the remaining 40% as permitted by the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. Inclusionary housing requirements are generally applied at the tentative map or site development review stage of a project (see section 8.68.030.C) The City's Housing Element does not identify the Vargas site as one of the sites with future housing potential in the City during the Housing Element Planning Period (as noted in Table 40 of the Housing Element) because the project site is outside of the City Limits. Therefore, the proposed General Plan and Specific Plan Amendment to reduce the density so that a maximum of 33 dwelling units can be constructed does not conflict with the Housing Element. Construction ofthe Vargas Project is not anticipated to have the potential to induce growth in the area. Residential development of the Vargas site has been anticipated since 1993 when the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan were adopted. Land to the north ofthe project site (past the Tipper property) is zoned for agricultural uses and are under the jurisdiction of Contra Costa County. A residential development was recently approved on Wallis Ranch, located east of the project site, and is anticipated on the Casamira Valley site (included in the annexation request). Development-level plans for a residential community are currently being reviewed by the City on the Mission Peak site located east of the Vargas site; a prezoning and Stage 1 Development Plan were previously approved for this site in connection with its annexation. Residential construction is also currently underway on the Silvera Ranch site located southeast of the project site. It is unclear what "alternative housing" referenced in the comment means. The proposed residential community on the Vargas site will have small lots, detached units, a small front yard and a small rear yard. Housing types in the vicinity vary and include estate lots, condominiums and traditional single family houses. The proposed Vargas Project will offer a new housing type and will increase housing options in the vicinity. Comment 3.3: Provide a table of existing and proposed service providers in the project description. Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 21 Response: The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is clarified to include the table on page 5 of the MND: Existing and Proposed Service Providers: The following table lists the existing and proposed service providers for the Vargas project: Service Current Provider Alameda County Sherriff's Department Police Fire Alameda County Fire De artment PG&E Well Electricit Water Sewer Septic Garba e Street Li htin Road Maintenance Flood Control Parks and Recreation Librar Services Transit Schools Alameda Coun Dublin Unified School District Pro osed Provider City of Dublin - Alameda County Sherriff's De artment City of Dublin - Alameda Count Fire De artment PG&E Dublin San Ramon Services District Dublin San Ramon Services District Amador Valle Industries Ci of Dublin Ci of Dublin Ci of Dublin East Bay Regional Park District and City of Dublin Parks and Communi Services Alameda Coun LATV A HEELS Dublin Unified School District Comment 3.4: Provide a discussion of the potential impacts to DSRSD. Will the extension of water lines induce growth on lands to the northwest? Response: The commenter is directed to Comment Letter 2 received from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) which discusses the proposed Project. As summarized under Comment 2.1, DSRSD notes that DSRSD has sufficient water availability and sewer treatment capacity to serve the proposed project upon annexation by DSRSD. As discussed under comments 2.2 through 2.4, the Applicant will be required to install all pipelines to serve the Project Please refer to the discussion under Comment 3.2 regarding the potential of the Project to induce growth in the area. Additionally, lands to the north, west and south of the Vargas site are included in the Dublin Ranch West/Wallis Ranch project. This area has been annexed to the City of Dublin and development recently approved. The Tipper property is also north of the Vargas property. Tipper is not proposed for any development; however, like Dublin Ranch West and Vargas, it is located within the Dublin and DSRSD Spheres of Influence. These lands have been planned for residential development since 1993 Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Proj ect 22 March 2007 and are the last remaining areas to be annexed and developed in this area. The Vargas project is not expected to induce growth in this area. Comment 3.5 Provide an evaluation ofthe water supply demands and/or potential impacts. Response: Development of the Project site has been planned for since the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan were adopted and the related Environmental Impact Report was certified in 1993. The commenter is directed to the Earlier Analysis section starting on page 2 in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for more information on the 1993 Environmental Impact Report. As discussed in the Project Description beginning on page 5 of the MND, the proposed Project will have fewer units that was previously planned for in the General Plan and Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. As noted in the Dublin San Ramon Services District letter (Comment Letter 2), the project area is within the DSRSD Sphere ofInfluence and is included in the current DSRSD Urban Water Management Plan and Wastewater Collection System Management Plan Update. The commenter is also directed to the City's response under comment 3.4 regarding water availability. Water supply is further addressed in the Initial Study checklist in section XVI, Utilities and Service Systems, beginning at page 85. No additional impacts were identified for water supply. The City notes that the DSRSD water supply assumptions for water planning were based on the existing General Plan, which would allow for more development than the Project proposes. The project is typical residential development, with water demand for residents and for irrigating landscaping. There are no unusual characteristics of the Project or site that would affect DSRSD's water use assumptions for the Project. Additionally, please refer to the letter attached as Appendix B to this document. Appendix B includes a letter from the Dublin San Ramon Services District dated March 29, 2007which verifies that there is sufficient water supply to serve the proposed Project. Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 23 State of California - The Resources Aaency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME http://www.dfa.ca.aoy POST OFFICE BOX 47 YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599 (707) 944-5500 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Governor e March 26, 2007 Erica Fraser, Senior Planner City of Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Ms. Fraser: Subject: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project, SCH 2007032020, City of Dublin, Alameda County Department of Fish and Game (DFG) personnel have reviewed the above Initial Study\Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Vargas Project. The Project Site is located at 7020 Tassajara Road in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan area, outside of the City of Dublin limits, but within the City Sphere of Influence. The site is located in unincorporated Alameda County and is zoned for agriculture. The property has a Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan land use designation of Medium- Density Residential and Medium/High-Density Residential. The project site is 5.0 gross acres and is located north of Fallon Road adjacent to Tassajara Road to the east and Tassajara Creek to the west. The Vargas property has been within the Dublin General Plan/Specific Plan since its inception. The IS/MND assesses anticipated environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project of developing the Vargas property with 33 detached units on 2.5 acres of the project site. DFG has the following comments on portions of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that may affect sensitive species and habitats. Tassajara Creek, located adjacent to the Project Area is known to include habitat for the California tiger salamander (CTS) and the California red-legged frog (CRLF). Suitable breeding habitat for CTS likely occurs within dispersal distance of the project area. CTS move long distances, up to one mile, between breeding habitats and aestivation sites. CRLF depend on upland areas adjacent to creeks and wetland features and have also 4.1 been documented in Tassajara Creek within dispersal distance of the project site. Recent research has shown that CRLF move over one and one-half miles during dispersal. Conserving Ca[ifomiaJs Wi[d[ife Since 1870 ~ RECEIVED MAR 2 7 Z007 DUBLIN PLANNING Erica Fraser, Senior Planner March 26, 2007 Page 2 The IS/MND does not adequately identify mitigation for the loss of habitat for these two species. The mitigation stated in the IS/MND includes surveys and exclusion devises. This mitigation is not a substitute for loss of habitat. Should pre-construction surveys document CRLF and/or CTS presence, the loss of occupied habitat will need to be mitigated at a 3: 1 ratio. On page 54, Mitigation Measure 17 states that plant surveys will be conducted. Focused species rare plant surveys shall be conducted during the blooming period to facilitate identification. 4.2 DFG appreciates the opportunity to comment on the IS/MND. If you have any comments or questions regarding this letter, please contact Suzanne DeLeon, Environmental Scientist, at (831) 940-4433; or Liam Davis, Acting Habitat Conservation Supervisor, at (707) 944-5529. Sincerely, f~ ~c-.. F/JR Charles Armor Acting Regional Manager Bay Delta Region Comment Letter 4: State of California Department of Fish and Game Comment 4.1: Tassajara Creek, located adjacent to the Project, is known to include habitat for the California Tiger Salamander (CTS) and the California Red-Legged Frog (CRLF). Suitable breeding habitat for the CTS likely occurs within dispersal distance of the project area. CTS move long distances, up to one mile, between breeding habitats and aestivation sites. CRLF depend on upland areas adjacent to creeks and wetland features and have also been documented in Tassajara Creek within dispersal distance ofthe Project site. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration does not adequately identify mitigation for the loss of habitat for these two species. Should pre-construction surveys document the presence of CRLF and/or CTS, the loss of occupied habitat will need to be mitigated at a 3: I ratio. Response: Neither the California Tiger Salamander nor the California Red-Legged Frog were observed on the site during the 2006 biological survey conducted by Olberding Environmental (included as Appendix A in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Although the species were not observed, Mitigation Measures regarding both species were included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration in the event that the species do locate on the site in the future. Additionally, the Mitigation Measures require that the developer work with the Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Services if the species are found on the site. The commenter's request to include a Mitigation Measures which requires the loss of habitat to be mitigated at a ratio of3:1 is noted. The following mitigation measures are clarified to reflect comments received: Mitigation Measure 8: A pre-construction survey to determine if there are California Red-Legged Frogs one or near the site shall be conducted no more than 60 days prior to construction or grading on the Project site. A copy of the survey report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review prior to the issuance of any grading or Building Permit. Should the survey determine that these species are located on the site, the developer shall work with the Community Development Department, a qualified biologist (as determined by the City and the Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife) and the Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Service to determine any additional measures that shall be placed on the project to avoid impacts to these species. If habitat loss for the California Red-Legged Frog will occur as a result of the Project, the loss in habitat shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1. Mitigation Measure 10: If the California Tiger Salamander is found within or close to the area proposed for grading and/or construction and could, in the opinion of the resource agency be impacted, a California Tiger Salamander management plan shall be prepared by a qualified biologist (as determined by the City and the Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife) and the Project developer and shall be approved by the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the start of construction. The plan shall detail how the California Tiger Salamander will be managed before and during construction activities and shall include the following: 1) Installation of a temporary herpetological fence prior to any ground disturbance around the entire development footprint, or the area designated by the resource agencies which shall prevent the California Tiger Salamander from entering the construction site and shall remain in Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 26 place until a permanent fence or barrier approved by the resource agencies is installed. A maintenance schedule for the temporary fences shall also be provided. 2) A trapping and relocation plan shall be prepared that details how aestivating California Tiger Salamander individuals will be adequately relocated from the development footprint and into permanently suitable aestivation habitat. 3) Exclusionary barriers shall be installed prior to the onset of winter rains which stimulate the California Tiger Salamander to move to breeding ponds. A qualified biologist (as determined by the City) shall monitor the installation of the barriers to ensure that they are properly installed. 4) The barrier fencing shall be maintained and monitored continuously for the duration of the construction of the development and site to ensure that migrating and dispersing California Tiger Salamanders do not re-enter the construction area. 5) The exclusion fencing shall remain in place until the construction of the development and site is complete. 6) A qualified biologist (as determined by the City) shall be present during grading and ground disturbance construction activities to ensure that there is no harm to California Tiger Salamanders. 7) Grading and vegetation clearing shall not occur within 750 feet of the California Tiger Salamander breeding pond, if a breeding pond is found on the site in the future, during the breeding and migrating season which occurs from November to June. 8) If habitat loss for the California Tiger Salamander will occur as a result of the Project, the loss in habitat shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3:1. Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 27 Comment 4.2: Focused species rare plant surveys shall be conducted during the blooming period to facilitate identification. Response: The commenter's request to revise the Mitigation Measure to require the plant survey to be conducted during the blooming period is noted. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby clarified to reflect the following (new text noted in bold): Mitigation Measure 17: Prior to issuance of any grading or Building Permits including sitework permits, a plant survey shall be conducted on the site, during the blooming period of plant species, to determine if any special status plant species are located on the site. A copy of the report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. Any rare plants shall be staked and the California Department of Fish and Game shall be immediately notified of their presence. If special status plants are found on the site and will be disturbed due to grading or construction, the Project developer shall protect or relocate the plant(s) as required by the respective resource agency. Copies of the surveys and measures to protect or relocate plants as required by the resource agency, shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a grading or Building permit, whichever is issued first. Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 28 ALAMEDA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 100 NORTH CANYONS PARKWAY. LIVERMORE, CA 94551-9486 ; PHONE (925) 454-5000 April 2, 2007 Ms. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner City of Dublin Parks and Community Services Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project Dear Ms. Fraser: Zone 7 has reviewed the referenced CEQA document in the context of Zone 7's mission to provide drinking water, non-potable water for agriculture and irrigated turf, flood protection, and groundwater and stream management within the Livermore-Amador Valley. We have the following comment. In Appendix D, RJA proposes to upsize storm drain pipe to detain 10 and 100 year storm events and meter them out to the storm drain system in Tassajara Rd. Who will be maintaining and operating the metering of the storm drain? Zone 7 does not support local detention basin (pipeline) facilities unless some public entity is involved with the maintenance/operation ofthe detainment system. A public entity, such as the City of Dublin, should be responsible for the detention system as the timing of the releases is crucial and may impact downstream Zone 7 facilities. The developer would need to show how the flows will be released and what impact these flows will have at the Arroyo Mocho confluence with Tassajara Creek and at Bernal Bridge on Arroyo de la Laguna. 5.1 5.2 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 925-454-5036 or via e-mail at mlim\aJ,zone7water.com. " al Services Program Manager Attachment cc: Karla Nemeth, Environmental & Public Affairs Manager, Zone 7 Joe Seto, Principal Engineer, Zone 7 Jeff Tang, Associate Civil Engineer, Zone 7 RECEIVED APR 0.3Z007 DUBUN PLANNING Comment Letter 5: Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District: Zone 7 Comment 5.1: In Appendix D, RJA proposes to upsize storm drain pipe to detain 10 and 100 year storm events and meter them out to the storm drain system on Tassajara Road. Who will maintain and operate the metering of the storm drain? A public entity, such as the City of Dublin, should be responsible for the detention system as the timing of the releases is crucial and may impact downstream Zone 7 facilities. Response: The proposed storm drain detention for the Vargas project will act as an underground detention pond; there will be no valves, gates, or anything requiring an operator in order to function. Periodic maintenance will involve keeping the pipes and outlets clean of debris or trash. During the final review of the storm drain system during the permitting process, the City will consider placement of the detention pipe in the public right-of-way which will allow the City to periodically maintain the system. In the event that the detention pipe is located in the development, maintenance by the Homeowner's Association will be required. As part of the City's normal reviewing process prior to the issuance of permits, the final storm drain system design will be forwarded for review by Zone 7. Comment 5.2: The developer must show how the flows will be released and what impact these flows will have at the Arroyo Mocho confluence with Tassajara Creek at Bernal Bridge on Arroyo de la Laguna. Response: Due to the small size of the Project, Staff anticipates that the modeling will be inconclusive due to the flows out of the project being much smaller than the flows in the Arroyo Mocho. Prior to approval of a tentative map for the project, the City will require an analysis of flows to Arroyo Mocho for Zone 7. The level of analysis required for this project can be determined by Zone 7 at that time. As part of the normal review procedures, the City would not approve the map until Zone 7 is satisfied with the proposal. Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 30 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 951 Turner Court, Room 100 Hayward, CA 94545-2698 (510) 670-6601 FAX (510) 670-5269 April 2, 2007 Erica Fraser, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Department City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Ms. Fraser: Subject: Vargas Project - Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Reference is made to your transmittal of March 2, 2007, of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project, located on approximately 4.38 acres of land on the west side of Tassajara Road south of the Alameda-Contra Costa county line in unincorporated Alameda County. We have reviewed the submitted document and offer the following comments: 1. From this, and other proposed development projects along Tassajara Road it appears that the entire length of Tassajara Road within Alameda County is to be annexed by the City of Dublin. Verify that annexation will not leave any short sections of Tassajara Road in the unincorporated County area. 6.1 2. The only roadways, or portions thereof in the region that appear will remain County roadways are EI Charro Road at 1-580 and Collier Canyon Road. With the widening of Fallon Road, the portion of County roadway that access Fallon Road from 1-580 (EI Charro road) will also need to be widened from its current two lanes up to eight lanes to mitigate for the increased traffic. Upon such improvement ofEI Charro Road, the County will look to the City of Dublin to enter into an agreement for maintenance of the improved roadway. 6.2 3. Although the project site is located in Zone 7, runoff ultimately drains to the Alameda Creek Federal Project in western Alameda County. This flood control facility is maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control District. The District is concerned with augmentation in runoff from the site that may impact flow capacity in the Federal Project and in the watercourses between the site and the Federal Project, as well as the potential 6.3 TO SERVE AND PRESERVE OUR COMMUNITY RECEI ED APR 0 4 Z001 . DUBLlN PLArtrt,rt\i Ms. Erica Fraser 2 April 2, 2007 for runoff from the project to increase the rate of erosion along those same watercourses that could cause localized damage and result in deposition of silt in the Federal Project. There should be no augmentation in runoff quantity or duration from the project site that will adversely impact downstream drainage facilities. The District should be involved in the review of the project hydrologic and hydraulic models, including the design of any detention ponds that may be necessary. Thank you for the opportunity to review the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. If you have any questions, please call Andrew Otsuka at (510) 670-6613. Very truly yours, /1r f1f--- George Sukkar Deputy Director Development Services Department GS:AO cc: Moses Tsang, Flood Program Rory MacNeil, Real Estate Division James Chu, Road Department John Bates, Traffic Engineering Tom Hinderlie, Maintenance & Operations K wablah Attiogbe, Environmental Services Robert Hale, Clean Water Division John Nguyen, Permits and Grading Bill Lepere, Construction Comment Letter 6: Alameda County Public Works Agency Comment 6.1: From this, and other proposed development projects along Tassajara Road it appears that the entire length of Tassajara Road within Alameda County is to be annexed by the City of Dublin. Verify that annexation will not leave any short sections of Tassajara Road in the unincorporated County. Response: The above comment is acknowledged and the City of Dublin will submit an annexation request to LAFCO that brings the City Limit line up to the current Alameda/Contra Costa County Line so that there are no gaps in local governmental jurisdiction regarding Tassajara Road. Additionally, a preliminary annexation map is included as Appendix A to this document. Comment 6.2: The only roadways, or portions thereof in the region that appear will remain County roadways are EI Charro Road at 1-580 and Collier Canyon Road. With the widening of Fallon Road, the portion of County roadway that access Fallon Road from 1-580 (EI Charro Road) will also need to be widened from its two lanes up to eight lanes to mitigate for the increased traffic. Upon such improvement of EI Charro Road, the County will look to the City of Dublin to enter into an agreement for maintenance of the improved roadway. Response: As noted in the MND, the Vargas project will not have any impacts south of the freeway. The area mentioned in the above comment is located in unincorporated Alameda County near the future Staples Ranch development. This area is anticipated to be annexed into the City of Pleasant on in the future and is outside of the City's jurisdiction. Comment 6.3: Although the project site is located in Zone 7, runoff ultimately drains to the Alameda Creek Federal Project in western Alameda County. This flood control facility is maintained by the Alameda County Flood Control District. The District is concerned with augmentation in runoff from the site that may impact flow capacity in the Federal Project and in the watercourses between the site and the Federal Project as well as the potential for runoff from the project to increase the rate of erosion along those same watercourses that could cause localized damage and result in deposition of silt in the Federal Project. There should be no augmentation in runoff quantity or duration from the project site that will adversely impact downstream drainage facilities. The District should be involved in the review of the project hydrologic and hydraulic models, including the design of any detention ponds that may be necessary. Response: The above comment is noted. The MND contained a Preliminary Hydrologic Analysis showing that the Project will attenuate runoff to pre-development runoff rates. The City will consult with and provide plans to the County of Alameda regarding the hydrologic and hydraulic models as a part of the normal routing procedures when these plans are submitted. The City clarifies that the pond will function as a swale. Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 33 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento, California 95825-1846 United States Department of the Interior In reply refer to: 1-1-07-TA-0729 APR 3 2007 Ms. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner Dublin Community Development Department 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, California 94568 Subject: Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project in the City of Dublin, Alameda County, California Dear Ms. Fraser: This letter contains the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) comments on the City of Dublin's Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Vargas Project in Dublin, Alameda County, California. The IS/MND evaluates the proposed Specific Plan/General Plan amendment for the Vargas property in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan, PD Prezoning and related Stage 1 Development Plan, Pre-annexation Agreement and Annexation. The Service received the IS/MND on March 7, 2007. Our comments are provided under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.c. 1531 et seq.) (Act). It is our understanding the 5-acre proposed project consists of the development of33 residential units, roads, trails, utilities, and a water detention basin. The project is located at 7020 Tassajara Road in the East Dublin Specific Plan area adjacent to Tassajara Creek and the proposed Dublin Ranch West residential development. The Service believes the proposed project may result in take of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) (red-legged frog), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) (tiger salamander), and the endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) (kit fox). The action area contains suitable habitat for all three species. The IS/MND does not contain an adequate analysis of the potential effects of the proposed project on these listed species. The surveys conducted by Olberding Environmental were habitat surveys and not Service protocol-level surveys for each species. TAKE PRI DE~ir:::::..J INAMERjCA~ RECEIVED APR 0 4 2007 DUBLIN PLANNING Ms. Erica Fraser 2 Tassajara Creek contains known dispersal and possible breeding habitat for the red-legged frog. Tiger salamanders and red-legged frogs have been documented on the adjacent Wallis property proposed for the Dublin Ranch West development. Suitable habitat and prey base exists for the kit fox on the project site. Section 9 of the Act prohibits the take of any federally listed animal species by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. As defined in the Act, take is defined as ".ooto harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct." "Harm has been further defined to include habitat destruction when it injures or kills a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding, foraging, or resting. Thus, not only are the red-legged frog, tiger salamander, and kit fox protected from such activities as collecting and hunting, but also from actions that cause their death or injury through damage or destruction of their habitat. The term "person" is defined as "oo.an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, association, or any other private entity; or any officer, employee, agent, department, or instrumentality of the Federal government, of any State, municipality, or political subdivision of a State, or any other entity subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized by one of two procedures. If a Federal agency is involved with the permitting, funding, or carrying out of the project and a listed species is going to be adversely affected, then initiation of formal consultation between that agency and the Service pursuant to section 7 of the Act is required, Such consultation would result in a biological opinion addressing the anticipated effects of the project to the listed species and may authorize a limited level of incidental take. If a Federal agency is not involved in the project, and federally listed species may be taken as part of the project, then an incidental take permit pursuant to section lO(a)(l)(B) of the Act should be obtained. The Service may issue such a permit upon completion of a satisfactory conservation plan for the listed species that would be taken by the project. Specific Comments: I. Due to the future and on-going development of eastern Dublin, the Service recommends the City of Dublin participate in a regional habitat conservation plan or conservation strategy to streamline the consultation process and effectively conserve and manage habitat for listed species. 7.1 2, The red-legged frog section on page 49 does not contain information relating to the most recent sightings of red-legged frogs and the restoration and use of Tassajara Creek as a red-legged frog compensation site for the Dublin Ranch project. According to the California Department ofFish and Game's Natural Diversity Data Base there numerous records of the red-legged frog in the creek and the surrounding area. The section also underlines that the red-legged frog was not found during 2006 surveys. Appendix A of the IS/MND stated that the June I, 2006, and August 7,2006, surveys were general habitat surveys and not Service-approved protocol surveys for this listed species. 7.2 Ms. Erica Fraser 3. Mitigation Measure 8 states that a pre-construction survey will be conducted no more than 60 days prior to construction and will be submitted for review to the City of Dublin's Community Development Department for review. It also states that should the survey determine presence of the species, the developer will work with the Cornmunity Development Department and the regulatory agencies. Based on the suitable on-site habitat and the proximity of records of the species, we recommend the applicant seek authorization for the incidental take of the red-legged frog prior to certification ofthe IS/MND. 4. We have similar concerns described in comments 1 and 2 on the tiger salamander section and Mitigation Measure 10 pages 49 through 51. 5. The Service and the California Department ofFish and Game (DPG) should also be included on the determination a qualified biologist to work with Federal and State listed species. Iflisted species are going to be subject to take, the biologist should be Service- approved under a section 7 biological opinion, section lO(a)(l)(B) habitat conservation plan, or a section 1 O(a)(l )(A) scientific collection permit. 6. Mitigation Measure 10-7 mentions avoidance of a tiger salamander breeding pond by 750 feet. Is there a breeding pond on site? Tiger salamanders have been documented to disperse from ponds in distances over one mile. The 750 feet buffer from the pond likely is not an adequate buffer. 7. The tiger salamander trapping and relocation plan should be reviewed and approved by the Service and DFG. 8. The project is within the range of the kit fox and contains suitable habitat. Service protocol-level surveys have not been conducted in this area in 10 years and are not considered valid by the Service. We are not aware of any surveys conducted on this site. The surveys conducted by Olberding Environmental were habitat surveys and not Service protocol-level surveys. Based on the suitable on-site habitat and the biology of the species, we recommend the applicant seek authorization for the incidental take prior to certification of the IS/MND. 9. The Service is not aware of the Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan and we recommend it be submitted to us and DFG for review. 10. Mitigation Measure 19 should include a Service and DFG approved biologist to develop a plan to address appropriate habitat compensation. The Regional Water Quality Control Board should also be consulted on waters of the State. II. The Service recommends minimum setbacks of 300 feet from Tassajara Creek. 3 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 Ms. Erica Fraser 4 This concludes our comments on IS/MND for the Vargas Project. The Service is interested in working with the City of Dublin and the applicant in the resolution of these issues to listed species and other wildlife. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Kim Squires or Ryan Olah of my staff at (916) 414-6625. Sincerely, Christop er D. ~ Deputy Assistant Field Supervisor cc: Scott Wilson, CaliforniaDdepartment of Fish and Game, Y ountville, California Janice Gan, California Department ofFish and Game, Tracy, California Brian Wines, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, Oakland, California Jane Hicks, US. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, California Fred Musser, Sun Valley Land Company, Pleasanton, California Jeff Olberding, Olberding Enviromental Inc., Concord, California Comment Letter 7: United Stated Fish and Wildlife Service The comment letter contains general introductory comments which are also addressed in later detailed comments. See comments and responses below. Comment 6.1: Due to the future and on-going development of eastern Dublin, the Service recommends the City of Dublin participate in a regional habitat conservation plan or conservation strategy to streamline the consultation process and effectively conserve and manage habitat for listed species. Response: The project site is one of the few remaining development sites in the area. Impacts to biological resources have routinely and successfully been identified and mitigated through other projects in the area and the City's feels that this will continue to be a successful approach for the Project area and the few remaining projects in the area. Comment 6.2: The red-legged frog section on page 49 does not contain information relating to the most recent sightings of red-legged frogs and the restoration and us of Tassajara Creek as a red-legged frog compensation site for the Dublin Ranch project. According to the California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Diversity Data Base there are numerous records of the red-legged frog in the creek and surrounding area. The section also underlines that the red-legged frog was not found during the 2006 surveys. Appendix A of the MND stated that the June 1, 2006 and August 7, 2006 surveys were general habitat surveys and not service-approved protocol surveys for this listed species. Response: The MND acknowledges previous sightings of red-legged frogs in the vicinity, but the fact remains that no red-legged frogs were observed on the site. As noted on pages 5 and 8 of the biological analysis in Appendix A, the objectives of the survey were to determine the potential presence or absence of special status species or habitat. The surveys were appropriate for this purpose. The City notes that even though no red-legged frogs (or California tiger salamanders) were observed on the site, the MND took a conservative approach in identifying contingency responses in the form of Mitigation Measure 8 (and 10). Comment 6.3: Mitigation Measure 8 states that a pre-construction survey will be conducted no more than 60 days prior to construction and will be submitted for review to the City of Dublin's Community Development Department for review. It also states that should the survey determine the presence of the species, the developer will work with the Community Development Department and the regulatory agencies. Based on the suitable on-site habitat and the proximity of records of the species, we recommend the applicant seek authorization for the incidental take of the red-legged frog prior to certification of the MND. Response: The red-legged frog was not observed on the site during the 2006 survey performed by Olberding Environmental. As discussed in the MND, development of the site is not anticipated to occur for several years and the red-legged frog could locate on the site in the future. As noted under Comment 4.1, Mitigation Measure 8 has been clarified to state "If habitat loss for the California Red-Legged Frog will occur as a result of the Project, the loss in habitat shall be mitigated at a ratio of 3: 1." This clarified mitigation measure provides specific amount of mitigation, the requirement for approval of any mitigation from the Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife and also provides for monitoring to ensure that the provisions are carried out. The City believes that the mitigation measure is adequate under CEQA as it recognizes there was no observed presence of red-legged frogs, but conditions cold change in the future when development occurs. Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 38 Comment 6.4: The Department ofFish and Game has similar concerns regarding the Tiger Salamander. Response: The rationale for the prior response also applies to the California Tiger Salamander. This species was not observed on the site, but the mitigations recognize this situation could change in the future. The mitigation for California Tiger Salamanders as clarified adequately protects the species from harm if present at the time of future development. Please refer to the City's response to Comment XX for the clarified mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure 10 has been clarified to include an additional requirement which requires that the loss in habitat for the Tiger Salamander be mitigated at a ratio of 3: 1. Comment 6.5: The Service and the California Department ofFish and Game should also be included on the determination a qualified biologist to work with Federal and State listed species. If listed species are going to be subject to take, the biologist should be Service-approved under section 7 biological opinion, section 10(a)(I)(B) habitat conservation plan, or section lO(a)(1)(A) scientific collection permit. Repose: The above comment is noted. Mitigation Measures 8 and 10 have been clarified, under the response to Comment 4.1, to state that the qualified biologist shall also be determined by the Department ofFish and game and Fish and Wildlife. All other mitigation measures which reference the term "qualified biologist" (mitigation measures 7, 9, 13, 14 and 16) are clarified as follows: .. ."qualified biologist (as determined by the City and the Department of Fish and Game and Fish and Wildlife Service..." Comment 6.6: Mitigation Measure 10 mentions the avoidance of a tiger salamander breeding pond by 750 feet. Is there a breeding pond on site? Tiger salamanders have been documented to disperse from ponds in distances over one mile. The 750 foot buffer from the pond is not likely to be an adequate buffer. Response: No breeding pond as found on-site. As noted in the MND, the annual grasslands on the site are considered to be a suitable habitat for the Tiger Salamander species. The MND also notes the observance of the species off of the site. However, the species was not found on the site during the 2006 survey conducted by Olberding Environmental. Because construction of the Vargas project is not anticipated to begin for several years there is the potential that the species could locate on the site in the future and Mitigation Measure 10 was include to mitigate impacts if the species locates on the site in the future. Based on this comment, Mitigation Measure 10 will be clarified to meet the distance requirement include in the Casamira Valley/Moller Ranch Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for a project located in close proximity to the Vargas project. The mitigation measure is clarified for a portion of the measure to state: 7) Grading and vegetation clearing shall not occur within ~ 2,100 feet of the California Tiger Salamander breeding pond, if a breeding pond is found on the site in the future, during the breeding and migrating season which occurs from November to June. Comment 6.7: The tiger salamander trapping and relocation plan should be reviewed and approved by the Service and Department of Fish and Game. Response: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the developer of the project to prepare a plan detailing the management of the California Tiger Salamander, if the species is found on the site in the future. The mitigation measure includes several components that must be a part of the plan. The main text of the Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 39 mitigation ensure requires the plan to be prepared and "approved by the California Department of Fish and Game and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service prior to the start of construction." Comment 6.8: The project is within the range of the kit fox and contains suitable habitat. Service protocol- level surveys have not been conducted in this area in 10 years and are not considered valid by the Service. We are not aware of any surveys conducted on this site. The surveys conducted by Olberding were habitat surveys and not Service protocol-level surveys. Based on the suitable on-site habitat and the biology of the species, we recommend that the applicant seek authorization for the incidental take prior to certification of the MND. Response: As noted in the MND, no kit fox have been identified within miles of the project site and none have been recently observed. In spite of repeated surveys and negative survey results, the remote potential for the presence of kit fox is analyzed in the MND and Mitigation Measure 12 was identified in response to the remote possibility that the species could locate on the site in the future. The kit fox protection plan is a comprehensive response to the potential for kit fox presence and is attached as Appendix C to this document. The protection plan was first adopted when the Eastern Dublin project was approved in 1993 and has been updated since then. It continues to b adequate mitigation in the unlikely event that kit fox are found to b present. Comment 6.9: The Service is not aware of the Eastern Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan and we recommend it be submitted to us and the Department ofFish and Game for review. Response: Please refer to the response under Comment 6.8 and the Plan included as Appendix C. The Plan has been cited in numerous Eastern Dublin environmental documents. Comment 6.10: Mitigation Measure 19 should include a Service and Department of Fish and Game approved biologist to address appropriate habitat compensation. The regional Water Quality Control Board should also be consulted on waters of the State. Response: The above comment is noted, Please see the clarified mitigation measure under the response to Comment 1.5. Comment 6.11: The Service recommends minimum setbacks of 300 feet from Tassajara Creek. Response: The above comment does not identify the purpose of the recommended setback. If the setback is intended to reflect potential upland habitat for red-legged frog, the clarifications to Mitigation Measure 8 address the potential for lost habitat. As noted in the MND, no red-legged frog were observed on the site. Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 40 Appendix A: Map of Annexation Area Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 lIN !1 <:::l --N..... ~ 0:: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ GLEASON DRIVE PKWY DUBLIN BL I.v INTERSTAlE 580 O~<;) ~ <f>'\~ ~'\~ S~ VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALf PROJECT SITE lIN C> ~C> ~,o: (j~ [j DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT 7051 Dublin Boulevard Dublin, California 94568 Phone: 925 828 0515 FAX: 925 829 1180 www.dsrsd.com March 29, 2007 Erica C. Fraser Senior Planner City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 SUBJECT: Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley, Vargas and Tipper Properties SB221 Verification of Sufficient Water Supply Dear Erica: This letter provides SB221 verification of sufficient water supply from the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) for service to the Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley, Vargas and Tipper Properties. The Project is included in the District's Urban Water Management Plan and Water Master Plan. DSRSD does have the capability to provide water service to the Moller Ranch/Casarnira Valley, Vargas and Tipper Properties. The providing of services is contingent on installation of water and sewer infrastructure, payment of fees, and satisfaction of all requirements contained in the District Code and implementing District Master Plans, policies, and ordinances. The District's 2005 Urban Water Management Plan Update (UWMP), which was adopted by our Board at its May 17, 2005 meeting, includes detailed water service analysis for the Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley, Vargas and Tipper Properties. The verification of sufficient water supply included in the UWMP meets the requirements of SB221. The District's water supply is documented in Section 4.0 of the UWMP. Historical and projected demands are documented in Section 6.0. Water supply and demand comparisons were conducted in Section 7.0. The comparisons include supply and demands for normal, dry, and multiple dry years. The UWMP indicates that the projected water supply is sufficient for the Moller Ranch/Casarnira Valley, Vargas and Tipper Properties. The District can provide service to the planned projects without significantly and adversely affecting the. reliability of water service to the District's existing customers. The UWMP was distributed to the City of Dublin, City of Livermore, Citizens for Balanced Growth, and other parties associated with the "Agreement to Settle Water Litigation By and Between Zone 7 Water Agency, Dublin San Ramon Services District, et. al." The District has received no opposition to the UWMP. The Dublin San Ramon Services District is a Public Entity RECEiveD APR 0 ~ Z007 DUBLIN PLANNING Erica C. Fraser March 29, 2007 Page 2 of2 This transmittal satisfies the SB221 verification of sufficient water supply for the Moller Ranch/Casamira Valley, Vargas and Tipper Properties. If you have any questions, please call me at your convenience at (925) 875-2255. a~A.. 'iuJODORA N. BIA~ Senior Civil Engineer RNB/es cc: Bert Michalczyk, DSRSD David A. Requa, DSRSD Joanne Wilson, RIA Fred Musser Glenn Brown ehron/File: 23PF03 5.0 Cllsamirn Valley Project H:\ENGDEP1\SB6JO & SB221\Moller Rnnch - Ca~lImirll. Valley\SB221 Verification. DOC Appendix C: Kit Fox Protection Plan Responses to Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vargas Project March 2007 AppendixD Appendix D East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan HABITAT COMPENSATION Justification for Requiring Compensation for Loss of Potential Kit Fox Habitat The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) normally requires that loss of endangered species habitat be compensated, normally at a ratio of 3:1. In order for this to apply, kit fox occurrence must be documented within or adjacent to (within their home range - approximately 2 miles) the proposed project site. lthough no confirmed kit fox sightings have been documented recently in the project area, eveloped areas should at least be partially compensated based on the area's potential to support kit fox. The amount of habitat compensation is addressed under habitat compensation requirements and alculations below. This recommendation for compensation is based on several facts and assumptions 'sted below. . A known population (Los Vaqueros) occurs approximately 7 miles northeast of the project area, There is contiguous band of good habitat for kit fox that extends from the project site to this known population. . The Dublin area is well within the dispersal range of kit fox; kit fox have been known to disperse 39 miles. . Study conducted by BioSystems (1989) detected a possible kit fox track within the project boundaries_ . There are unconfirmed recent sightings approximately 4 miles north (Black Hawk) and less than one mile to the west (Camp Parks), · There is evidence that kit fox have occupied this area in the past; a kit fox den and sighting were recorded along Collier Canyon Road approximately half a mile from the project site in the mid 1970s (MorreI1975). · The presence of red fox and coyote does not preclude the existence of kit fox, particularly when local food and denning resources are not limiting. Although coyotes and red fox are known to kill kit fox, coyotes and red fox occur with kit fox in many portions of the kit foxes range. · The known kit fox range can change its dimensions overtime. For example, areas of Contra Costa County that were devoid of kit fox for several years, probably due to excessive ground squirrel poisoning (Orloff et at 1986), are now known to be occupied by kit fox (Jones and Stokes 1991). These areas of Contra Costa County also have known red fox and coyote populations. · Failure to observe kit foxes or their sign in a short-term survey such as those conducted at Dublin does not constitute proof that they do not occur there. Previous studies have demonstrated the difficulty of verifying kit fox occurrence in areas of low kit fox density. For example, over six months of live-trapping and spotlighting surveys were conducted before kit foxes were detected during a CDFG study for the Los Vaqueros Reservoir project, located approximately 7 miles northeast of the Dublin Ranch area. ary, absence of kit fox from the project site or adjacent areas has not been proven. ore, even if kit fox currently do not occupy territory in the project site, it is reasonable to D-1 AppendixD Eastern Dublin SP/GPA Em assume that they could occur this area again in the near future. Habitat Compensation Requirements and Calculations All potential kit fox habitat proposed for development should be subject to compensation, including grassland, woodland, and dry land agriculture habitat types. Assessment of habitat replacement values was based on habitat quality and suitability for kit fox. Dry land agriculture was not considered as suitable as grassland for kit fox. Although dry land typically has a lower. prey base and denning potential then grasslands, it is still used occasionally for foraging and denning. Woodland areas are also used occasionally by kit fox. Since the on-site wooded areas are small and interspersed with grassland they have been included in the grassland habitat. Based on this assessment the following habitat replacement ratios should be enacted: a 1:1 ratio for in-kind replacement (e.g., grassland for grassland; dry land for dry land); a .5:1 ratio for replacement of grassland for dry land agriculture. Dry land replacement for grassland losses shall not be acceptable. Approximately 3361 acres of potential kit fox habitat is slated for development. This includes about 669 acres of grassland and 2692 acres of dry land agriculture habitat types. These estimates are based on the preferred alterative and established land use practices. Areas already developed have been excluded from these calculations. Therefore, at a 1: 1 in kind replacement ratio, 669 acres of grassland and 2692 acres of dry land agriculture needs to be replaced; or at a .5: 1 ratio for dry land replacement, a total of 2015 acres of grassland needs to be replaced (669 grassland acres and .5 x 2692 dry land acres) . We suggeSt the following land acquisitions and preservations be established to fulfill the requirements for habitat compensation as stated above. Portions of the land designated as rural residential (one dwelling per 100 acres) can be set aside as mitigation sites for kit fox. Rural residential includes approximately 2850 acres (447 acres of dry land and 2403 acres of grassland). The acreage that could be used for mitigation sites should exclude houses and other structures, a buffer zone of 1000 feet around such structures to minimize disturbance, and areas that are isolated fragments of habitat. The exact acreage potentially available for compensation will vary depending on placement of the houses in relation to one another; the more clustered the development, the more land that can be used for mitigation. This mitigation land would be subject to strict management regulations (see land use section below). The remainder of habitat needed for compensation can be acquired by preserving or acquiring off- site land, re-zoning existing land as rural residential, or acquiring conservation easements on adjacent parcels. If off-site land is acquired for compensation it should meet the following criteria for acceptability: adjacent to known (recent) kit fox populations, adjacent to dedicated open space areas that contains suitable kit fox habitat, and acceptable to the resource agencies. A preferred alternative to these suggestions would be to donate the monetary equivalent for replacement land values to a conservation organization such as the Nature Conservancy. This organization would administer the money and combine it with other monies from similar projects in the region to purchase a large, contiguous off -site mitigation area. This area would be managed by the conservation organization and the resource agencies to promote and maintain a viable kit fox population in this northern portion of their range. This method of mitigation banking is preferable to other methods of compensation because it allows a larger mitigation site to be purchased with the pooled monies from other sources and it allows for more control of the choice and management of mitigation areas. Enactment of these compensation ratios does not constitute a permit for "take". Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue or kill a listed species. If at any time during the pre-construction surveys (recommended below) or the construction activities, kit fox are found within or adjacent to the project site, then a "take" permit under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) would be required and a 3:1 replacement ratio probably would be enacted. Additional mitigation measures D-2 II I II II Eastern Dublin SP/GPA EIR Appendix D would also be necessary. Land Use and Management Practices Within the Mitigation Sites . Land use practices within the mitigation sites would have to be compatible with kit fox use. This includes grazing, dry land agriculture, and orchards. However, areas that are currently grassland habitat should not be converted to dry land or orchards. Any type of irrigated agriculture would not be suitable. Any change in current land use would have to be approved by USFWS and CDFG. I I I . Livestock grazing should be regulated within the mitigation sites. Light to moderate grazing activities is required to maintain optimum percent ground cover and herbaceous vegetation height (approximately 6 inches high; 50% ground cover). Herbaceous ground over greater than 50% and herbaceous cover height greater than 6 inches is detrimental to grassland prey species that prefer sparse cover (i.e., ground squirrels). The grazing rates, duration, and timing should be regulated by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFG and USFWS. I I . Development in the rural residential should be clustered as much as possible to preserve large portions of undisturbed habitat for mitigation. . All areas of ground disturbance (including storage areas) should also be revegetated as soon as possible (preferably immediately after construction and before winter rains begin) to reduce erosion hazards and restore lost habitat values. Hydromulching disturbed areas with grass and forb mixes is recommended by CDFG and USFWS, All revegetation efforts must use native, local plants. Revegetation is especially important near steep drainages. I . The use of rodenticides or herbicides should be totally restricted within the mitigation areas. I I . The following restrictions apply to the on-site residents within 1/2 mile of mitigation sites: I) To help minimize predation and harassment of kit foxes by dogs, the residents should restrict their dogs movements by leasing or enclosures. 2) Every effort should be made to enforce a 20 mph speed limit or less, particularly at night. Speeds should be controlled by posting signs, installing speed bumps, educating the residents. II I I I I I I . Predatory trapping activities should be strictly controlled or eliminated to minimize the potential for incidental take of kit foxes. . Monitoring surveys for kit fox within the mitigation sites should be conducted each year, for the first five years of the project, then at five year intervals for the life of the project. This should be conducted by a qualified biologist. A progress report for each survey should be prepared. MITIGATION MEASURES Pre-construction Conditions 1. A pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 60 days prior to any habitat modification (grading, clearing, construction and road development, etc.). The purpose of this survey is to locate kit fox dens. These den surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist (i. e., specializes in kit fox) throughout the entire area of disturbance and a buffer zone of 500 feet around these areas. Due to'the large size of the project area and the need to conduct surveys within 60 of construction, surveys may need to be conducted sequentially in smaller portions D-3 I - II It - - II II , II I I I I I I I I I AppendixD Eastern Dublin SP/GPA Em of the site as they are ready to be developed. In addition to pre-construction den surveys other survey techniques (Le., spotlighting and scent stations) should be used to reassess kit fox presence. These additional techniques will help to verify that kit fox "take" will not occur as a result of development. These additional efforts are necessary for several reasons: 1) kit fox dens are often not readily identifiable (little to no signs of use) and therefore the evaluation of kit fox occurrence could be misjudged during den surveys (Orloff in press); 2) kit fox could be using the project site for only foraging which would not be detected during den surveys; 3) kit fox could establish presence within tire site over the time between the last survey efforts and the start of development; and 4) due to lack of confirmed kit fox presence a take permit will probably not be issued by USFWS or CDFG and therefore if kit fox actually do occur on site the developers would be violating the federal ESA and State ESA. Methods employed during these surveys should follow standard CDFG Region 4 guidelines otherwise specified by the resource agencies. All surveys should be conducted between May I and September 30. 2, If any kit fox dens are located (potential, known, or natal) employ the following measures. Protective exclusion zones and fencing: . Protective exclusion zones and fencing should be established around identified kit fox dens with the following specified distances: known dens (dens that have good evidence of kit fox use, past or present) = 300 feet; natal dens (multiple hole dens and/or dens with sign of pupping activity) = 500 feet. Any suspected known den or natal den should be given a t mile buffer between January and June to reduce possible adverse impacts to active natal dens and pupping activities. If an active natal den is confirmed, this buffer zone should be extended to t mile. Human activities should be greatly restricted within these exclusion areas; vehicle operation and construction, materials storage, or other types of surface disturbing or vibration producing activity should be prohibited. . Exclusion fencing should consist of large flagged stakes (4 - 5 foot metal or I x I wooden stakes) connected by heavy rope or cord. Each exclusion zone should be posted with two to three signs placed at equidistant points along the perimeter; each sign should identify the fenced zone as an environmental sensitive area and state that no disturbance is permitted without prior authorization from the appropriate project personnel or USFWS and CDFG. Exclusion zone fencing should be maintained until all construction-related or operational disturbance have been terminated. At that time, all fencing and signs should be removed to avoid attracting subsequent attention to the den. Potential Dens: . If potential kit fox dens will likely be destroyed by construction or other related activities, the following procedures should be initiated prior to disturbance. First, the den should be monitored over at least three consecutive days to determine if it actually is being used by kit fox. Activity at the subject den can be monitored by placing tracking medium at the den's entrance and by spotlighting. If there is any suspected or confirmed sign of kit fox activity during the monitoring, USFWS and CDFG should be contacted immediately (see known den recommendations below). . If the den is thought to be unoccupied (immediately following monitoring), the entrance can then be progressively plugged with loose dirt for several days to discourage the use of the den while still allowing resident animals to escape easily. When there is no sign of activity at the den and it is deemed safe to do so by a trained biologist, the den can be dug out with hand tools to a point where it is certain no kit fox is using the den. The den should be fully excavated and then be filled with dirt and compacted to ensure that kit fox D-4 - , I t - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I Eutem Dublin SP!GPA EIR Appendix D cannot reenter the den during the construction period. If at any point a kit fox is thought to be using the den, the plugging or excavation activity will stop and USFWS and CDFG contacted immediately (see known den recommendations below), All attempts at monitoring, plugging, and excavating a den should be conducted by a biologist experienced in the biology and behavior of kit fox. All such efforts shall be fully documented. Known Dens: . If one or more known kit fox dens occur within the areas of proposed disturbance or development and impact to these resources is unavoidable, the following procedures should be implemented. Prior to the on-set of construction and den destruction, the USFWS and CDFG should be notified in writing of the intent to destroy subject dens or other sensitive resources and reasons given why alternative courses of action are not possible. No activities shall occur in the sensitive area until the USFWS and CDFG are provided the opportunity to review and comment on this proposal. These agencies may recommend alternative courses of action to avoid den destruction or reduce impacts. . If given permission by these agencies, excavation of known kit fox dens may then proceed following the procedures outlined above for potential dens. If there is any sign of kit fox activity during the monitoring, a period of at least 5 days should be observed to allow the animal to move to another den during its normal activities. If the animal does not change dens during the course of monitoring, use of the den can be discouraged by partial plugging for several days. If this fails the den may have to be excavated when it is temporarily vacant (e.g., at night). However, the disturbance of an known den should be avoided if at all possible and under no circumstances should a natal den be destroyed or disturbed. If excavation of a den thought to be known or natal is unavoidable, the plugging and excavation activities should not take place during the breeding season (November 1 to July 31) when most dens are being used as reproductive or pupping dens. . The destruction of a known kit fox den is considered a "take" as defined under Section 3 and prohibited under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act, and appropriate permitting and compensatory mitigations would have to be developed in cooperation with the USFWS, If appropriate, provisions for "take" will be addressed in a Biological Opinion concerning the subject project issued by the USFWS, in which this mitigation plan will be incorporated by reference. Similar provisions exist for the CDFG. Construction Conditions 3. In order to prevent kit fox or other animals from being injured or trapped during the construction phase of the project, excavated steep-walled holes or trenches greater than two feet deep should be covered with plywood at the close of each working day, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. Escape ramps should be placed at least every 100 feet along the perimeter of the excavation. In general, open trenches for pipelines, etc., should not exceed in length that which equals approximately one week's construction. All holes or trenches over 2 feet deep should be monitored daily. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be inspected for trapped animals. 4. The area of disturbance should be minimized as much as possible. The number of new roads should be kept at a minimum and restricted to routes that are necessary for construction. Locations of material handling areas, construction camps, and vehicle and material storage sites, should be situated in previously disturbed areas, or selected to avoid sensitive habitats. The perimeter of any area to be disturbed (including storage and parking areas) should be delineated and clearly marked in the field, and no disturbance allowed outside that boundary. D-S II I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I II AppendixD Eaatem Dublin SP/GPA Em 5. To prevent harassment, mortality, or destruction of kit foxes or their burrows by dogs or cats, pets should not be allowed within the construction site. No firearms should be permitted within the construction sites to avoid harassment or killing of kit foxes. These restrictions should be presented to the construction workers (see mitigation measure # 11). 6. All food-related trash items, such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps, should be disposed of in a closed container or removed from the construction site. Food items often attract kit foxes and other wildlife into the construction zone at night, consequently exposing them to construction-related hazards. 7. Vehicle traffic should be restricted to designated access roads, storage areas, construction sites, parking areas and other project related areas that are necessary for the construction of the project. Other roads should be closed to construction traffic and off -road travel should be prohibited. 8. Within the areas designated as rural residential every effort should be made to enforce a 20 mph speed limit or less, particularly at night. Night traffic should be minimized as much as possible. Speeds shall be controlled by posting signs, installing speed bumps, educating construction workers, and enforcing through project construction contract provisions. 9. Rock outcrops provide shelter for many of the species which are preyed upon by kit fox, particularly cottontails. If rock outcrops are disturbed during excavation for project cQnstruction, rocks shall be piled at the surface within the rural residential areas. For rock- piles to provide needed shelter, rocks need to be medium to large sized (>6 inches) and piled high enough (2 to 3 feet) to allow small prey such as cottontails to fit inside the crevices. 10. To prevent access by kit foxes, all construction pipes of 4 to 24 inches in diameter will be stacked or otherwise stored prior to use in such a manner they are elevated at least 3.5 feet above the ground. If this is not feasible, all stored pipe will be thoroughly inspected to make certain no kit foxes are using the pipe (using high beam torches) before the pipe is buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. II. An information pamphlet should be developed by the project proponent in conjunction with the resource agencies to educate construction workers on the need to avoid accidental or intentional harm to kit foxes and other sensitive species. The pamphlet should explain restrictions on vehicle traffic along with other pertinent information on how to avoid injuring kit foxes and other sensitive species. All construction workers should be instructed to report any observations of kit fox, or instances of entrapment, injury, or mortality to their supervisors. USFWS and CDFG should be notified in writing within three working days of the finding. All independent construction company field supervisors and their employees (via a single representative), should be required to read this fact sheet before they are allowed to begin work on the proposed project. A copy of this information sheet also should be made available to each resident. Operational Conditions 12. The use of rodenticide or herbicides should be greatly restricted within the project area, The following rodenticides should be banned entirely from the project area: Compound 1080, strychnine, ],C,<, diphazinone, and fumigants such as methyl bromide. If rodenticides must be used, we recommend the use of zinc phosphide, which has a substantially reduced risk of secondary poisoning to canids compared to these other compounds (Hegdal et a1. 1986, Schitoskey 1975, Swick 1973). Poisoning programs should be done in cooperation and supervision of the Alameda County Department of Agriculture. If rodenticides are used, a report should be submitted to USFWS and CDFG detailing the extent and type of application used. D-6 APPENDIX E SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM TO THE EASTERN DUBLIN SAN JOAQUIN KIT FOX PROTECTION PLAN (ADDENDUM TO APPENDIX E OF THE EASTERN DUBLIN EIR) This document is an addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan, Appendix E from the Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment and the Specific Plan DEIR (1992). This document updates the information contained in that document and updates recommendations for the survey and protection measures based on the latest protocols released by the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1997 and 1999). Appendix E's mitigation measures are based on the assumption that the East Dublin General Plan and Specific Plan Areas support potential kit fox habitat and the impacts resulting from build out are potentially significant. The mitigation measures are divided into seven sections as follows: 1.0 Monitoring Surveys, 2.0 Land Use and Management Practices, 3.0 Pre-Construction Conditions, 4.0 Protection Measures, 5.0 Potential Dens, 6.0 Known/Natal Dens, 7.0 Interagency Coordination and 8.0 Construction Conditions. Since that document was written and adopted, a number of surveys for kit fox have been conducted in the East Dublin area (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997a) and the adjacent North Livermore Valley (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997b). None of these surveys detected kit fox with the exception of one kit fox detected while spotlighting approximately 2 miles north of the North Livermore site in Contra Costa County on Morgan Territory Road (1996). In addition, no kit fox have been incidentally detected in this area in the past nine years. The survey protocols have recently been updated (USFWS 1999) and the preconstruction survey protocol and construction measures have been updated as well (USFWS 1997) since Appendix E was written. The 1,212-acre Dublin Ranch, located just west of the subject area, was surveyed for kit fox in 1991 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997a). The negative results were included in the earlier GPA/SP EIR (1992). Since that time, Dublin Ranch was subject to intensive kit fox surveys in 1996 and 1997 (H.T. Harvey and Associates 1997a). The Dublin Ranch and areas within 2.5 miles of the site were subject to 32 nights of spotlighting and, the property itself, to 560 track station nights and 280 camera station nights. These survey efforts yielded negative results (that is, no kit fox or kit fox sign was detected). Furthermore, the North Livermore project areas totaling 4,31O-acres located just east of the GP A/SP area were also intensively surveyed for kit fox. The total level of survey effort resulted in 56 nights of spotlighting, 946 track station nights, and 991 camera station nights between 1992 and 1996 (H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997b). One kit fox was detected during spotlighting on Morgan Territory Road in Contra Costa County a couple miles north of the project area. No other kit fox or sign of kit fox were detected within any project area boundary or the surrounding areas. The San Joaquin kit fox, at least during the late 80's and early 90's, were detected in areas near Frick Lake (approximately 7.5 miles to the east of the study area), in Round Valley (approximately 11 miles to the northeast), and in areas near Los Vaqueros Reservoir and the intersection of Camino Diablo and the new Vasco Road realignment (approximately 12 miles to the northeast) during surveys conducted to detect kit fox. Despite more intense efforts to detect kit fox in the East Dublin and North Livermore Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 1 Valley areas than these previous surveys, none! have been detected. Based on negativ results within the GP A/SP Area and the surrounding areas, kit fox appear to be largely absent from both the North Livermore Valley and East Dublin area (see analysis presented in H.T. Harvey & Associates 1997c). ..... The section "1.0 Monitoring Surveys" recommends annual monitoring surveys for approved projects following the 1989 protocol developed by the CDFG. The latest Survey Protocol for the San Joaquin Kit Fox for the Northern Range (USFWS 1999) should replace this recommendation and should only be conducted if no other kit fox survey has preceded project approval. Yearly monitoring should only be completed if recommended on a project by project basis by a regulating agency. Sections 3.0 through 6.0 and 8.0 should be replaced by the Standard Recommendation for the Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (USFWS 1997) that contains updated measures to protect the kit fox. Section 7.0 Interagency Coordination is adequate. The following sections are provided to help ensure that no inadvertent harm to the San Joaquin kit fox will occur during project implementation. The following section contains updated versions of sections 1.0,3.0 through 6.0 and 8.0: APPE/1.0 Monitoring Surveys APPEll.l (updated) Survey protocol will follow most recent guidelines, San Joaquin kit fox Survey Protocol for the Northern Range, developed by the USFWS Oune 1999). This survey protocol recommends that an Early Evaluation be completed by a qualified biologist prior to focused surveys. The need for further focused surveys and/ or yearly monitoring should be determined during informal consultation with the Service after an early evaluation has been completed on project by project basis. An early evaluation includes the following: . Brief description of the proposed project and map . Compilation of sighting records within a ten-mile radius of the boundaries of the project site . Description of vegetative communities on site . Description of vegetative communities within a ten-mile radius of the project site . Description of habitat suitability on the project site assessed by completing one set of walking transects . Analysis ~f adverse effects of the project on kit foxes (if any) . Preliminary recommendations for mitigation of adverse effects and an analysis of cumulative effects. APPE/2.0 Land Use and Management Practices (see original Appendix E) APPE/3.0 Preconstruction Conditions APPEl3.l A pre-construction survey shall be conducted not more than 30 days and not less than 14 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance and/or construction activities or any project activity likely to impact the San Joaquin kit fox. Surveys should identify kit fox habitat features in the project area and areas within a 200-foot buffer of the project site by conducting walking surveys. The status of all dens should be 1 with the one exception of the kit fox detected on Morgan Territory Road in 1996 Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 2 € afl1!d U"'d UO!palo.Id xOd l!)llI!nboof u\lS lI!lqna lSE'3 a1.(l OJ urn puappy IE'lUaUIalddns :3 x!puaddy SlffinUa.I!nba~ l~UUH~Jado PUF uop:m.llSuOJ O'S/Hdd" ('papuaunuOJaJ S"f 01 U01PClS JO L. UOpJ<35 e JO} SMdSn a1.fl1.fl1M uopelInsuOJ l~WJO} 'sap~punoq pa[oJd a1.fl1I11.fl1M pa1Ja1ap aJe XO} 1p{ n 'Arre.1aua:) :H Xfpuadd" Ie~po aas) UOpelI1p.100J AJUa~e.1a1Ul O'L./Hdd" '(L.661 SMdSn) aJ1AJ<35 al{l mo.1} nWJad/uopezpOl{lne a)(e1 Sa.11nba.1 suap ~lI1ddnd/le1eu .10 UMOIDI AU~ }O UopJlU1saQ 'auoz u01snpxa a1.fl1I11.fl1M panq1l{0.1d aq Plnol{s A11A1pe ~lI1qm1s1P-aJeJ.1ns }O adA1 .1a1.flo Aue .10 'a~~.101S IB1.1a1ew 'uope.1ado ap1l{aA UOpJlU1SUOJ lIe as1MJal{lQ 'pamuuad aq Plnol{s J!J}e.11100} pue speo.1 ~1I11S1Xa uo uope.1ado ap1l{aA Iepuassa AlUQ 'sauoz u01snpxa asa1.fl lI1l{HM papp1Sa.1 Apea.1~ .10 pa1N1l{0.1d aq PlnOl{S saHIA1pe paWla.1 pa[O.1d .1al{lO pue pa1ela.1-u01PIU1SUOJ '(L.661 SMdSn) suap a1.fl 01 uopualle lUanbasqns ~lI1pe.111e P10Ae 01 paAOma.1 aq nel{s ~lI1Jua} ne 'amp 1el{1 1" 'pa1eu1w.1a1 uaaq aAel{ saJUeqm1s1P IeUOpe.1ado .10 pa1elaJ-uopJnJ1SUOJ ne THun pau1elu1ew aq Plnol{s l{~nO.1l{l aAOW Ol XO} H)( SMOne 1el{1 ~lI1Jua} auoz u01snpxH 'saxo} 11)( Aq pa1dmJo uap l{Jea sap.1pua 1el{1 ~lI1Jua} Aq paleJ.1eWap aq Plnol{s auoz u01snpxa al{l 'u01pal0.1d am sua oJ.. 'auoz u01snpxa al{l }O aZ1s al{l alf[W.Ialap Ol pa1JelUOJ aq Plnol{s SMdSn al{l 'papa1ap s1 uap ~lI1ddnd .10 Ie1eu e n 'laa} OOllseaI 1e }O auoz U01snpxa ue aAel{ Plnol{s suap UMOU)! r913.clclV suaQ le1eN/uMoU)! 0'9/Hdd" 'sAep Of: paaJxa lOU rrel{s p01.1ad awp s1l{J.. 'AaAJns uopJnJ1suOJa.1d al{l papnpuOJ Ol{M lS1~oI01q al{l Aq apew aq PlnOl{S paA0.11Sap aq Ala}es ueJ uap al{llel{l uap lepua10d e }O asn-uou }O uopeJ1jpaA .1aue awn }O l{l~ual .10} suopepuaunuoJa~ 'lS1~010N pamlenb e Aq 1ueJeA pa1jpaA a.ll? Aal{l J! paA0.11Sap aq AIUO Plnol{s Aal[l 'paAO.1lSap aq Ol a.1e suap Ienualod asal[l 11 'XO} lPI Aq S~lI1l[l .1al[lo ~uowe e1~I1Ja.1 .10} pasn a.1e suap asal{l Sl? ayq1ssod lUa1xa lSa1ea.1~ a1.fl 01 pap10Ae aq Plnol{s 5uap lepua10d JO uop:m.nsaQ '(O'I/3:ddV aas) pa1dn:x:lO 5! uap lepua10d e H alf[W.Ia1ap 01 .1ap.1o IT! sn[~!u aa.1l{l }O wnW'!lT!W e pa.1onuow aq Plnol{s suap lepua10d rsl3.clclv suaQ lepualOd O'S/Hdd" '(L.661IPd,,) ;JJUVQ.m1SJa puno.l9 SU!.ma .10 01 .lO!.ld XOj 11)l umbvof uvs ;no fo UOlpii10.ld .lof SUO!lVPUJUlUlOJiiN PiiZ!P.lVPUV1S iJ:J!a.liJS iJftZPl!M puv l{S!j 'S'n u1 pap1A0.1d a.1e UOpJn.11Sap uap pue samseaw u01pa10.1d JO} saunap1n:) 'aJ!AJCIS alp pue (:)dQJ) awe:) pue l{s1d}o lUaW1JedaQ e1womeJ al{ll{HM uopelInsuOJ IT! papnpuOJ aq Plnol{S uopJn.11sap uap .10 sa.1nseaw uopJalO.1d }O uopelUawaldW'! 'SAaAJns UOnJlU1suOJaJd al{l ~lI1mp papa1ap a.1e suap XO} lp{ pa1dmJo 11 rtl3.clclv 5aJnSeaw u01=\Ja10.1d O.t !3:dd" 'paa:xJ.1d ueJ aJueq.1Ills1P punO.1~ pal1?{a.1 -pa[oJd 'aApe~au aJe SlInsaJ AaAJnS al{l n 'lUawpedaQ ~lT!UUeld A1D al[l 01 pa1l1wqns aq mM slInsaJ AaAms 'lS1~OION pamlenb e Aq papnpuOJ aq IITM AaAms al[l 'SUOP~lS e.1aweJ .1o/pue wn1paw ~lT!)(Je.1l l[HM Sll{~1U aaJl[l }O wnW'!lf!UI e .1O} wal{l ~uPOHuOW Aq palT!WJalap aq Plnol{s suap }O snWls al{J.. '(L.661 SMdSn) paddew pue palJ1UUalap These recommendations should be implemented during project-related construction in order to prevent kit fox or other animals from being injured or trapped during the construction phase of the project unless expressly exempted from doing so by the Service. The following recommendations with some minor modifications are taken from the U.S. fish and Wildlife Service Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance (April 1997). APPE/8.1 To minimize temporary disturbance, all project-related vehicle traffic should be restricted to established roads, construction areas, and other designated areas. These areas should also be included in preconstruction surveys and, to the extent possible, should be established in locations disturbed by previous activities to prevent further impacts. APPE/8.2 Project-related vehicles should observe a 20-mph speed limit in all project areas, except on county roads and State and Federal highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are most active. To the extent possible, nighttime construction should be prohibited during the rainy season, then minimized once the rainy season has ended (see below). Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas shall be prohibited. APPE/8.3 To prevent inadvertent entrapment of kit foxes or other animals during the construction phase of the project, all excavated, steep-walled holes or trenches more than 2-feet deep should be covered at the close of each working day by plywood or similar materials, or provided with one or more escape ramps constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughly . inspected for trapped animals. If at any time a trapped or injured kit fox discovered, construction in that area will be halted, and a qualified biologist will be notified immediately. The qualified biologist in conjunction with a local CDFG biologist and the Service will determine how to proceed. The Sacramento Field Office and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) will be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or injured animal and any other pertinent information. APPE/8.4 All construction pipes, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of 4- inches or greater that are stored at a construction site for one or more overnight periods should be thoroughly inspected for kit foxes before the pipe is subsequently buried, capped, or otherwise used or moved in any way. If a kit fox is discovered inside a pipe, that section of pipe should not be moved until the U.s. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) (916-414-9600) has been consulted. If necessary, and under the direct supervision of the biologist, the pipe may be moved once to remove it from the path of construction activity, until the fox has escaped. APPE/8.5 All food related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles; food scraps should be disposed of in a closed container and removed at least once a week from a construction or project site. APPE/8.6 No firearms shall be allowed on the project site. APPE/8.7 To prevent harassment, mortality of kit foxes or destruction of dens by dogs or cats, no pets shall be permitted on project sites. APPE/8.8 Use of rodenticides and herbicides in project areas should be restricted. This is -necessary to prevent primary and secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on which they depend. All uses of such compounds Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 4 should observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additional project-related restrictions deemed necessary by the Service. APPE/8.9 A representative shall be appointed by the project proponent, who will be the contact source for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a kit fox or who finds a dead, injured or entrapped individual. The representative will be identified during the employee education program. The representative's name and telephone number shall be provided to the Service. APPE/8.10 An employee education program should be conducted for any project that has expected impacts to kit fox or other endangered species. The program should consist of a brief presentation by persons knowledgeable in kit fox biology and legislative protection to explain endangered species concerns to contractors, their employees, and military and agency personnel involved in the project. The program should include the following: description of the San Joaquin kit fox and its habitat needs; address the occurrence of the kit fox in the project area; status of the species and its protection under the Endangered Species Act; and measures being taken to reduce impacts to the during project construction and implementation. A fact sheet conveying this information should be prepared for distribution to above-rnentioned people and anyone else who may enter the project site. APPE/8.11 Upon completion of the project, all areas subject to temporary ground diSturbances, including storage and staging areas, temporary roads, and pipeline corridors should be recontoured if necessary, and revegetated to promote restoration of the area to pre-project conditions. An area subject to "temporary" disturbance means any area that is disturbed during the project, but that after project completion will not be subject to further disturbance and has the potential to be revegetated. Appropriate methods and plant species used to revegetate such areas should be determined on a site- specific basis in consultation with the Service, CDFG, and revegetation experts. APPE/8.12 In the case of trapped animals, escape ramps or structures. should be installed immediately to allow the animal(s) to escape, or the Service should be contacted for advice. APPE/8.13 Any contractor, employee(s) or military or agency personnel who inadvertently kills or injures a San Joaquin kit fox shall immediately report the incident to their representative. This representative shall contact the CDFG immediately in the case of a dead, injured or entrapped kit fox. The CDFG contact for immediate assistance" is State Dispatch at (916) 445-0045. They will contact the local warden or biologist. APPE/8.14 The Sacramento Field Office and CDFG will be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death or activities. Notification must include the date, time, location of the incident or of the finding of a dead or injured animal and any other pertinent information. LITERATURE CITED H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997a. Dublin Ranch San Joaquin kit fox Survey. Project No. 555--13. October 9,1997. Appendix E: Supplemental AddendUm to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 5 H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997b. North Livermore Valley San Joaquin Kit Fox Surveys. Project No. 1037.01 (77 p.). H.T. Harvey & Associates. 1997c. Distribution of the San Joaquin Kit Fox in the North Part of Its Range. Project No. 673.11. March 13, 1997. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Standard Recommendation for the Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground Disturbance. April 7, 1997. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Survey Protocol for the San Joaquin Kit Fox for the Northern Range. June 1999. Appendix E: Supplemental Addendum to the East Dublin San Joaquin Kit Fox Protection Plan Page 6