HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 DublinRanchPropertiesCTTY CLERK
AGENDA STATEMENT
CZTY COUNCIL MEETZNG DATE: September :L6 2003
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENT
Informational Report: Recent Approval of State and Federal
Environmental Permits for the Dublin Ranch Properties and
Implications for the Future
Report Prepared by: Eddie Peabody, Jr., Community Development
Director
Section 404 permit from the U.S Army Corps of Engineers;
1603 Lake and Streambank Alteration Agreement issued by
the California Department ofFish & Game, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Opinion and Water Quality
Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements from the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Map of significant requirements of the 404 Permit will be
displayed at the Council meeting and a reducec[~'~'0py is
enclosed for reference.
Dublin Ranch Project Species Preservation and Habitat
Mitigation Report
RECOMMENDATION: A 5~Accept Staff Informational Report and hear presentation from
~/~representative of Dublin Ranch.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time.
DESCRIPTION:
The 404 Federal Permit issued by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers is a permit required for property
where wetlands are proposed to be filled. The permit issued for the Dublin Ranch properties includes, by
reference, the biological Opinion prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, as well as the
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates. The following is a list of
regulatory permits and related documents issued for the project (Attachment 1):
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Biological Opinion)
California Department of Fish and Game (Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement)
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Quality Certification and Waste
Discharge Requirements)
U.S Army Corps of Engineers (404 Wetland Permit)
COPIES TO: Applicants
I o~ ~ ITEM NO. ~
C:\Documents and Settings\melissam~Local Settings\Temporary Interact Files\OLK2C\CC Staff Report 404 Permit 9-2.DOC
On May 23, 2003, the Section 404 permit was issued by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers to fill some
10.22 acres of wetlands within the 515 acres of Dublin Ranch areas B, C, F & H, and included specific
mitigations from the ,affected agencies within the 404 permit.
The consequences of this permit have far-reaching implications on land use planning, major street
improvements, future park and recreation plans, long-term water quality improvements, and drainage
for the remainder of the Lins' Dublin Ranch holdings not yet developed. Some significant changes to
Dublin will result from measures required by the various state and federal agencies responsible for the
404 permit:
Land Use Changes
· Major new permanent open space areas have been created as wildlife habitat conservation areas on
the Lin's Dublin Ranch properties. They include:
o 53 acres of Tassajara Creek on the Wallis property west of Tassajara Road as a permanent
habitat conservation area for the red-legged frog.
o 245 acres of the Northern Tassajara Creek watershed east of Tassajara Road which
includes portions of the Kobold property, all of the Redgewick property and a portion of
Dublin Ranch designated on the General Plan as a community park site, for a permanent
habitat conservation area for the red-legged frog.
· As a result, areas in the General Plan which previously were designated as community park site
and various residential categories on the Lin properties will need to be modified to designate them
as open space. Modifications to the Park and Recreation Master Plan will be necessary due to the
loss of the northern community park site.
· Areas B,C,D,E,F and H (512 acres) and the Wallis property (131.1 acres) currently owned by
Dublin Ranch will now be able to be developed in accordance with the Eastern Dublin Specific
Plan and existing zoning. Immediate development of Area F (north of the new Gleason Road) will
commence.
Open space and Permanent Wildlife Preservation
· A major commitment to the preservation of endangered species and wildlife habitat has been made
in Dublin. Through a private foundation, the developers of Dublin Ranch have insured the
continued maintenance and preservation of certain long-term improvements to the Tassajara Creek
watershed. Through the same endowment, permanent open space protection for wildlife will
create an environment that can coexist with the future growth and development of the community.
New open space and wildlife-protection areas will add to the desirability of the City.
· These actions have demonstrated the willingness of the City to preserve critical open space and
wildlife areas in Dublin and to integrate them into the future of the City.
Major Roadway Improvements
· Gleason Road can now be extended from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road, and the remainder of the
Toll golf course housing projects can be completed as required by the City.
· A new Tassajara Road bridge at the crossing of Tassajara Creek will be built in the next three
years by the Lins to protect the creek bed of Tassajara Creek. This new bridge will allow
Tassajara Road to be widened in the future to its ultimate six-lane configuration.
· Dublin Boulevard can now be extended from the Toll project (Area G) east to Fallon Road when
necessary.
Grading
Grading operations have commenced to prepare the new Area F North residential development and
the roadbed for the construction of Gleason Road from Tassajara Road to Fallon Road and are
scheduled for completion in mid-October.: In addition, fill for the Fairway Ranch project just east
of Keegan will be available over the next two years.
Drainage and Water Quality Improvements
The construction of major drainage improvements for Areas B, C, D, E, F & H (512 acres) can
now begin. A new large box culvert will be constructed along 1-580, and a 7-acre regional water
quality pond will be constructed in Area H between 1-580 and Dublin Boulevard to retain the
drainage flows from the development prior to entering the box culvert and then flowing under the
1-580 freeway to Arroyo Mocho Creek in Pleasanton.
The permits require the rehabilitation/restoration of 5,360 linear feet of Tassajara Creek, 1300
linear feet of Tassajara Creek Tributaries, 8,441 linear feet of creek in the northern drainage area
and creation of an additional 4,338 linear feet of new 75-foot wide open space/drainage corridor.
In addition, 36 acres of Tassajara Creek will be placed in a habitat conservation easement, 245
acres of the northern drainage area will be placed in a conservation easement, and 394 acres of
property owned by the Lin family in Livermore will also be placed in a conservation easement.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board requires Dublin Ranch and the City to submit detailed
plans for implementing specific water quality improvements for the remainder of the Dublin Ranch
developments. Special attention will be needed to meet more stringent requirements for on-site retention
of storm water runoff for new development areas.
ANALYSIS:
The impact of the 404 permit and release of the Lin properties for development, will have the following
future implications.
· New permanent open space and Wildlife Preservation areas have been created.
· A final decision can now be made on the location, size and character of the Sports Park area now
designated on the General Plan, Specific Plan and Park and Recreation Master Plan.
· Extension of Dublin Boulevard and/or Central Parkway through the project limits to Fallon Road
can be determined.
· Future water quality improvements east of Fallon Road can be determined given the adopted plans
on the Dublin Ranch properties.
· The experience in obtaining the required environmental clearances from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Agency, California Fish and Game Department and the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board for the Lins"Dublin Ranch project will be useful in the upcoming environmental work for
the 1,100-acre Eastern Dublin Property Owners project immediately east of Fallon Road. Lessons
learned here may well assist the City in the future decisions about this newly annexed area.
Presentation by Dublin Ranch Representatives
The representative from the Dublin Ranch project, Mr. Marty Inderbitzen, will also make a powerpoint
presentation to the City Council on the process and conclusions of the recently completed regulatory
permit process. He will discuss the permitting process, project impacts, species of concern, recovery
efforts and the overall mitigation process.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council accept this informational report.
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
M/"'qTIN W. IN'DERBITZEP,
.! ? j
AttorneY at Law
MEMORANDUM
Rod Andrade
Ted Winfield
Ron Duke
Dave Ivester
Bob Harris
Frank Berlogar
Peter MacDonald
· Erlene DeMarcus
Mary King
Dave Schneider
Ed Ballman
Martin W. Inderbitzen
June 10, 2003
State and Federal Permits - Dublin Ranch
I am very pleased to provide you with the following State and Federal permits which
have been issued for Dublin Ranch:
I. Biological Opinion issued by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
in response ~to a Section 7 Consultation initiated by the United States Army Corps of
Engineers which Opinion is dated July 1, 2002;
2. Order of the Califomia Regional Water Quality Control Board providing
waste discharge requirements and water quality certification for Dublin Ranch, dated
April 1'6, 2003;
3. Department of' the Army permit (Army Corps of Engineers Permit)
pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizing discharge of fill into wetlands
and waters of the United States, dated May 23, 2003; and,
4. 1603 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the California
Department ofFish and Game.
These permits and orders are the culmination of a significant effort on the part of the
Dublin Ranch development team spanning at least three years of formal discussions with
the resource agencies preceded by several years of informal discussions and negotiations.
The significance of this accomplishment given the regxdatory environment over the past
7077 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 120, Pleasanton, California 94566 Phone 925 485-1060 Fax 925 485-1065
ATTACHMENT]
Memo re:. State and Federal Permits - Dublin Ranch
June 10, 2003
Page Two
several years cannot be overstated. This accomplishment is matched only by the
magnitude of the mitigation and monitoring plan that we are now beginning to implement
in order to offset the real and perceived impacts of the Dublin Ranch project.
By way of this letter, I am offering my personal thanks, and that of Jim. Tong and the Lin
Family, for the cooperation and commitment that each of you have provided daring this
process. No one of us could have obtained these permits on our own; each one of us
together made this happen. Thank you again.
Very truly yours,
~TZEN
MWI/lrntl
Enclosures
cc: Jim Tong
Richard Ambrose
Edctie Peabody
Lee Thompson
Janet Lockhart
Guy Houston
Bob Kingsley
John Sugiyama
14:22
FAX
1~1-01-F-0208
414 6713 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SVR.___
United' States Department of the Interior
FISI-I AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
2800 Cottage. Ways Room W-2605
Sacramento, California 95825-1846
JLIN ! 2
.July 1, 2002
Mr. Calvin C.. Fong
Chief, Regulatory Branch
U.S.A.m~y Corps of Engineers
San Francisco District
333 Market Stree~
San Francisco, Catifom{a 94105-2197
Subject:
FommI Endangered Species Consultation on the Proposed Dublin Ranch
Devolopment, Atmmeda and Contra Costa Counties, California (CoCs File
#25 t 44S)
. Dear Mr. Fo,nc:
· This is in response to the U.S. Army Corps of Bug/hoers' (Corps) Mawr 24, 2000~ letter requesting
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Servi:e) on Ms. Jennifer L{n's (applicant)
proposed (1) residential, commercial~ open space, and wetland creation at Dublin Ranch
Developme:at Areas B, C, F and I-I, and (2) three off-site wetland creation mad open spaces
(Tassa~ara (;reek Open Space, Northern Drainage Open Space, and Lin-Livermore Open Space),
in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, Califorrfa. Your letter was received in our office on May
30, 2000. This document represents the Service's biological opinion on the effects of the
proposed projeet'on the federally endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vufj~es macrotix mutica)~ and
the federatl'y ,zhrealened California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) (red4egged frog) and
its designated criti.cal habitat, in accordance with section 7 of the Bndang~red Species Aet of
1973, az mr. lended (16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.) (Ac~).
Based upon ~che information provided, the Service determined the proposed action aisc may affect
~e £~derally threatened vernal pool fairy ~hrimp (~ra~chi~ecta fynchi), the federally endang=ed
conserva~ncy fairy sln-imp (Branch[hecta conservario), long, horn fairy ~nbmp (Branch[heCta
lo~zgiantem'l.a), and vertmI pooI tadpole shrimp (Le~idurt~spackardi) (Service file numbers 1-1-
01-TA-287.¢ and 1-1-00-I-3310). Subsequently the applicant completed survey~ for those lifted
vernal pool spec[es. Based upon the re,ults of those surveys, the Service has determined the
proposed Dublin Ranch Development is not likely to adversely affect the vernal pool fairy shrimp,
2
Mr. Calvin C. Fong
conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, and vernal pool iadpole shrimp b,oause these
species and suitable habitat were mot found in.r. epeated su_rveys.
In addition to the California red-legged frog, the project site aisc provides habitat 'for the
California tiger salamander (Ambyxtoma californier~e), a candidat~ for listing.. Although the Act
does not afford the Califorr~a tiger salamander the protections provided to federally l{sted
animals, we are mo~toring its status and provide recommendations, which, if implemented, will
assist 5x the c, onservatSon of this species-
Tkis biological opinion is bssed on information provided in (I) the Corps' May 24, 2000, letter
requesting consultation, (2) the Corps' August 11, 2000 Public Notice, (3) the December t7,
1991, San JoaqUin kit fox surveys, prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates, (4) the January 15,
][996, Dublin Ranch fah-y shrimp surveys, prepared by II.T. Harvey & Associates, (5) the
December 2, 1997, Dublin Ranch fairy shrimp surveys for the 1996/1997 wet season, prepared by
H.T. Harvey & Associat,s, (6) the October 9, 1998, Dublin Ranch fairy shrimp surveys for the
1997/1998 wet season, prepared by II:T. Harvey & Associates, (7) the September 1, 1999,
meeting between Curt McCasland of the Service m~d the applicants, (8) ~e February 2, 2000,
Dublin Ranch fairy shrimp surveys for ~he I998/1999 wet season, prepared by It.T. IIarvey &
Associates, (9) the March 3, 2000, statuary of biological surveys conducted by II.T. Harvey &
A~s¢ciat~s ~,¢. Dg%}in. R~ch, prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates, (10) the April i7, 2000,
HiT. P!arvey & Associates, (i 1) th~ June 1, 2000, ?ac Yeh Lin property fairy shrimp surveys for
the 1999/2000 wet season, pre. pared by H.T. Harvey & Associates, (12) the Inly 19, 2000,
meeting between Curt McCasland of the Service/Bob Smith of the Corps, and the applicants,
(13) the September 15, 2000, meetkng between Curt MeCasland and Richard Smith of the Servlce
and the appticants., (14) the October 18, 2000, m.eefing between Cra't, McCasland and R/chard
Smith of the Sera, ce and the applicants, (15) the Marsh 12, 2001, Dublin Ranch 2000 special.
status m-nph~bian and rept/le surveys, preparedby H.T. Harvey & Associates, (16-) the May i6,
}001, reVist:d Dublin Ranch project area biological a'ssessrnent for the Califorrfia red-legged frog,
prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates, (17) .the May IS, 200i, proj ec~ area mitigation and
monitoring plm~, prepared by ~I.T. IIarvey.& Associates, (18) the July 23,2001, meeting b,tween.
D/>n i-Iankins and Dan Buford of the Service and the applicants, (19) the November 6, 2001,
Dublin Ranch biological assessment reports, prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates, (20) ~e
November 28, 2001, meeting be{ween Wayne .White, Dan Bnford, Jim Browning, and. Don
Hanldns of the Service and the applic~t% (21) the December 13, 2001, Lin-Livermore properties
existing conditions, prepared by I-{.T. Harvey & Associates, (22) the December 13, 2001, Lin-
LiYenmore 'properties biotic constraints analysis, prepared by II.T. Harvey & Associates, (23) the
· December 1_3, 2001, Lin-Livermore properties special status plant smweys, prepared by H.T.
Harvey & 2Lssociates, '(24) the December t3,200I, Lin-Livermore properties San Joaquin kit fox
surv,y, pm'pared by H.T. Harvey & Associates, (25) the December I3, 2001, Lin-Livermore
properties special status invertebrate surveys, prepared by H.T. H~-'vey & Associates, (26) the
December [3,200I, Lin~Livermore properfi es special status reptile and amphibian surveys,
prepared By H.T. Harvey'& Associates, (27) the December 13, 2001: Lin-Livermors properties
414 ~713
~004/056
3
Mr. Calvin'C.. Fong
special status avian specie~ surveys, prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates, (28) the December
t3, 2001, L{n-Livsrmore proper:ties 1995 special status rgptile and amphibimn ~urveys~ prcparexl
by H.Ti Harvey & Associates, (29) the December 13, 2001, Lin-LiYermore properties 1996 fairy
shrimp surveys, prepared bY H.T. Harvey & Associates, (30) the D~c¢mber 13, 2001, Lin-
Liv~rmor¢ properties 1997 fairy shrimp sm'vey% Prcpar¢cl by H.T. Harvey & Associate% (3 l) the
D¢cember 13, 2001, Lin-Liverrnbre prope, rties 1998 f~iry shrimp surveys, prepared by H.T.
Harvey & Associates, (32) the December 13, 2001~ north Livermore property identification of
waters of th4 U.S., prepared by H.T. I-Iarvw & Associates, (33) the December t?, 2001,
P,.edgewiok propcrtx identification of waters of th~ U.S., prepared by H.T. Harvey & Acsociat~s,
(3~) lh¢ Doc ember 17, 2001, WalHs property identification of waters of the U.S., prepared by
H.Ti Harvey, & Associates, (35) the May 3, 2002, letter from the applicants providing numerous
revisions to' ~h¢ April 5, 2002, draft biological opinion= (36) the May 9, 2002, meeting between
Mike Nepstad, Dan Buford, and Wayne White of the Service with the appIicams, (37) the May
17, 2002, e-mail detailing the additional project ~ff¢ots to each of the proposed open spaces, (35)
the May 15, 2002, Dublin Ranch Northern Drainage Mitigation Area Habitat Management Plan,
Dublin Ranch Lin 'Livermor¢ Mitigation Area Habitat Management Plan, and Dublin Ranch
Tasszjara C~eek Mitigation Area Habitat Management Plan, and (39) information in the Service
files. A coraplst¢ administrative record is on file at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
(S?WO).
Consultation History
On December 17, 199!: H. T. Harvey & Associates submitted the '~$m2 loaquin YGt Fox Surveys,
Dublin Ranch, Alameda County" to thc Service. No kit foxes were found.
On July i5., 1996: H. T. Harvey & Assooiate~ submitted the "-Dublin Ranch Fairy Shrimp
Surveys' ~¢. thd Surdce. No listed vernal pool inwrtebrates w~re found.
On December 2, 1997: H. T. Ha;wy & Associates submitted the "Dublin Ranch Fairy Shrimp
Surveys 1996/1997 Wet Season" to the Service. No listed vemat pool invertebrates were found.
On October 9~ 1998: H. T. Ha~¢y & Associates submitted the "DublJ2 Ranch Fairy Shrimp
Surveys 1~97/1998 Wet Season*' to the Service. No listed vernal pool invertebrates were fotmd.
On September 1, 1999: Curt McCaslmad of the Service attended a meeting with the applicants.
On February 2, 2000: H. T. Harvey & Associates submit-ted the "Dublin Ranch Fairy Shrimp
Sm'veys 1998/1999 Wet $eason" to the Service. No listed vern,~l pool invertebrates were fotmd.
On March 3, 2000: H. T. Harvey & Associates submitted the "Sum_mary Of Biolog/cal Surveys
Conducted By i-L T. Harvey & Associates At DuBlin Ranch" to the Service. This dgcnment
~urammSze,.~ the previous ~urveys conducted at the Dublin Ranch project area_
11:23 916 414 6713 U.S, FIS~ ~ WILDLIFE
L~- UUb/O§~J
.'4
Mr, Calvin C. Fong
On April 1% 2000: ti. T, I-Ire'roy & As$o¢iales submitted the "Dublin Ranch Projeet Area
Biologiczl Assessment For Tho California P. ed-Legged Frog" to the Service. Federally threatencfl
California red-legged frogs were found on tho project site.
On May 24, 2000: The Corp re.quested initiatlom of early cormultafion under the Act for the
effe¢ts of the proposed projects or, the federally threat.cried California red-legged fi'og.
Ca Amc 1, 2.000: H.'T. Harvey & Associates submitted the !'Pao Yeh Lin property Faky Sh_firap
Survey~ 1999/2000 Wet Season" to the Service. No Listed vernal pool ~vertebrates were foun.cl.
On Ady 19, 2000: Curt McCaslan~l of the Service and Bob Srrdth of the Corps attended an On-site
meeting w/fa the applicanB.
On August '1.1, 2000: The Corps issued publi~ notice #25 t44S for the Dublin Ranch proje¢t
On September 15, 2000: Curt McCasland and R_icharcl Smith of the Service attended a meetin[
with the applicants.
On September 15, 2000: The Corps requested a con_feregce on the effeets of the proposed project
on the proposed critical habitat for the California red-legged frog.
On October 11, 2001): The Service provided their comments on Public Notice #25144S to the
Corps.
On October 18, 2000: Curt McCasland and R/chard Sm/th of the Servie~ attended a meefimg with
' the applicants.,
On March 1.2, 2001: H- T. Harvey & Associates submitted the "Dublin Ranch: 2000 Special
Smms Amphibian And Reptile Surveys" to the Service. Federally threatened California red-
legged ~ogs were fouad on the project sites. In a3c[it~on, the Cali£orr~a tiger salamander, a'
candidate r%r listing, and western pond turtle (Clernmys marmorara), a specie, of eonoem,.wefe
aisc £otmd on the project ~ites.
On May 16, 2001: H. T. Harvey 8~ Associates submitted the revised ~'DubHn Ranch Project _&rea
Biological Assessmeat For The California Red-Legged FrOg,'' anct '~Projeet Area Mitigation And
Mon/torin8 Plan" to the Service.
On June 7, 2001: The SerVice commented on the March 2I: 2001, memorandum by the City of
Dublin regarding the East Dublin Properties Development.
On July 23,200t: Dan Bu£ord mad Don Hankbns of the Service a~ended an on-site meeting witk
the applic~'.~ts.
14:24 FL 916 414 6713 U,S. FISR & WlLDLIFE
~J. O06/056
Mr. Calvin C, For~g
On October ~-I., 2001' The $ervic~ requested aclclidonal information on the Dublin Ranch ?roi
On NOwmber 2, 2001: Th~ Servic~ commented on thc Ea~ Dublin Properties Draft
Supplem~nm[ ElK.
On 1Wovemb~',~r 6, 2001: It. T, i-larvey g[ Associates submitted the three volume "Dublin tlanch
Biolo~c~l Assessment tlep6rts" to the Service.
OnN,)~mb~r 28,200t: Wayne 5V'hite, D~[n Buford= 7ira Browning, and Don Hank{ns ofih~
Service attar~ded a m¢~iing with the applicants.
On D ~,cember 13,2001: H. T. Harvey & Associates submitled the "Li~-Livennore Properties
Bxisting Conditions," "Lin-Livennor¢ ProPerties Biotic Constraints Analysis," "L{n-Livermor¢
Properties Special'Status Plant Surveys," "Lin-Liwnnore Properties San J'oaquin Kit Fox
Sm'v~y," "L'iu-Li¥~nnor¢ Properties Special Stems In¥=rtebrate Surwys/' "Lin-Livermor~
Properties Special Status l~epiil¢ and Amphibian Snrwys," '~'Special Status Avlmn Species
Surveys= Lin-Liwrmore," "Lin-Liv~rmore 1995 Special Sta±us Reptile s_nd Amphibian Surveys="
"Lin-Livei-more Properties Fairy'Shlrimp Surveys 1976," "Lin-Livermor¢ Proloerdes Fairy Shrimp
Sur~v=ys 19S'7~ .... Lin-Liv~rmors Properties Fairy Shrimp Surveys 1998=" and "North Liv~rmor~
Property, A].m'neda County, California, !d~ntificafi0n of Waters ofih~ U.S." to the Service.
On P~c~m~c,,:r 17, 2001: H. T. Harvey & Associates submitted the "P,_edgewfck Property,
Alamed~ County, C~lifomia, Idenlification Of Waters Of The U.S." and "Wallis Proparty,
Almn~da/Contu'a Costa Comtty, California% Idc-ntification Of Waters Of Th~ [7. S. o the Service.
On April 5, 2002: the Serv'ice tr~n.~'mitted thc draft biolo~cal opJrdon.
On April 9, 2002: the applicants requested a meeting with Wayne tVhite office Serv{ce.
On May 3, 2002: ~e applic~ts subdued to the Se~ic¢ their own r¢~sio~ to tl~e ~a~
biological o pi~5on,
On May 9, 2002: ~k~ N~stad, Dan Bufozd, ~d Wa~¢ W~t~ of~i S~c~ attended a me,ting
On ~Iay 17.~ 2002: ~e applicant~ suB~R~d lo ~h~ S~c~ descJptions of alt of ~ additional
effects th=y ~ticipate for'each of ~e proposed open
May 17, 2002: the apptis~ts submitted ~ "Dublin K~ch No,hem Dra~gg~ Mitigation
Habitat Mm~ag~msni Pi~", '~ubI~ ~ch L~ L{w~or~ ~ation ~ea IIabitat
P[~', and '~ub~n ~c~ T~ssaj~ C~eek ~tigafion ~ea Habitat ~magem~n~ PI~" to ~
07¥03/02
1~:2~ FAX 916 4~4 6713 U.S. ~IS~ ~ ~LDLiFE 8VN
~.007/056
Mz. C~Ivin C. F ong
6
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
Description ~f the Proposed Action
The proposed acfio~ consists of a residential, commercial, open sp/~ce, and wetland creation at
Dublin Ranch Developmen'c Areas B, C, F and FI; a~d three off-site wetland creation and. open
spaces (Tas~mjara Creek Open Space, Northern Drainage Open Space,.and Lin-Livermore Open
Space) in AJameda and Contra Costa County, California (s~e attached figure~ I and 4).
Dublin Ranch Development 'Areax B, C, 'F and H
The proposed project consist~ of an approximately 515 acre residential, commercial, open space,
and recreational area development on Dublin Ranch Areas B, C, F, and II., in Alameda County,
Califarnia (..~ee attached figures 2, 3 and 4). This development will consis~ of 2,730 residential
units (low, ~nedium, medium high, and high density) on 217 acres; retail, office, art commercial
uses on 1~6 acres; 58 acres of parks; a 4 acre neigl~borhood square; 41 acres of school 'facilities; 5
acres of public/semi-public lands; and 45 ~cres of dedicated open spac.e. Open space areas will
inckide natural and landscaped open space, enhanced wildlife habitat areas, and two reconstructed
drainages. The ope~ spaces wi*Ain tke Dublin Ranch Development Areas B, C, F and H will no~
provide amy suitable habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox, California red-legged frog, md California..
.tiger salam~nder.
The desifg¢ of flxe two on-site drainages consists of creating new drainages to replace existing
drainages to be eliminated. One drainage will be located in Area F and the other iii Area B (see
attached figure 5). The drainages will be preserved with an approximately 75 foot wide open
space corridor wkh a multi-use trail for a total of approximately 5.98 acres. A 10 foot w~de
charmel Mil be graded in the bottom of each of the new drainage charm'els (see attached figure 6).
The length ,of the Area F drainage is 754 feet wtfile the length ofth_e Area B drainage is 3,584 feet
(see attached figure 5). Drop structures eormtmcted wi~h native materials (e.g. boulders, logs,
and root wads) will be incorporated as appropriate to stabilize the charmel and increas~ habitat
diversity. The banks will be constructed with 3:1 slopes and hydro-seeded with a mixture of
native grasses. The banks wil~ also be Ia~actscaped with native trees and shrubs as an enhancement
measure. The creation of these dra/nages is proposed to count towards 'the compensation for the
losses of w;.~ter$ of the United States subject to Corps jurisdiction, but will not provide any
suitable habitat for ~he San Joaquin kit fox, California red-legged frog, and California tiger
salamander.
Conservation Meaz'ures
The propos=d action will be designed and const~zc{ed in ~e following ways that vdlt ~-educe
direct e_ad i.adirec~ effects on Califorria red-legged-fi'og and California tiger salamander.
O?b~O~)/02 14:24 F.4~-~2 916 414 ~71~ U.S. FiSH
7
Mr. Calvin C- Fong
1. Taasrjara Cree/c Of~er~ $tmce- Approximately 53 acres of habitat along a 5,200 foot
· of Tassajm-a Creek, from its confluence with the Northern Drainage upstream to, and
inctu dir~g, the lower end of the Moiler Ranch Drainage, will be maintained by the
uppity:ants as open space and several measure, will be implemented to enhance and restore
lhe b,,abitat within this reach (see attached figures 4 and 7).
A. A fence will be constructed along the edge of the top ortho banks of the Ta'ssajara
Creek corridor. Livestock will be excluded from the entire riparian co .trial.or,
which entails approximately 25 acres of the 53 acre open space.
' B. One time removal of urmatural debris, i;~cl~ding tires, abandoned farm equipment,
livestock feinting and garbage from the entire 53 acre ,itc.
C. The City' 0f Dublir~ is planning to construct n-ails along both side~ of Tassajara
Creek within the TassajarA Creek Open Space.
2. Nori'her~ Drair~age O£en Sfjace - Approximately 237 acres along 3,600 feet ct'the upper
mhd lowermost reaches of the Northern Drai~iage will bt maintained by tlxe applicm~ts as
opmt space (see attached figures 4 and 9).
A improvements will be made m 10.72 acres of habitat along a 5,070 foot section of
the Northern Drainage' (see attached figure 9). A 100 foot wide Livestock free
corridor centered aroum[ the drainage channel will be established through the
inSt~llatiom of barbed wire fences (see attached f~gures 9 and 10).
B. In-stream weirs will be installed to promote channel aggradatkm and reduce.
incision (see attached figure 9). Pools will be created~beloTM the weirs. Within this
area, approximately 0.25 acre, o£riparian willow habitat will be planted in order to
improve water quality, reduce erosion, and provide cover.
C. An off-channel po~d will be excavated at the location of a former in-charnel stock
pond that had provided habitat for California red-legged frogs before the failure of
its dam (see attached figure 9). The channel will be returned to its historic location
adjaceat to the former stock pond and the old stock pond will be excavated to
provide wetland habitat and seasonal open water'for California red-legged fi:ogs.
The charnel restoration wilt involve creation of a step-pool morphology that will
utilize natural materials to provide channel stability. The pools will be -
approximate, ly 3 feet deep and will be designed to provide in-stream habitat for
California red-legged frogs. The new off-channel pond will be located adjacent to
the inside portio~a of the restored channel meander. The pond will be designed to
fill during seasonal high' water evefltz, with the drainages' low flows remaiuing in
th~ restored channel. The intent of this d~sign is to allow sediment to move
through the channel without filling tt~e excavated po~d.
i4:Z8
91U 414 U71~
Calvin C, Fong
D. Three seasonal Cat5 fomia tiger salamander bleeding ponds will be constructed
channel, totaling 038 acres (see attached figure 9).
B- A portion of the Nord~mn Drainage Open SpaCe had previously been permitted
operate a quarry site by Alameda County and the Sbute Department of
Conservation. The quarry permit that was granted to previous owner~ has sinc~
expired with some grad~g having been done on the site. Permkted quarry
operations were nc.vet conducted, Thc prior owner of the site was required by thc
conditions of the quarry perrnk to reclaim the site, 'As successors in interest to
property the applicants have assumed responsibility for ¢.ompliauc¢. Tlfis work .
will entail minor grading and stabilization to protect thc sim from thc erosion and
instability arising from the gradhtg done by thc previous owner, It is mtticipatcd
that riffs quarry reclamation work will not disturb rnorc that five acres within
Northern Drainage Open' Space, and will be completed in thc first year of
construction-
F. The Dublin-San Remorse Sewer District (DSRSD) makutains several wa~ccr towers
and aoce'ss roads both.on and adjacent to the Northern Drainage Open Space.
Besldes routir~¢ operations ~ud m .ainten.auce~ thc DSP,,SD will perform grading and
stabilization within the Northern Drainage Open Space as needed to protect their
water towers and a.ccess roads from ¢rosiom
@. The City of Dublin is planning to construct trails along thc south side of the
drainage within thc Northern Drainage Open Spa.cc.
Lin*.Lfvermore Open Space - The B94 acre Lin-LNenmore Open Space wilI bc maintained
by d~e applicants as open space. The residence on the parcel will remain occupied and has
b¢¢:~, excluded from the acreage designated as oppa space. The Lin-Livermorc Open
Spa~e provides bolh surface runoff and groundwater to the Springtown AlkaI! Sink, which
is located off-site to the south (dowrmlopc) (s0¢ attached figures 4 and 1
A. A 3.17 acre pond designed for usc by breeding California red-legged.frogs w~I1 be
constructed immediately adjacent to an existing pond known to be occupied by
breeding California red-legged f~og% heine separated from that pond only by a low
berm. This new pond wilt be ¢×cavated to au average depth of three feet witl~ a
maximum depth o£ four feeI (see attached figures 11 and 12). It wii1 be de,~igued
~o provide both open water and wetland habitat. Cattle usage will be excluded
fi-om thc 3.17 acres California red-legged frog pond,
B. A complex of eleven other scasonaI wetlands'ranging in depth from 12 to, 48
inches aud comprising ~' total of approximately 15.5~ acres will bc constructed
immediately south of this 3.17 acre pond (soo attached iSgure I 1), Those wetlands
07'/'03/02 14:25
FAX 916 414 6713 U.S. F~S~ & WILDLIb¥
~ UJ.U/UOtJ
Mr. Calvin C, Fang
10.
will be desigr~ed W provide'habitat for California tiger salamanders. Cattle usage
will not be excluded from ~ese pond~-
P, egm:dless of when consrracfion occ~s, any oormtruction or mifigafior~ impIementati6n
aetivi ties that occur ~ wetland or riparian habitats will be preceded by prec6nstracSon
surv~.vs for red-Iegged frogs. Surveys will be comiucted according to a Service4pproved
prate.col by a qualified biologist. This biologist will condac.t preconstruefion survey, for
r~o consecutive days and nights prior ~o the initiation of the construction or mitigation
implementation activities. The final nighttime survey will occur the everdng prececling the
beghming of construction or mitigation implementation activities in a given area. These .
sm'V~:ys will also be canal,acted within portions of the off-site mitigatior~ areas wt~ere
excavaiior~, fill, or movement of heavy equipment will occur in or adjacent to wetlmnd or
ripm'ian habitats. Ali impacted ponds mad pools will be seined for tadpoles md inspected
for egg masses hy a qualified biologist prior to drainage or f~ll. Any
Cali [omi~-red-legged frog5 (including adults, tadpoles, and eggs) found would be
.colleomd mad transported to the Redgewick pond at the extreme upper end of the
Nor~:kern Drainage Open Space by a qaaliSed biologist.
Co~structior~ areas wil~ be clem'ly marked with flagging and cor~straction forgoing to ensure
that effects are restricted to iatended work area~.
Boil>re amy constructio~ or mitigation implementatio~ activifie~ begin, a qualified biologist
will condact a i-raining session with construction persormel to describe the California rod-
leg~?d frog and its habitat, the specific measures being implemented to minimize effects to
the species, and the boundaries of d~e construction areas.
All food related trash items will be e~closed in sealed containers and removed regularly
frora proj ecl re'cas to discourage the concentration of potential pred~itors near Catiforni~-
red4egged frogs. ~
Affix the mitigation implemenmtion activities have been completed= ail four of the
mitigation areas will be monitored armually over a five year period in accordance with the
1Viay 15, 2001, '~Project Area Mitigation And Monitoring Plan/' prepared by It.T. Harvey
& Associates (H.T. Harvey & Associates 200la). Tho results of. the monitoring in Yen: 5
w/Ii be compared ~o the final success criteria described in the aforementioned Mitigation
and Morfitoring Plan. If the final succor* criteria are no~ met in Year 5, the appliom-at w~ll
coordinate with the Service to determine what remedial actions to take. Mm~itoring will
then continue rmtil the final success crizeria have bee~]~ met.
Th~:: applicant shall manage tt~e open sp~_ce~ ~ accordance to the May 15, 2002, Du~>lin
P,.m~ch Northern Drainage Mitigation Area Habi~az 1Vfarmgement Plan, Dublin Ranch Lin
Li~ ermore Mitigation Area Habitat Management Plan, and Dublin Ranch Tassajara Creek
14:25 916 414 6715 U.S. FISH & ~ILDLI,FE
~].Oll/O§6
10
Mr. Calvin C. Fong ,,
Mitigation Area Habitat Management Plan, and will designate a long-tcn-n site m~ger,
,. subject to S~ice approval- ~¢ appHc~t w~ll be ~cially responsible for the sucoass~
~figadon of proj eot cffec~ ~ctnd~g lqBg t¢~ mo~o~g.
Area
The action ~..rea for the propo'sed Dublin Ranch Development encompasses 1,199 acres ofknov, m
habitat for Cahforma redqegged fr6g, San Ioaquin kit fox, and California tiger salamander, the
red-logggd f~og's Bast .Bay-Diablo P,.ang¢ critical habitat unit, and the.redqegged frog's proposed
· Southeast S,~n Francisco Bay recovery unit. '
Status of the Species/Environmental Baseline
Calijbrnia i,~ed-£egged_Frog
The California red-legged frog was federally listed as Zhreaten~d on May 23, 1996
(61 FR 25813). Please refer {o the final rule and thc January 2000 Draft Recovery Plan for the
California red-legged frog for'additionaI information .on this species. This specias is the largest
native frog [n the western United States (Wright a~d Wright 1949), ranging from 4 m 13
centimeters (1.5 to 5.1 inches) ~ length (Stebbins 1985). The abdomen a~d hind legs of adults
are largely red; the back is characterized by small black fleckg and targef irregalar' dark blotches
with indistinct outlines on a browr~ gray, olive, or reddish baek~-ound color. Dorsal spots usually
have Iigh~ centers (Stebbkm 1985), and dorsolateral folds are prominent on the back. Larvae
(tadpoles) range from I4 to 80 millimeters (0.6 to 3.1 i~ches) in len~, and the background color
of the body is dark brown and yellow with darker spots (Storm- 1925).
California ]:ed-legged frogs have paired vocal sacs and vocalize i, a/r (Hayes and Krempel$1986).
Female fi-ogs deposit egg masses on emergent vegetation so that the egg mass floats on the
surface of~ke water (Hayes and Miyamoto l'984). California red-legged frogs breed from
November through March with earlier breeding records occurring in southern localities (Storm-
1925). Tn~ viduals occurring in coastal drainages are a.ctive year-round (Jennings er'aL t992)~
Whm-eas thr.'~se found ia i~terior sites are normally less active during the cold ,eaton.
Adult Catifbmia red-legged frogs prefer.dense, shrabby or emergent riparian vegetation closely
associated with deep (>t).7 meters [2.3 feet]), still, or sIow-mov, ing water (Hayes and Jemfing¢
t988). However, frogs also have been found in ephemeral creeks and &ainages and in ponds that
may or may not have r/par/an vegetation. The largest dmsifies of California red-legged frogs
currently are associated whh deep pools with dense stands of owrhanging willows ($al~x spp.)
and an inte~.~ixed fringe of cattails (Typha tatifolia) (JermSngs 1988). California red-legged frogs
disperse up:~tre~ma and downstream of thek breeding habitat m forage and seek sheltering habitat
Shetterlng habkat for Ca/iforrfia red-legged frogs is potentially all aquatic, riparia~ md upland
arems w/th/n the range o£the species aod inolacles any landscape rearm-es that provide cover, such
as existing .-animal bm-rows, boulders or rocks, organic debris such as d6wned trees or logs, and
14:26 FAX 916 414 6713 U,S,
[~ 012/056
industrial debris. Agri.'cultural feature,~ such as drains, watering troughs, spring boxes~ 'abandoned
sheds, or ha'./ticks may also bc usexL Incised stream channels with portions narrower than 46
centimeters (15 inches) and depths ~eater than 46 o~2~imetcrs (18 inches) may also provide
impo2ant s~nmer sheltering ha%itat. Acc~ssability to sheltering habitat is essential for the
survival of California red-lugged fr~)gs Within a wa±e~-sh~d, and can be a factor limiting frog
population numbers and survival. During ,winter rain ¢-venis~ juvenile and adult California r~d-
legged frogs; kre known to disperse up to I-2 kilom~t~rs (0.54-I.08 mi~es) (Rathbun and Holland,
unpublished data, cited in Rathbun et al. 1991). DisPer. sing frogs in northern Seam Cruz County
traveted dis'l.afices from 0.4 kilometer (0.25 mile) to more than 3 ldlometers (2 miles) without
appaa'ent ;¢~l. ard to topography, vegetation type, or riparian corridors (Butgcr, unpublished data).
Egg masses contain about 2,000 ~o 5,000 moderate sized (2.0 to 2.8 milllmetcrs [0.05 to 0.11
{nches] in h:i;arnete0, dark reddish brown eggs and are typically attached to vertical emergent
veg¢mtio.n, such as bulrushes ($¢i~7~u~ spp.) or cattails (Jennings et al. 1992). CaLifon~ia red-
legged frog?, ar~ often prolific breeders, laying their eggs during or shortly crier large rainfall
eYenis in lal:e winter and early spring (Hayes and Miyamoto 1984).. Eggs hatch in 6 to 14 days
(Jennings 1988). ~[n ~oastal lagoons, the most signifzcant mortality factor in the pre-hatching stag~
is vz~ter salinity (J¢~nings et al. 1992); eggs ~xposed to salinity levels greater than 4.5 pm-ts per
thousand result in 100 percent mortality (Jennings and Hayes 1990). Increased siltation during
the breedin!; sanson can cause asphyxiation of eggs and small larvae. Larvae undergo
metamorfhhosis 3.5 to 7 months after hatching (Stor~r 1925, Wright and Wright t949, Jcnnings
and .Kay~s ~i. 990)~ Of th~ various lif~ siage~, larvae probably exp¢fienc~ thc highest mortality
rates,' with less than 1 percent of eggs laid reaching metamorphosis (Jannings et at. 1992). Sexual
maturity nonmalty is roached at 3 to 4 y~ars of age (Storer 1925, Jcnnings and Hayes 1985).
Caliibrnia ~'¢d-legged frogs may live 8 to 10 y~ars (Yennings et al. '1992). Populations of
Calif."ornia red-legged frogs fluctuate from year ~o year. When conditions are favorable California
red-legged frogs can experience extremely high rathe of reproduction and thus produc¢ large.
numbers of dispersing young and a concomitant incrcas~ in th~ nm2bcr of occupied sites.
In contrast, California red-legged frogs may t~mporarily disappear from an area when conditions
a_r~ stressfut (e.g., drought).
The diet of California red-l¢ggexi frogs is highly variable. Hayes and T~nnant (1985) found
· ~ t'o bt the most common food it¢ms. V~rtebratcs, such as Pacific tr~¢ frogs (I-Iyla
mvencbrat ,s
regiila) and California mice (Peromysc~ califor~zi¢~s), represented o-¢¢r half the prey nta~s eaten
by larger fr,~gs (Hayes and Terra,mt 1985). Hayes and Tcnnant'(19$$) found juv¢~Ie frogs to be
activ~ diurnally and noc-~rnally, whereas adult frogs ',~er¢ largely noctumaI. Feeding activity
probably occurs along the shoreline and on tt~ surface of the water (Haye~ and Tcnnant 1985).
Larv'a¢ like'fy cat algae (J¢nnings et al. 1992).
Sewral rcs~,~archers in central California have nc)ted the decline and ewntual disappearance of
California ~'ed-l¢~gcd frog populations once bullfrogs (R. ca~esb¢iana) became ¢~tablishcd at thc
sam~ site (L. Hunt, in litt. 1993, S. Barry, in Iitt. 1992, S. Swe~t, {n Iitt. 1992)..This has b¢~n
attributed t,; both predation and compctitiom Twcdt (1993) doctumcntcd ballfrog pr¢dation of
0~,/02/02
14:26 FA][ 916 6713
WILDLIFE SVR
[~013/0~6
12
Mr. C~lvin C. Fong
juvenile norflaem red-legged frogs, ~md suggested that bullfrogs could prey on subadult northern
red-legged 5ogs as w~tl. In addition to predation= bullfrogs may have a competitive advantage
over California red-legged frogs; bullfrog~ are larger, possess more genemlized food habi~ ['Bury
m~d grhelan lP84), have an extended breeding ~eason (Storer 1933) during which an individual
female can produce as many as 20,000 eggs (Emlen I977)~ and larvae are unpalatable to
predatory fish (Kmse mud Francis 1977). In addition to competition, bullfrogs also interfere.with
California red-legged frog reproduction. Both California and northern red-legged frogs have been
· observed in amplcxus with (mounted on) both male and female bullfrogs (Je~fings and Hayes
1990, Twedl 1993, M. Jermings, in 1itt. 1993, tL Stebbins in litt. 1993). Thus bullfrogs are able to
prey upon and out-compete California red-legged frogs, especially in sub-optimal habitat.
The m-banization of land within and adjacent to Califoraia red-Iegged frog habitaZ ha~ also
impacted C~.,iifomia red-Iegged frogs. In a survey by t-{.T. I--Im-vey and Associates (1997), it was
determined ]2mt California red-legged frog~ were historically found throughout Santa Clara
County, however they have been essentially extirpated from the urbanized lowland areas of the
county. These declines are attributed to channetization of ripa~an areas,, enclosure of the channels
by urban de'velopm~nt that blocks red-iegged frog dispersal, and the introduction of predatory
fishes and b~O_lfrogs. This report farther identified the eor~versiOn and isolation of perennial pool
habitats resulting from urban/zation as an ongoing impact to California red-legged frogs.
Juvenile and adult frogs, includimg California reci-legged frogs, have been found in human-created
habitats such as golf course ponds, but these ~abitats may not be suitable for the long-term
survival or :mccessful reproduction of local frog populations, e. speclally near urban m-ess where
predators srtch as bullfrogs and racoons (Proc-yon loror) are able to build.up large populations
(H.T. Harvey and Amsociates 1997). In the Central Coast area of California, which contains the
largest kr~own California red-legged frog populations, California red-legged frogs are knowm from
three golf courses (Froke pets. con-~m.). Two of these golf courses are also inhabited by bnllfrogs,
and the two species are foUnd in separate pond~. Within Alameda and Contra Costa counties we
are not aw~'re of California red-legged frogs inhabiting ponds within golf courses. In Solan6
County, red-legged frogs were found in large numbers immediately after the construction of water
features within one golf coarse, however this population has been nearly eliminated by a
s~zbsl:antial bullfrog population, and perhaps by water chemistry manipulation by the golf course in
a. po~d used[ a~ a watering source.
California zed-legged frogs have been extirpated or nem'Iy extirp~.ted from over 70 perc, ent of their
fmrner range, t-Iistorically, this species was found throu~hout the Central Valley and Sierra '
Nevada foothills. As' of t996, California red-legged frog, have been documented in
~ a'pproximat,ly 240 streams or dra~nage~ from 23 comafies, primarily in central coastal California-
Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties support the largest extent of currently
occupied h~.~bitat. The most secure ag~egat[on~ of Californ/a red-legged frogs are found in
aquatic site.~ that support substantial riparian and aquatic vegetation and lack non-native
predators. Several researchers in c~traI California have noted the decline mud eventual local
disappeara~,ce of California and nortl~em red-legged 5ogs in systems supporting bullfrogs
07,~03/02 14:27 FAX
916 414 6713 U.S. FiSR ~ ~LDLIFE SYR .__
Mr, C~lvin C. Fong
(Jenniugs an('.[ Hayes 1990, Twedt 1993), red swamp crayfish (Procambaru~ clarkfi), signal
&ayfish (Pacif~tacus Ie~iuscul*O, and several s. pccics of warm water fish including sunfish
(Lepomi~ spp.), gold_fish (Carassius auratus), ~om_rnon carp (Cypr~nus carpio), and mo*quitefish
(Gambusia q,~nis) (L-Hunt, in litt. I993, S. Barry, in litt. 1992, S. Sweet, in Iitt. 1993). Habitat
loss, non-native species ~ntroduction, and urban encroachment are the prirn~.ry factors that have
adversely'a~fected the California red-legged frog throughout its range~
The draft recovery plm~ for the Califomi~ red-legged frog identifies eight recOverY units. Each
recovery uni'[ reflects areas w~th similar conservation needs. The strategy for recovery of
California re:d-legged frogs includes promoting and protecting populations that are geographically
distributed in a manner that allows for the continued existenceofviable metapopulations. The
establishment of these recovery units is ba~ed on the recovery temn'~ determination that var~ious
regional are~ of the species'· range are essential to i~s overall survival arid recovery because these
units will om.sure that the ,trategy for recovery o£the species will be irnplcmer~.ted. The draf~
recovery pla.n specifies that the stems of the California red-legged frog should be considered
within the mnaller ~eale of recovery units as opposed to the overall range of the species bec~iuse
these units ~-eflect are~ with similm' oormervation needs. Furthermore, this strategy will promote
and protect ~he continued existence ofviabte metapopulations. These reoovery units are
major watershed boundaries, as defined by U.S. Geological Survey hydrologic units
delineated by ' '
and Califonzia Department offish m~d Game'~ Ichthyological Prcvince~, and the limits of the
range crfuh¢ California red-legged frog. A goat of the draft recovery plan i~ to protect the long-
term ¥iabili~ of all extant popul'ations Within each.Reco,/ery Unit. Within each recovery unit,
core areas I~ ave been delineated and represent contiguou~ areas of moderate to high California
red-legged :iS:og densities Cat are relatively free o~ exotic species such a~ bullfrogs, The goal of
designating core areas is to protect metapoptO_ations that combined With suitable dispersal habitat,
will allow fbr the tong term vikbility within existing populations. This mm~agement strategy will
allow for ~e recotorfizafion of habitat withi'a and adjacer~t to core area, that are naturally
subjected m, periodic localized e~inctions, thus assuring the long-term survival and recovery of
California ~ed-legged frogs.
This projecl: is located within the proposed Southeast San Prancisco Bay Recovery Unit, whJ.ch
extends fro:.n the northernmost portion of Contra Costa County, includes a portion of San Joaquin
County so~th to Santa Clara County, includes the eastern Portion of San Marco County, m~d ail of
San Pranoi~:co County. Corette Costa and Alameda counties contain the majority of known
Califorrda red-legged frog localities within the eastern San Francisco BaY area. WithLn this
recovery urfit, California red-legged frog~ seem tO have been nearly eliminated from the western
lowland areas near urbanization, they still occur in isolated populations in the East Bay Foothills
(~,tween Interstate 580 and I~,terstate 680), and are abuudmut in several areas in the ca,tern
portions of Alameda and Comtm Costa counties. This proposed recovery unit is esse~].tial to the .
survival and recovery of California red-legged frogs, as it contains the largest number of occupied
drainages ~x the northern portion of it%range. The eastern and western edges of the core area are
hea'~51y urbanizexl and the ~orthem and southern edges are bounded by major highways, however,
d~cre are ma~nerous small drainages flowing underneath both Interstate 580 and Highway 84 that
0-7f03/02
14:27 FAX 916 414 6713 U.S FIS~ ~ ~tDLIFE SYR
I
Mr. Calvin C. Forts
c~lifom{~ z~d-legged frogs could disperse throngh. Therefore, this core ~rca is somewhat
connected to ~ber populations of C~fo~ red-l~gged ~ogs in ~ foo~ll; of c~ntr~ Al~ed~
~d Conga C'.o~m Counties ~ th~ popular{ohs fo~d ~ e~st~ AI~ Coun~ Wi~in
cor~ ~¢a, C~lifo~a red-lcgg~ ~ogs histofi~ly br~d ~ ~evcral ponds ~d ~n~gc~ wi~
proposed prc~eot ~¢a~ G~D~ Creek Regional P~k, Pleasanton ~dg¢ Regional P~k, ~d
Sinbad Creek, ~her¢ ~h¢ recently approved Plsas~ton ~dge Cons¢~afion Bank is loc~%¢d.
Ther~ ~¢ ~:~¢ntly ~o ~o~ br¢~d~ng looafio~ n~g bu~ outside ~¢ proj¢¢~ sitm zlong
pl~¢~tm~ Ridge ~d ~ O~w Cr~k R~gional P~ where C~ifom{~ red-legged ~ogs
recently obse~ ~pl¢~g ~i~ bulldogs (Bobz{¢n p~- 0o~. 1999)~ O~y adul%s h~v¢
'fo~d in fh~ upper reaches'of Sinbad
Acoording to the Califo~a Na~al Diversi~ Data B~¢ (I 999)~ C~ifo~ia re&legged ~ogs
~¢¢n r¢%rded in a number of locations ~n ~¢ Dubl~ive~or¢ vici~V, mostly ~n sm~l
ponds buz also along Some per¢~al dr~¢ages ha~ng pools sukabl¢ for breeding. Su~eys for
Bastem Duhlin General Pi~ ~¢ndmen~ ~d Specific Plan ~vko~¢m~ Impaot Report (EIR)
(Wal].ao¢, Roberts, ~d Todd 1992) detected red-legged ~ogs al 11 shes ~ the General
Amen~cn~. ~¢a, including sp~gs, ponds: windmill cisterns, ~d pools in Co~onwood Creek and
alon~ ~o ~ribut~ies o'fTassaj~a Creek. TMs EIR concluded ~ai md-legged ~ogs were
probably mo¢¢ ~despread in ~¢ Oener~ Pl~ Amen~¢nt ~¢a ~ ind{cated ~ fl~es¢
S~eys for re&legged ~ogs have been conduoted by H]T. H~vey g Associat¢~ on ibc Proj¢c~
sk¢ snd s~'o~d~g ~eas (H. T. H~¢y g Asso~iales-1993, 1996~ 1998~ 1999b, 2000d).
~¢s¢ suweys de, coted the red-legged }og in six locations on or n¢~ fl~¢ Project She: T~ssajga
Creek, ~¢ Moiler R~ch Drai~g¢, the No,em Dr~ag¢, zh¢ F~lon Road pond on ~¢
edge of the sk¢, a single ind{vidual a stock pond {n ~¢a F= ~d a dead in~vidU~ in a
spring ci~¢::n along Dr~ag¢ 8 {n Area B (s¢¢ a~aOhed fig~¢
California Red-£egged Frog Habitat
Critical hub[mt for the red-legged frog was designated on March 13, 2001 (66 FR 14626)- Please
re£e3 to the Final Rule :for add/fional, in£orms~tion on the critical habitat designation, tn
determirfinfill which areas to des{gnate as critical habitat, the Service considers those physical and
biologieal fCatm'e~ (primary constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation o£the
species, a_nd that may require, special management ~onsiderafions and protection (50 CFR.
§424.14). The Semite is required t~ list the known primary constituent elements together with
the critical ].mb/tat description. Such phy,ical and biological £eamre~ iht!nde, but are not limited
to, space for individu~.[ md population growth mxd for normal behavior; food, water, air, Hgh%
minerals, o:; other nmrifionaI or phy,iological requirements; cover or shel~er; sites for breeding,
reproduction, rearir~g (or dev. elopraent) of offspring; and habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are repr.es'entafi'~e of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a
species. ,
7(03/02
14;28 FAX 916 414 6713
Mr. Calvin C. Fong 15
Due to the complex life history and dispersal capabilities of the red-legged frog, and the dynamic
nature of th,: envirmmaents in which they are found, the primary constituent elements described
below are found thro~ghout the watersheds that are designated as critical habitat. Special
management, 'such as habitat rehabilitation efforts (e.g., removal of normative predators), may be
necessary irt the area designated. Critical habitat for red-legged frogs provides for breeding and
nonbreeding habitats and for dispersal between these habitats, as well as allowing for expansion of
frog populations vital to the recovery of the 'subspecies. Critical habitat includes: (a) essential
aquatic hub:[tat; Cb) associated uplands; mad (c) d~spersal habitat cormecfing esseufial aquatic
habitat.
Aquatic habitat is essential for providing space, food, and cover, necessary to sustain all life stages
ofrect-legg,~d frogs. It consists of virtually all tow~adient fresh water bodies, including natural
and man-made (e.g., stock) ponds, back-raters within streams and creeks~ marshes, lagoons, ~nd
dune ponds~ except deep lacustrine water habitat (e.g., deep Iakes and reserve{rs 50 acres or
lin:get in size) inhabited by normative predators. The subspecies requires a permanent water
source to er~.sure that aquatic habitat is available year-retinal. Permanent water sources can
incIade, bm are not limited to, ponds, perenrfial creeks, permanent plunge peoIs within
intermittent creeks, seeps, and springs. Aquatic habitat used for breeding usually has a minimum
deep water depth of 20 inches, and ma/brains water during the entire tadpole rearing season (at
least March through July). During periods of drought, or less-than-average rainfall, these
'breeding sites may not hold water long enough for individuals to complete metamorphosis, but
because they support breeding in wetter years these sites would still be considered essential
breeding'habitat. Ponds that support a Small population o£red-legged frogs, but m'e not
surrounded by suitable upland habkat, or are cut off from other breeding ponds or permanent
water sources by impassable dispersal barriers, do no~ have the primary constituent elemeuts for
redqegged iYrog critical habitat,
'To b e a primary constituent element for red-legged frog critical habitat, the aquatic eomponefits
within the d.esigna~ed bou_adaries must include two or'more breeding sites (ac defined above)
located wifl'5~ 1.25 miles of each other;, at least one ofth~ breeding.sites must also be a permanent
water source; or, the aquatic component can consist of two or more seasonal breeding si.res with a
permanent nonbreeding water source located within 1.25 m/les of each breeding site. Red-legged
frogs have been doCUmented to travet 2.25 m/les in a vi~uaI straight line migration from
nonbreeding to breeding habitats (66 FR 14626). tn addition~ breeding sites must be connected
by dispersal habitat connecting essential aquatic habitat, described below.
_Associated upland and riparian'habitat is essential to maintain red-Iegged frog populations
associated with essential aquatic habitat. The associated uplands and r/par/mn habitat' provide food
and shelter :sites for red-legged frogs, and a~sist in maintaining the integrity of aquatic sites by
protecting them from disturbance and supporting the normal functions of the aqaatiq habitat. Key
conditions include the tirrfing~ duration, and extent of water moving within the system, filtering ·
capacit)), m~d m~Jntaining the habitat to favor red-Iegged frogs ~.r~d discourage the colonization of
normative species such as bulIfrogs~ Essential upland habitat consists of ail upland area~ w/thin
07~f03/02 14:28 FAX 916 414 6713 U.S. FISH & WiLDL±FE SYR
h,:.-- .....
I~.U.L//UOD
16
· Mz. Calvin C. ]~ong .
300 f~:, or no further than the watershed bour~dary, of the edg~ of the ordinm-Y high-water mark'
of ~sscntial aq'~atic hab{tat (66 PR 14626).
E~senti~t dispersal habitat provides connectivity among red~legged frog breeding h~.bitat (~md
m~sociated upland) patches. Vv~hilc frog~ can pass many obstacles, and do nol rcqo~:c a particular
type of habita'; for dispersal, thc habkai cormeoting ess~tiat breeding locations and other ~quatic
habitat must t,8 fro¢ ofbaniers (e.g., a physical or biological feature that prevents frogs from
dispersing beyond thc fc.~ture) and ~t least 300 foot wide. ]Bssmlt~J dispersal habitat consists of~tl
upland and w ~tlaUd habitat free of barriers that connects two or mor~ patches of
breeding habitat w{thin 1.25 miles ofor~e another. Dispersal bau-icrs include heavily traveled.
roads (]an average of B0 c~rs per hour from i0:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m.) that Possess no bridges or
culv~s; moderate to high density urban or.indusu'iaI developments; and large rmsgrvoirs more
than 50 acres in size. Agricultural Im~ds such as row crops, orchardS, vincyards~ and pastures do
~ot constitut~ barriers to red-legged frog dispersed.
.Thc project occurz within the East Bay-Diablo Range critical habitat unit [Unit 15), which
cons{sas of water,beds within Contra Costa, Almncd~ San ~oaquin, S~n~a Clara, Stanislaus, San
Ben{to, Iv~cr¢:.cd' and Fresno counties. The boundary of Uni~ t5 encompasses approximately
n~illion acres, of which approximately 87 percc~t.is privately or, cd. The reraaini~g 13 pcrcenl is
m~nagcd, in part, by various Federal, Statc,_znd local land and water management agoncies.
Because ess~ntial aquatic habitat, associated uplands, and ossentiaI dispersal habitat has not bcc~
widely mapped in the unit, the Servio~ can not accurately estimat~ the area within thc unit that
supports prim. ar/constituent' ~lements. However~ due lo th~ p~:esence of busy roads
developed a::¢as as well as substantial a~a's without permanent w~ter, we ~tic{pat¢ that the
effective area of Unit '15 is considerably les~ than 1.05 million acres.
Un:it 15 ha~ been affected b.y activities that d~stroy essential aquatic and upland habitat~, mud
dispersal habitats providing connectivity between Subpopulations. De~adation md loss of these
habitats h-~w occurred through, urbanization, mining, inappropriate management of grazing,
~:ecrea~{on, invasidn of normative plants, impoundments, wat~: d~vex'sio~s, de,reded water quality,
and introdu,:~d predators.
Cali/ornia ~Figer Sali{mand~r
· The California liger salamander lsa candidate for lis~[ng under the Act. On April 18, 1994, thc
Service det~:nn{n~d that iistlng of tho C~lifornia tiger ~alamandcr was warranted but was
precluded by hi~her priority listing actions (59 FR 18253). At d'~at time, 49 higher priority taxa
weze awaitiag proposal or listing determination in central and northern California. The Service
has since taken action on many of those 49 sl{ec~es. As the salam~.nder is not listed or proposed at
this time, s!knilarly no statutory cfit~cai habitat has been designated or proposed.
The California tiger salamaude: is r~stficted to gzasslands and low-~l~vatlon fccth~11
Cali£om{a (gm:~erally under 1500 feet), wher~ it uses seasc{nal aquatic habitats for breed~g. The
07/:.03/02 14:29 FAX 916 4~4 6713
U,S. FISH & WILDLIFE
~018/056
17
Mr. Calvin C. Fang
salamm~der~ breed in nmumi ephemeral pools, or ponds that mimic ephemeral pools (~ock ponds'
that go dry), md occupy s~bm~dsl ~eas su~o~ng the breeding pool ~ adults. ~ong
s~ders, C~ifomia ~gcr s~l~dcrs req~re a relatively shah period to comptctc
de~e]opmcn~ of~e aquatic I~ae, ~d may breed sUcccss~lly in waters that lag for marc than
~o raonths,. In cold~z w~er ~c developmental p~fiod is prolonged, w~th p~iods in excess of
fo~ months berg relatively co--on. T~s requirement r~icts Califo~a tiger salam~d~r
bre~dlng ~o deeper wmJ pools~ vem~ playas, l~g~ sag ponds~ ~d ~ificiaI ponds with ad~quate
p~riods of immdation. On ~e o~er h~d, C~fonSa tiger s~mandor
predators ~ai commonly oc~ur in p~rm~ent waters, ~d ~ species
pon~ ~d essentially never ~ stremn~ or rivers. The lawae ~e voraoious feeders, mostly
coming inve~ebrates, ~cluding a ~ie~ of aquatic imects ~¢ erusmce~. ~e ~equem
ocem~ence of midge la, ac (Chkonom~dae) ~ thek ~ts suggests a tendency ~o feed ~ pm at or
ne~ surfici~fl bosom sedimenB (S- Morey, personal comm~cat~on). L~ae may ~so feed on
othm lanai mp~bi~s. The l~ae probably res~ in con,act wi~ bogota mud, d~ing p~s o~the
day~ ~d ~e ~om W b~ ~emselves i~ ~e mud whe~ pmsued.
C~i~mia tiger sdam~der l~ae °bt~ o~gen ~oagh gilts
metammphosis, the g[ils se reabsorbed, ~d the mimal ~m~sifions m a primely te~estfial
lifes~l¢. AI all ~mes, even ~ the te~es~a[ juvenile, and adult st~es, the skin re~s moist
s~am~der,:; c~ only suave b~efpefiods in iow kmidi~ conditions, especially at higher
temperates.. ~ey cm s~ive d~e hot ~ summer underground because, even at
year, ~e so~I amosphere at d~p~ rema~s ~e~ the water saturation
A~ar met~noehos~g ~d emerging ~om the breed~g pooI as ju~eniles, Califomia tiger
salm~ders speed most of their time ia ~e grmsl~ds s~ound~g a breed~g pool. D~ng ~e
hot~ ~ smnmer, ~¢y estimate (go ~ough a do~aat per[od) in b~ows or deep cracks ~ ~e
ground. Dur~g wet periods, ~e salam~der, may emerge ~om ~e~gia md feed in the ~sla~d
~¢a. Their diet i~ not well ~o~ but may ~clude imects, ~sopods, ~d wo~s.
Mass migrati~n, of aduRs m breeding ponds occur mmally w~ ~e onset' of reticle, pooI-filt~g
r~ns, typic~fily between December ~d Mm'ch. Juve~Ies do not p~icipate ~ ~ese breeding
migrations. Individual ad~s speed o~y limited mo~t, o~fime ~ the breed~g pool (a few days
to a week or ~o), where ~ey mate ~d lay eggs. The females lay their eggs singly or
oee~oaall7 in clusters of~o to fo~, a~ached to pI~t stems ~n ~e water col--. Adults do not
feed ~tensively dur~g ~he bree~ng period (Steven Morey, personal co~uaication). The adults
me flmught to ret~ to ~¢ sine breeding pond ye~ a~er ye~, ~d some dam suggest ~at
C~omia liger salam~ders ~d o~er mbysmmafid s~amde~ return to ~e sine ~ea of ·
t&~es~ habitat a~er breeding. Evidence exism for ~e use of both celestial ~d olfac~ou cues
for orientation by ~bystomafid s~xmders ~n ~ek seaso~ movements (McGregor & Teska
1989 ). Little ~s ~own about whether juve~es may disperse ~om ~ek nat~ pool ~ se~ch of
other Breeding habitat, al~ough dispersing j u~e~[e C~ffor~a tiger sal~,~ders have been fo~d
to travel as ~r as 1.5 kblomemrs away ~om breedi,ng site~ ~a~er ~d ~ee ~996,
Hayes 199~D. Califom[a figm ~al~ders may~ve up to sev~al ye~s ~ ~e Mid.
0'D<03/02
!4:29 FAX 916 414 6712 U,S
FiSH & WILDLIFE
[~019/056
Mr. Calvin C. Fong 18
California tiger salmmanders make use of underground refugia= suct~ as burrows created by ground
squirrels ami other mammals and deep cracks or holes in the ground, in which to esfivate during
the dry rnon.tl~. Adults and juveniles may occupy the grassland and use ~efugia for cons[derable
distances around a breeding pond. Comprel~ens{ve data on how many salamanders dwell how far
from a pool are not available, but during the winter wet seasons Launer and Fee (1996) found
substantiaI numbers of adults migrating inward from farther than 400 meters (440 yards) from a
breeding site~
A typical breeding population in a pond can fluctuate due to random natural processes, in some
yem:s to fewer than twenty adults plus juveniles, making these populations prone to extinction.
California tiger salamanders therefore require large comiguous areas of vernal pools (venmt pool
compiexes) containing multiple i~reeding ponds to ensure that recolonization occurs at individual
pond sites.
The range cfAmby~toma ca;iforniense is restricted to California. They persist in disjunct re,truant
vernal pool complexes in Sonoma County and Santa Barbara County~ in vemaI pool complexes
and ~isolated ponds scattered along a narrow strip of rangeland on the fringes of the Central Valley
from southe'.rn Cotusa County south to northern Kern County, and in sag ponds, other seasonal
wetlands, m~d human-maintained stock ponds in the coast ranges from the San Francisco Bay
Area south ro the Temblor Range. The California tiger salamander has been eliminated from m~
estimatect 55 to 58 percent of/ts documented'historic ]~reediag sites. CurrentlY about 150 known
local populations of California tiger salamanders remain. Two remaining strongholds for the
species inCl~ade: (i) Alameda and ConlTa Costa counties, where the cities of Brentwood,
Livermore, Dublin, Pleasamon, and housing developments }n ~nincorporated portions of those
ecu_niles: are rapidly expanding~ and where the Los Vaqueros Reservoir project was constructed;
and (2) portions of Madera and Fresno Counties west and south of Milierton Lake, where the Rio
Mesa area plan (which covers apprsximately 15,000 acres in southeast Madera County) and
' soy&al large developments in th~ vicinity of Friant are planned. Only one vernal pool complex
where Califbrnia tiger salarnanders exist is presently protected (Jepson.Prairie Natural Preserve).
The primary causes oft_he decline of California tiger salamander populaiions are the loss and.
fragn~enmti-on of habitat due to urbm~ and a~icultural development, land conversion~ and other
hum~ acti~dties, and encroachment of nmmatiYe predators. The salamander has lost an estimated
75 percent of its habitat dye to human activities (including uplands and sites that were likely
habitat but never sampled). 'A strong negative a,~ociafion between bullfi'ogs and California tiger
saltm.~ander:'; has been documented. Although bullfrogs are unable to establish permanent breeding
populations in vernal pools, dispersing immature bullfrogs can take up residence and prey on
· salamanders; in ephemeral pools if tt~ere is a permanent water source wi~ir~ ~wo miles. Louisiana
swamp crayfish, mosquitohsh, green sunfish and other introduced f~shes also prey on the
salamander:.:. Ground squirrel control programs, carried out on more than l0 m_illion acres in
Califomia= ].ikely have an adverse effect on the California tiger salamander. Poison typically used
on ground squirrels (fumigmts) is likely to have a disproportionately adverse effect on California
tiger salam~mders, whicl~ are smaller mad l-rove more pm~eable skins. Use ofinsectic~des, such as
07'f508/02 14:29 FAX 916 414 8713. I_J..S. PIS~i.~ WiLl>LiFE
~]020/0§6
Mr. Calvin C. Fong 19
meth,>prene, ir~ mosquito abatement may have ~ indirect adverse affect on the Califomia tiger
salamander'by reducing the availability of prey. Amomobiles and off-road vehicles kill a
si~mk'icant rmmber of migrating or estivating California tiger salamar~ders each year.
Contaminated runoff from roads, urban areas, and agriculture may adversely affect the breeding,
survival, or ,development of California tiger salamanders.
The.project ske was surveyed for California tiger salamanders' ('H. T. Harvey & Associates t99.3,
t996a, 199f;a~ 1999b, 2000d). Two California tiger salamanders were found, in 1998, in a
drainage ne:n: Fallen Road in Dublin Ranch Area B (see attached figure 2).
San J~oaqui~ Kit Fox
For additional information On the natural history and ecology of the San Joaquin kit fox, please
refer to the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Jcaquin Valley, California (Service
1998). The San Joaquin kit fox was federally listed as endangered on March ~ 1, I967 (32 Fl-?,
400D and listed by the State of California ~ tln-eatened ma June 27, 1971. The ki~ fox is the
smallest cmlid species in North America with the males averaging 2.3 kilograms (5 pounds), and
the females averaging 2.1 kilograms (4.6 pear, ds) (Morrell 1972). The kit fox has relatively large
ears set close Zogetl~er and a long, bushy, d/stinc~ly black-tipped tail that is typically carried low
and straigh[. Fur color var/es ge. ogapbically a~ad seasonally, bm is most commonly described as
buff or tan [a the summer, and yellowish gray oi:silVer ~ray in the win~er (McGrew 1979, Morrell
1972).
The Sm~ Jo aquin ldt fox historically was' distributed within an 8,700-square mile range in central
California ~'kom the vicinity of Tracy in the upper San Joaquin Valley south ~o. the general vicinity
of Bakersfield. For management purposes, the current range of the San Joaquin kit fox is divided
into two geographic areas; the northern m~d southern ranges. The n.orthem range is centered
around ~as~,~rn Contra Costa County and Alameda Couniy. San Joaquin kit foxes are currently
ihni;ed to remainhig grassland, saltbush, open woodland, alkali sink valley floor habitats, and
other similar habkais located alor~g bordering tooth/lis and adjacent valleys and plah~s. In the
northern geographic range, agricultural and residential developmen~ in the Valley floor have
pushed the kit fox populations to th& foothills on the western edge of the Valley. Today, the kit
fox populm'.ion is concentrated south of Inter,rote 580 and the California Aclueduc~ in eastern
Contra Costa County and Alameda County.
Intensive a~zrionlture, urbanization, m~d other land-modifying actions have eliminated extensive
portions of;~abitat and are the most significant causes of this species endangerment. Such habitat
Ibsses contribute to San Joacluin kit fox declk~es through displacement, dkrect and indirect
mortalities,, barriers to movement, and reduction of prey populations. Predation, competition,
poisoning, illegal shooting and trapping, prey reduction from rodent control programs, and vehicle
strikes con'lribute substantially to the decline of this species. Loss of habitat continues io threaten
5ac survival of this species (Service 1998).
14:30 916 414 6713 U.S, FISH & WILDLIFE
~ OZ.1/O§$
Mm Calvin C.poag
2O
Thc cnn'enl, distribution of the San 3oaquin ldt fox can be grouped into two large geo~aphic
areas. In thc northern geographic range, which is centered around eastern Alameda and Conlra
Costa coun.fies, ldt fox populations are small and isolated, and have exhibited significant decline in
past yem's (,sec figure 14). P, casons for decline are attributed to a combination oflo~s of habitat,
barriers to migration, competition and predation by red fox (FuZfe3 v~fy~-) and coyotes
fsrr~.l~3), ~.d direct and indirect poisordng by rodcnficides. P, odcnt (ground squirrel) eradication
progrmus were carried out by many counties in the 193 Os through the 1 ~70s. By the late 1970s,
~he countie:~ passed the choice of rodent control to private 1 .mudown~rs, most of whom continued
d~e process (Bell 1994). Iiit foxes can be poisoned by either dkcsfly ingesting the poison, or
feeding on ;.~ ground squirrel or o~her rodents that have ingested poison. Conversion 'of naturaI
lauds to arban development and agriculture has rcs~cted thc kit fox to the eastern pozfions of
Alameda aud Conu'a Costa counties and western border of San Yoaquin Valley.
From ] 991 ~o 2000, fi~e Service has authorized ir~cidental take for thirteen projects h: ~lameda,
Contra Cosl.a, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus counties that have resulted in the loss or degradation
of approximately 2,644 acres of San Joaqui~ kit fox habitat (Service 2001). Conservation
measures fc.r these projects protected or will protect 3~016 acres of kit fox habitat within this
area. MucI~ of these conservation measures are in the form of conservation easements, and £or the
most part, the lands are not actively managed for kit fox. The Service also recently issued an
incidental permit for projects occun-/ng in San Yoaquin County as identified in the San Joaquiu
Multi-speci,os-Open Space and Conservation Plan (SJMSCP). Since the signing ofthls permit in
July of 2001, three projects within the kit fox corridor have been or are in the process of being
permitted. These project, will impact approximately 204 acres ofki~ fox habitat. The San
Yoaquin County Council o~ Governments will purchase lauds at a ratio of 3::[ for harm-al Iands and
1 :l for disturbed lands to mitigate these effects.
Although there have been sightings ofki~ fox in the northern range through the years by qualified
biologists, population studies in this area have been largely limited. In 1982 and 1983, a faufily of
k/t fox was .radio collared and monitored near Bethany Reservo5: (Hall 1983). Prom 1985 to
t989, kit fo2:: surveys in the Kellogg Creek watershed found a total of 114 potential and possibly
active dens, most of which were associated with ground squirrel coloni~ (Jones & Stokes
Associates 1989). Service biologists estimate that remaining suitable habitat, as shown in figure
14, c,~n support approximately 17 to 20 breeding pair~ o£kit foxes (Bell 2000, personal '
communication).
The small si:.'.e of the population and its isotadon from other established populations make this
northern mo~t population vulnerable to extinction owing to predation' and competition from
coyotes and 'red foxes, inbr.eeding, catastrophic events, and disease epidemics (Wh/te et al. 2000).
Genetic smd[es conducted by Schwartz er aL (2000) found that the Los Banes population near
· San Luis P,.e.servoir only interbreeds with the northern population ha Alameda and Contra Costa
counties. Tlnus, projects in AIm,~eda and Contra Costa counties that significantly reduce travel
corridors and'. population size could potentially impact the Los Banes kft fox population. The long
14:~0 PAX 916 414 6715 U,S. FIStt & ~ILDLIFE
Mr. Calvin C..Fong
term ¥iabili'[y of both populations depends, at least in part, on periodic migration and gene flow
from be;we¢~n the populations.
Habil:at in tile northern range is highly J~agmented by highways, canals, and development.
Inter~,-tatc 580 runs southeast to northwest as it splits from Interstate $, and turns west tkrough
the AltamorLt Pass area; thus it impedes both berth-south and west-cast movcment of San Joaquin
kit foxes. And although thc canal system facilitates north-south migration along its length, it also
impedes Ialeral kit fox travel. Recent development proposals desoribod above will luff.her impede
the movement of kit fox.and isolate the northern population from more southern populations,
.These and other developments are slowly chipping away at the last rma~aining idt fox habitat, md
we exp~o~ development pressures to increase in th~ future (seeCumnlative Impacts). The
protection of the remaining travel corridor, including grasslands west of Int~rstate 580, and lands
b~veen ;he California Aqueduct and the Delta Mendota Canal, is vital to the sm'viral of this
population. In response the drastic loss of habitat, California Department of Transportation
(Calwans) mad'the Service con,:ened a San Joaquin Kit Fox Conservation and Planning Team to
address the :rapid decline of kk fox habkat in the northern range, and increasing barriers to id; f6x
dispersal. C. ons~sting of Federal, State, and local agencies, local land trusts, environmental
groups, researchers, and other concerned individualS, the goal of this team is to proactively
implement actions that vdI1 recoYer the species, and troubleshoot threats to San Joaquin 1dr foxes
as they emerge (e.g. Highway' 580 expansion, increasing red fox population). The team is
currently working on conservatign strategies to protect ~ritieal kit fox corridors in the area.
Surveys conducted by BioSystoms Analysis, Inc., as part of the East Dublin Specific Plan EIR did
not detect ldt foxes in/he project area. Subsequently, in 1991, H.T. Hary. ey & Associates
conducted kit fox surveys on most of the project area at twice the i~tensity recommended by the
Califomia Department offish and Game Guidelines. These surveys did not detect kit fox activity
in or near the project. Additionally, lwo H.T. Hawey & Associates reports summarizing
historical record mad kit fox surveys in Contra Costa and Alameda counties concluded that Dublin
is outside of the historic range of the kit fox, The sites were reaurveyed in October and
November 1996 using the 19'~3 Service protocol. After the Service revised its survey protocol in
April 1997, ,sm-veys were conducted again in May a_qd June of 1997, and in July 1998, of the
entire project using the new protocols. No evidence ofldt fox was observed in the project sites
during any of these surveys (ti. T. Harvey & Associates 1991a, 1991b~ 1992b, 1997a, 1997ct,
1997¢, 1997f, 1997g, 1997h, 1999b). A ~oup pfSendce and California Department offish and
Game biologists have been meeting regularly to coordinate conservation actions for the San
Yoaquin kit i'bx. They have repeatedly stated that in their best professional judgement the
proposed project sites are frequented by foraging and dispersing San foaqnin kit fox (Sheita
Larsen, personal communication). In adddtion, a map recently produced by the Service shows that
the project si;es lie within a continuous band ofsuitable habitat for San Yoaquin kit fox (see 5gure
ll;). It is reasonable to expect ~hat kit foxes residing in the vicinity of Los Vaqueros could forage
throughout the continuous band of suitable habitat to the project sites. Therefore, the Service
considers the project sites to be forz{ging and dispersal habifat for San Joaquin kit foxes.
07~0~/02
14:$1 F~X 916 414 671~ U.S. Fi$~ ~ ~iLDLiF~ ~¥~
Mr. Calvin C. Fong
22
Effects of the Proposed Action
Direct and ~ndirect Effects
California red-legged frog/red-legged frog critical habitat
The proPosed Dublin Ranch Development could reasonably likely to result in direct effects to
Calif0m{a re,d-legged frogs and their critical tmbitat on the project site~ as. well as kndirecr effects
to areas outside the proj eot boundaries.
Construction work withhn the she of the proposed Dublin Rm¢ch Development could resuk in
direct mortality or injury to individual frogs, harassment of animals, entrapment, displacement,
permanent and temporary io~s of habitat for the frogs. Mortal{~ or injury to adults, sub-adults,
tadpoles, and eggs can occur from being crushed by earth moving equipment, constracfi6n debris,
mechanical :rem. oval of vegetation adjacent to wetlands and dra/nages, and worker foot traffic.
The Dublin [Kanch-Development would result in the permanent loss of 515 acres of habita~ and
temporary disturbances to an additional 684 acres ofhab~tat. The applicant'will preserve as open
space 684 ac,res (Tassajara Creek Open Space~ Northern Drainage Open Space, and Lin
Livennore ()pen Space). For as long as the open spaces are managed and preserved, ~hey will
· contribute tca larger system o~'preserves. However, without the protec'~ion ofcon,ervation
easements, the open spaces would b.e unprotected from furore habitat effects and therefore likely
not provide long term benefits ~o the conservation of Calffomia red-legged frogs. This could be
remetied by the placemem of conservation easements upon the 684 acres of open space.
On ~he 684 ~ores of open space, the applicant proposes to construct 19.68 acres of new seasonal
weflm]ds ami ponds. However, some of the proposed new wetlands will not sustain stffficient
water depfl¢~, to reliably serve as breeding habitat for California red-legged frogs. These wetlands
could serve as a population sink for California red-legged frogs b~, holding water long enough for
them to lay eggs in them but then drying before.the tadpoles have time to metanaorphose into
adults. Thee e wetlands could also contribute to the prey base by supporting breeding populations
of Pacific tree frogs. Only the new 3.17 acre pond woul'd maintain sufficient water depth to
provide breeding habitat for Cal~forrfia red-legged frog. The construction and management oftl-fis
3.17 acre pond will benefit the red-legged frog and contribute to a larger system o£preserves.
There would be an adverse effect upon the ab{lity to successfully or, gage in the long term
management of the open spaces, wSth a concomitant adverse effect upon the red-legged frog,
should the proposed fundir~g mechanism, upon which the open spaces management program
relies, fa_il or not function to ensure that the primary purpose' of the open spaces waa conse~a~on.
The City of]Dublin is planning to construct trails along both sides of Tassajara Creek within the
Tassajara Creek Open Space. These future trails may result in the loss of additional acres of
California red-legged frog habitat and ongoing effects in the form of harm, harassment, injury, and
o,?,/, o~/o~
r
1~:21 FAX 916 414
FIS~ ~ WILDLIFE SVR
1~024/0~6
Mr. Calvin C. Fon~
23
mortality to California red-legged frogs from habitat loss and mod'.ffication, trail consmaction-
related disturbance, trapping and relooation, los~ of movement corridors, increased predation by
pets, crushing by horses, bicycles and pedestrians, and capture for pets.
A portion of the Northern Drainage Open Space had previously been permitted to operate a
quarry site By Alameda'County and the State Department of Conservation. The quarry permit
that was gra:l.~ted to previous owners has since expired with some ~ading having been done on the
site. Permitl:ed quarry operations were never conducted. The prior owner of the site was
required by ~he conditions of the quarry permit to reclaim the site. As successors in interest to the
property thc applicants have assumed responsibility for compliance. This work will enta/1 minor
gracting and stabilization to protect the site from the erosioA and instability arising from the
gradktg done by the previous o. wner. It i, anticipated that this quarry reclamation work Mil not
dislm'b more that five acres within the Northern Drainage Open Space, and wilt be completed in
the firJt yem' of construction. The quarry reclamation activities may result in the loss of additional
acres of California red-legged frog habitat and efffectss in the form of harm, harass'merit, injury,
and mortality to California red-legged frogs from habitat loss and modification,' qume'7
reclamation constraefion-retated disturbance, trapping and relocation, toss of movement
corridors, crashing by vehicle, and entombmen~ under filI.
The Dublin-San Ramgne Sewer D/strict (DSRSD) maintains several water towers and access
roads both on and adjacent to the Northern Drain.age Open Space. Besides routine operations and
maintenane% the DSRSD will perform grading and stabilization within the Northern Drainage
Open Space as needed to protect their water towers and access roms from erosion. The erosion
control activities may result in the loss of additional acres of California red-legged frog habitat
and ongoing effectss in the form of harm, harassment, injury, and mortality to Ca[i£omia red~
legged frogs from habitat loss ~-md modification, quarry reclamation c6nstruction-zelated
disturbance, trapping and relocation, loss of movement corridors, and road kill.
Potential la,.r{ use conflicts with the re. siderite on-the Lh]-Livermore Open Space, the DSRSD's
main~enan¢~ and erosion stabilization activities on the Northern Drainage Open Space, and the
City of Dublin's plans for trail and park expansioo into the Northern Drainage Open Space and
Tassajara Creek Open Space, would likely disrup~ the management of the open spaces and result
in harm, harassmen% injury, and death of individual California red-legged frogs.
The applicants 15Ian to construct additional we~Iands on the Lin Livennore Open Space as
compensation for future developmenis' wetland effectss, which may result in the toss of addkiimal
acres ofuptand habitat 'for California red-legged frog. The £v. tm-e construction o£wetlands would
likely result kn temporary harm, harassmen% injury, and death of individual California red-legged
frogm
Preconslru¢/ion surveys and relocating individual flogs may reduce injury or mortality. However,
the capture and handling of Califonfia red-legged frogs to remove them fi'om a work area may
result in the haraasment, mortality or injury ofindiv~duals. Stress, injury and morralky may occur
07~05/02 14:22
FAX 916 414 6713 U.S.
FISH & WILDLIFE SVR
t~025/056
24
Mr. Calvin C. Fong
as a result of improper handling, contaim'nemt and transport of individuals. Dgath and injury of
hadiVidual red.-tegged frogs could occur at the time oftrapp~g ~tu¢ to trapping accider~ts, or later
in time subsequent to their release. Although ~urvivorship for.translocated red-legged frogs has
not been estkmated; survivorship of travslocated wildlife, in general, are lower because of
intraspecific competition, lack of familiarity with thc availability of potential breeding, feeding,
and sheltering,: habitats, and increased risk of predation. Injury associated with the transport of
individuals cs~ be reduced or prevented by use of a Service-appz°ved biologist. However,
because tlte applicants will not remove the vegm~aiion'by hand prior to any capture and relocation
efforts, an un!mown number of California red-l'egged frogs will likely evade detection or capture
and be subjec* to injury or raortality upon the commencement of construction.
Work acti~Jities, including no,se and vibration, may harass California red-legged FOgs in adjacent
areas, causing them. to leave the work area. This disturbance may increase the potential for
predation, dessicafion, or strike by vehicles at road crossings.
Project related grading or other work baring the ~oil is likely to result in erosion and
sedimentatioa. This siltation could smother eggs of tt~e California red-legged frog and alter the
'quality of hibitat downstream of the project site. California red-legged Fogs may become
entangled or trapped in plastic mono~filament erosion control matting resulting in injury or deathI
of individuals, if this material is used to stabilize disturbed slopes.
Bullfrogs may become established in lhe new wetlands and ponds, which could, in mm harass,
inj~e or kiI] California red-legged frogs· This could be minimized by implementing a bullfrog
eradication progrmn once bullfrogs have been located within any of the conservation areas.
However, any bullfrog eradication program could result in the h=assment, mortuary or injury of
red-legged frogs, as red-legged frogs can easily be misidentified as bullfrogs by individuals ladking
training mad experience with ranids in California. This eosld be minimized by using only qualified
· biologists ;¢ conduct a bullfrog eradication program.
does not ensure
The applica:at proposed success c~teria for the new wetlands and pondJ
sufficiem water depths or m-nounta of open water for red-legged frog breedivg to occur. In
addition, there is no clear course ofactlon to take if the proposed success criteria is not met. The
adverse effects would not be fully minimized if the new wetlands fail to ftmctio~ as red-legged
flog breedixtg areas.
The exclusion of cattle from Tassaj ara Creek may result in the establishment of riparian habitat
within the bed and barfks of the creek as well as in-channel wetland vegetation. Exclusion of
· cable may also reduce soil ~rosion m~d thereby improve water quality- This would be a beneficial
effect.
Sa~ .Yoaqui,~ Mt fox
07~0~/0~
14:3~ FAX 916 414 6713 U,S, FISH & WILDLIFE SVR
[~026/0~6
Mr. CaMn C. Fong
25
The proposed construction and operation of the Dublin Ranch Development could reasonat~ly
likely to resuk in direct effects to San foaquin kit foxes on the proj ~ect site, a~ well as indirect
effects to aa'ems outside the project boundaries.
Development and operation of the Dubtin Ranch Development could result in mortality, inj ur,y,
and harassment of Itt foxes and degradation and loss of habitat. San Joaquin kit foxes may be
injured or killed by vehicle strikes by construction related traf-dc. Dens located in the project area
could be destroyed by project related fflling and grad.~ng activities, lilt foxes thai use the project
site for sheltering, feeding or travel coul4 be displaced dm4ng grading, recoritouring, construction
and revegetafion activities. Such displacement of animals into unfamiliar areas could increase the
risk of predation mhd increase the difficulty of finding required' resources such as food and shelter.
San Joaquin kit foxes inhabiting the project area mhd surrounding vichxity are likely to be subject
to [nd/mci effects including temporary harassment from noise associated with project activities
and human presence, and a reduction in natural food sources as a result of habitat disturbance.
Harassment could also result from heavy equipment vibration causing the collapse of dens and'
subsequent displacemem of the animals. Construction' activities would also temporarily impede
travel and movement of San foaquin kit loxes through the project area.
The ir~crease in traffic resulting from the Dublin Ranch Development could result in the
harassment, mortality or injury of San Yoaquin kit foxes. San Joaquin kit foxes are mainly
nocturnal, though they have been observed to travel mud forage during the day, particularly in ~ts
northern range. Any increased traffic will negatively impact Sm~ Joaquin kit fox by increasing the
potential for vehicle strikes and further impeding the north-south movement of the 'kit fox.
population.
Trash left during or after construction activities and by ~he residents of the completed Dublin
Ranch Development could attract other predators to the site, which could, in turn harass, kill or
/njure San Joaquin kit foxes. Two other can/ds, the.introduced red fox a~d coyote, are attracted
by human activities, and may compete with and/or prey upon the kit fox.
The City of Dublin is planning to construct trails along both sides of Tassajara Creek witlzln hhe
Tassajaza Creek Open Space. These future trails may result in the loss of' additional acres of San
Joaquin kit fox habiiat and perpetual effects in th~ form of harm; harassment, injury, and mortality
· to San Joaqu[n kit fox from habitat loss mud modification, trail consU'ncfion~related disturbance,
trapping and relocation, lo~s of movement corridors, and increased harassment by pets, horses,
b. icyct~S and pedestrians.
A portion ofl~nc No~Jnem Drainage Open Space had previously been permitted to operate a
quarry ~te by Alameda County and the State Department o£Conservation. The quarry permit.
that was gan'red ~o previous owners has since expired w/th some grading having been done on the
site. Permitted quarry operations were never conducted. The prior owner oftd~e site wa~
required by the conditions of the quarry permit to re'claim, the site. As successors in interest to the
O~FOS/OZ
14:82 FAX 918 6718 U,S,
FIS~ ~ ~iL~LIFE
~027/056
Mr. Calvin C. Fong
26
property tb,.~ applicm:ts have assumed responSibility for Compliance. This work will entail minor
grading and stabilization to protect the site fi.om the erosion and instability ~sing from the
grading dore by the previous owner. It is anticipated that this quarry reclamation work will not
disturb more that five a~res withh: the Northern Drainage Open Space, and will be completed in
the first year of conatraction. The quarry reclamation activities may result in the loss of additional
acres of Sari: Joaquin kit fox habitat and effects in the form of harm, l:ara.ssment, injury, and
motto/try to San Joaquin kit fox from habitat loss and modification, quarry reclamation
conslructioz't~related disturbance, trapp~g and r~location, loss of movement corridors, and vehicle
collisions.'.
The Dublin-,San Ramone Sewer District 0DSRSD) maintains several water towers and access
roads both c,n and adjacen~ to the Northern Drainage Op. en Space. Besides routine operations and
maimenance, the DSRSD will perform grading and stabilization within the Northern Drainage
Open Space as needed to protect their water towers and access r6ads from erosion. The ~ro~ion
control actlvities may result in the loss of additional acres of San Joaqain kii fox habitat and
perpetual eft?cots in the form of harm, harassment, injury, and mortality to San Joaquin ldt foxes
from habitat loss mad modification, quarry reclamation construction-related disturfgance, trapping
and relocatk:,n, loss of movement corridors, and vehicle collisions.
The no~her/:t population of the San 3oaquin kit fox is at high risk for local extirpation, with loss of
h.abkat and barriers to movement as the major contributing factors. The Dublir/Ranch
Development would resuk in the permanent loss of 515 acres of kit' fox habitat, and temporary
effects to an additional 684 acres ofhabkat. The applicant will maintain as open space 584 acres
of land (Toss ajara Creek Open Space, Northern Drainage Open Space, and Lin Livermore Open
Space). However, the Tassajara Creek Open Space and Northern Drainage Open Spice are
adjacent to tl'lle Dublin Ranch Development, btkqy roads, and future developments, as well as
subject to regular erosion control activities by DSP, SD~ and recreational activities by the City of
Dublin Parks Department. Thdrefore the Tassajara Creek Open Space and the Northern Drainage
Open Space are not.likely to prov/de any h/gh quality habitat for San foaquin kit foxes.. For as
long as the Lin Livermore Open Space is managed and preserved, contribute to the larger system
ofpreserv~s for San foaquin kit fox. Mower.er, without the protection of conservation easements,
the Lin Liver. more Open Space would be unprotected from furore development and therefore
unlikety to provide long term benefits to the recovery of San foaquin kit fox. This could be
remedied by l'I:e placement of perpetual Conservatior~ easements upon the 3P4 acres Lin
Liv~rmore Open Space_
There would be an adverse effect upon the ability to successfully engage in the long term
· management ~)fthe Lin Livermore Open Space, with a concomitant adverse effect upon the San
foaqui~ kit fo~, should the proposecl fro;ding meclxanism, upon which the open space management
program relies, fail or not function to ensure that the primary purpose of the open space was
com$ervation.
0770~/02
14:33 FAX 916 414 6713 U,S. FISH & Wi~LDLIFE SYK
Mr. Calvin C. Fong
27.:
Potential land use conflicts with the residents or~ the Lin-Livermore Open Space, as well as the
construction of additional w. etlands in the future, cofild disrupt the management, with a
concomitar~t adverse effect upon the San Joaquin ldt. fox.
The applic~mts plan to ccnstruct additional wetlands on the Lin Livermore Open Space as
com. pensar[on for future developments wetland effects, which may result in the loss of additional
acres of San Joaquin kit fox habitat. The futm-e construction of wetlands would likely remlt in
harassment.~ and may result in injury and death of individual San Joaquin kit foxes.
Efforts'to trap and transtocate individual Sm~ Joaquin kit foxes from propo,ed impact areas to
preserve areas will likely reduce inj. nry and death of San Joaqnin kit foxes. Nevertheless, these
activities will likely result in harassmerit, and may result in injury and death of individual San
Joaqain kit foxes. Death and injury of. individual San Joaquin kit foxes could occur at the time of
n:apping due to trapping accidents, or later in time subsequent to their release. Although
survivorship for n'anslocated San Joaquin kit foxes hms not been estimated, survivorship of
translocated wildlife, in general, are lower because ofintraspecific competition, lack of fmmiliarity
with ~lxe aw~lability of]potential breeding, feeding, and sheltering habitats, and increased risk of
]predation.
cum ulativ e Effects
C~JmutatiYe effects are those effects of furore State, Tribal, local or private actions that are
reasonably r~e~dr~ to occur in the action area considered in this biological opinion. Future Federal
actions unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require
separate cbrcsultation pursum~t to section 7 o£the Act.
Numerous r. on-Federal activities continue t6 negatively impact th® San Joaquin kit fox md
Calif,,rnia r~d-Iegged, frogs in the Dubli~ Ranch Development m-ea~ Habitats are lost or degraded
as a result of urbanization, road and utility construction and maimenance, overgrazir~g,
a~oricultural expansion, and water inbgation and storage projects that may not be f-anded,
permitted, o1: constructed by a Federal agency. Other threat~ i~clude contamination, poisoning,
increased predation, and competition from non-nat{ye species associated with human
developmenl:. Small private actions that may impact listed ~ecies, such as conversion of land,
~ound squirrel reduction effort,, mosquito control, and resider~tiaI development, may occur
without consultation with or authorization by the Service or the Department of Fish and Game
pursuant to their respectively Endangered Species Acts.
The Service expects that additional effects to San Joaquin kit foxes, California tiger salamanders
and California red-legged frogs will occur in the Dublin Ranch Development area due to future
developmen~:~ and other land disturbing activities in San Joaquin, Contra Costa, and Alameda
Counties, in~:luding future phases of the Dublin Ranch Development. The Service has been
working clos ely with the counties to ensure compliance with the Act on future private actions that
may in, pact lis~ed species.
14:33 FAX 916
6713
Mr. ~;aivm ~. FOng ,;
28
-Thc Service expects that additional effects to San Joaqulu kit :[oxes, California tiger salamander,
and CaIiforzfia red-legged frogs will occur in the project v{ckuity due to future developments and
other land disturbing activities in San Joaqu~n, Comra Costa, and Alameda Counties. The Service
has been working with the counties to ensure complianoe with the Act on furore private actions
that may impact listed species.
.S. anJa_aquj_n. Kit Fox
The Serv/ce is aware of ~everal pending developments within the northern population of the kit
fox, including the co~tinued conversion o£ grazing land to vineyarcls and orchards irt Contra Costa
~nd Alameda Core,tine, the development 'of the town of Mountain House, and plans for the
expm:mion o[Tracy in San Joaqu/n County, and the construction of new powerp[ant~ in area.
Developme~zt pressure with/n kit fox habitat is greatest in San Joaquin CountL however, with the
completion of the SJMSCP, most o£the development will be concentrated near urban areas where
ef£ect~ to the kit fox will be m~im[zed. Additionally: any loss ofkk/'ox will be mitigated through
the pm-chase ofhabkat w~thin key habitat area. Under the approved SJMSC?, most of the area
between ~-5~0 and the Delta Mendota Canal will be developed, bu~ a corridor consisting of buffer
along the canals and 2-5 acre refu~a every ½ mile will be preserved.
The town of Mountaha House is a prOPosed ,neTM developnm~t that will convert ~pproximately
4,784 acres of agr/culturaI land to residential and commercial development. The approximate
boundary of this new town includes Interstate-205 to the south, Old R/ver to the north, Alameda
County I/ne to the west, and Patterson Pa~s Road and the Wicklund Cut to the east. The
deve',[opmer.~ of the Mount[~in House town has been approved by the County, is expected to 6cent
over tko next 20-40 years. Infra~tructm:es and rOad~ for the new town are cu .n-nutty being
developed, ~md the first phase of development, which includes construction of 1,500 unit~ on 407
acres is scheduled to begin in 2002. The project, proponents 6f~e Motmtain'Hou.~e New Towr~
have indica~ ed t6 the Service.and the County that they would, pm-ticipate in the SJMSCP;
however, the planning of the town arid the construction of infrastructures have occun'ed withou~
Service involvement despite the Serv/ce's efforts to ink(ate consultation:
Sam J'oaquirJ County is;also i~ifi~-ting an Old Privet/Northwest Tracy Specific Area Plan, which
may result ~n the development of ~ additional 7,000 acres of agricut .rural land to the north and
west of Tr~cy. The footprints of these two d,velopments comprise the majority o~the remair~ng
traveling corridor for San Joaquin kit fox e~t o£Interstate 580. With the implementation of these
developments, th, corridor to the west o:[I-580 and I-5, which include~ the golf course, would be
the only rema/ning habitat for San. Joaqu/n kk fox.
The Service. is also aware of developme~t projects west ofi-580. In 1995, C_rrupe Development
approached the Service to discuss a new community west o£I-580 between the exist/rig Corral
Hollow Rosd interChar~ge and the proposed Lammer Road Interchange, known as Tracy HilI~.
0..7¥0~/0~
14:34 916 414 6713 U,S. FISH & WILDLIFE
[~ 030/0~6
Mr. Calvin ~2. Fong
29
The proposed community wontd consists of 1,752 a:res of re,idential, cormnercial, industrial and
open space development. Th~ draft Habitat Cormervation Pla.~ developed for the project
propo,ed conserving 3,565 acres of open space as mitigation (LSA Associates, Inc. 2000). Most
rece~_lly, the land was sold to a~other development company, who have been ~ discussions with
the Service ,:;oncoming ~e plmmed d~wlopment. Two other development projeet~ ceca .nbng
without cor~mltation with the Service or participation under the SJMSC? both north and south of
the Tracy Hills development resulted ~ effects to approximately 30 acres of natural grazing lands.
The Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill has be,n approved to expand operalbons into 88 acres currently
permitted fca' waste disposal, known as Back Canyon, resulting in effects to 1.1.8 acres of seasonal
wetl~ds, 0~09 acres ofurmamed.drainages, 0.91 acres remained holding pond previously
constructed by the land.fill operators,'~d 85.83 acres croplands.
In eastern Contra Costa and Alameda countie% urban development is mainly occurring around
exisbng c/ties and, for the most part, are not encroaching on kit fox habitat as in San Joaquin
County, wffI.~ the exception of the city of Livermore_ However, we are aware of several plans to
construct powerplant~ within this diminishing corridor. Calpine recently applied to tnae Cai/fo'mia
Energy Commission for a certification to construct a natural gas plant near the Tracy ~ubstation
(Altamont Energy Center 2001). Calpine has an option to purchase a 174-acre pm'col. Th,
footprint of the plant is estimated to take up 55 acres, with the remaJrfing land being leased for
agricultural pnrposes. Florida Power has also proposed'to con,tract a power plant north of the
Tesla substation on Midway Road. The project would construct a power plant on a 60 acre
parcel alone Midway Road, and would impact an additional 5.3 linear miles of habitat for
trans~.rfissim', line, gas pipeline; and waterl/am.
_California 1Ked-t~gge~d Fro.~ and Te. cl-m..i, cal Assistance on California Ti~er Salamander
In addition ~o the d'evelopments mentioned above, California red-legged frogs and California tiger
salamanders are threatened by development occurring in Contra Costa and Alameda ogunties,
especially tl'[e Livermore and Amador Valleys. Within these tWo valleys, forty-one urban
developrnent~ are proposed, are under conslametion, or have recently been completed withir~
eastern Contra Costa and Alameda counties (East Bay Regional Park DJ,trier 1999). These
developments involve 78,924 a6res.of oak grassland habitat at the core o£the E~t. Bay population
of these two species, and could fragment and destroy large par~s of the populations. In the
Livermore Valley, an estimated 35,897 acres of grazing land is being converted to subdivisions or
vineyards (EBRPD 1999). Almost the entire valley floor and large portions of the adjacent hills
a-re being developed, or are being considered for devetoFmenr and eventual, annexation. La~d
within city I[rnits in eastern Alameda Count~'rnore than tripled from i980 to I993 (EBRPD
i 999). The North Livermore and Sou~ Livermore Valley SpeeJ_fic Plans have identified another
28,977 acre.*, of planned urban developraem in and around Livermore Valley (EBRPD 1999)~
A furore hot,sing development is planned ira_mediately to the west of the Tassajara Creek Open
Space. The applicants plan m construct two road crossings over Ta~sajara Creek at some
O-Z/03/OR
14:34 FAX 916 414 6713 U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE
~031/056
3O
Mr- Calvin C. Fong
, undet¢!tmined future time, through f~c 53 acre Tassajara Creek Open Space to p¢ovidc access to
the s[t¢', of thc future housing development. This future development would likely rcsuk in the
loss of addhiona] acres of Catiforrfia red-legged frog and Catifomia tiger salamander ha'~imt.
Conclusion
A_~er reviewing the current stems of the San Joaquin kit fox, the California red-legged frog and
its critical haSitat, the enviroranentaI baseline for the action area, the effects of the proposed
action and th: cumulative effects, it is thc Service's biological opkdon thai the Dublin Ranch
Developmen'r is not likely to jeopardize tlze continued existence of the Sm Joaquin k/t fox and the
California re,a-legged frog, or destroy or adversely modify California red-legged frog critical '
habitat. Crit:[ca[ habitat has not been designated for the San Joaquin kit fox, therefore none will be
adversely modified or destroyed,
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(cl) of the Act prohibit the take
of endangered and threatened species, respectively, w~thout special exemption. Take is defined as
harass, har~,, 'pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, k~ll, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage i~
any such c0nduct, t-I~rass is defined by the Service as an intentional or negligent act or omission
wlSch cr&a~es the likelihood of ~jury to a listed species by armoying it to such an extent as to
significantly dis.rapt norm~] behavioral patterns which include, but ,[re no~ limited to, breeding,
feeding or s]~eltering. Harm is de£med by the Service to ~n6lude sigrfificaut habitat modification or
degradation that results in death or knjury to listed species by ~mpairing behavioral patterns
includ~g breedSng~ feeding, or ~qhel~ering. Incidental cake {s defined ~ take that is incidental to,
and not the .~urpose of, the carrying out of an ohherwise Iaw~I activity. Under the terms of
section 7(b)(4) and sect/on 7(o)(2), taldng ir~cidental to and not intended as part of the agency
action is in compliance with this Incidental Take Statement-
The meastrres described below are nondiscrefionary flor listed spec[es in this opinion and mu~t be
implemented by the Corps so they may become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued
to the applicant, as appropriate, ~n order for the exemption in section 7(0)(2) to apply. The Corps
has ~. contir, uing duty to regulate the activity that is covered by this incidental take statement. If
the Federal agency (1) fails ~o requ/re the applicant to adhere to the terms and conditions of the
incidental take statement through enforceable tenrts that are added to the permit or grant
document, and/or (2) fails to retain oversight to ensure compliance with these terms and
· conditions, the protect~¥e coverage of section 7(0)(2) may lapse.
Amount or Extent of Take
Tlxe Service anticipates that incidental take of the Califm~a red-legged frog w/lt be difficult m
detect for the following reasons: the aquatSe nature of the organisms m~d their relatively small
07708/02
14:$$ FAX 916 414 6713
FISH & WILDLIFE SYR
[~032/0§6
Mr, Calvin C. Fong 31
body size m~ke the fading of a dead specimen unlikely; the s~retive nature of the species; losses
may be masked by seasonM fiucl~.mtions in numbers or o~ar causes; ~d ~ species occurs in
habitats ~at m~es it di~cult to detect. For ~ose re~ons, the Sc~icc ~ticipatcs ~al ~
~qn~tidab [o ~ber of Cal~o~a red-legged ~gs ~1! bc t~cn in oo~j~6on ~th thc
follow, g: 1) pe~m~cut loss of 5!5 a~cs of CMifom~a red-legged ~og hsbitZ ~om ~c Dublin
R~ch Dcvc],opm~t ~o~ B, C, F, ~d H; 2) tcmPor~ loss of ~3 acres ofCalifo~a redqeggcd
~0g habitat ~o~ ~o b~bitat c~cement ~d pc~ctuml rccroa~on activities by the Ci~ of Dabl~
P~ks D~:mcnt; 3) tcmp~ loss of 257 ao~cs of CaHfo~a red-legged frog habitZ ~om thc
habitat c~m~c~cng we8~d creation, and qu~ rccI~a~on mgtivitios, pc~ctu~
acdvide~ by ~c City of Dublin P~ks D~p~c~t~ ~d pc~cmal' erosion control activities by
DS~W, an,i; 4) tcmpor~ loss of 394 acres of CaHfo~i~ r~-lcgged ~og hsbimt ~om pc~ctusl
wctl~d creation activities. This ~c is expected to be ~ ~c fo~ ofh~ h~zssmcn% ~J~,
~d mo~l~ty to C~lifomiz r~-lcgged ~°gs ~om habitat loss mid mo~dcstion,
related dis~.~-bm~c~ ~pping and relocation, loss of movement corridors, ~ b~og
pro~, ~,i increased predation.
The $c~cc au6cipatcs d~at incidental take of the $~ ~Osqu~ kit fox w{lI bc di~oult to dctoct for
· c following reasons: their low dsnshy, noct~al hzb~ts, ~d 6o.cir rclativcly sm~l body ~izc
d~c finding of a dead spcoimen unl~Iy; ~c secretive nature of*~c species; losses may bc masked
by scason~l Ruomatio~ in n~bcrs or other causes; ~d ~e spocies 0ceos h~ habitats ~
{t diF~cult to detect. FOr these reasons, thc Sc~icc ~ficipatcs ~at ~ unqu~tidabtc ~ber of
S~ Joaquin ~t fox will be t~cn in conjunc~on with duc follow.g: 1) pc~m~cnt Ios's of 515
sores o~S~ ~oaquin ~ fox habitat fi-om thc Dublin K~ch Dovctopmcnt sre~ B, C, F, ~d H; 2)
pc~m~cnt loss of 290 acres of$~ Joaquh: k~t fox habitat adjacent to ~c Dub~ ~anch
Development ~css B, C, F, and H, ~'om inducer Dublin R~ch Development effects ss well
d~cct effects ~om qua~ recitation acd~dcs, wetland ~czdon ac6~ties, pc~cmJ erosion
control activities by DSRSW, and pc~ctual recreation ~ctividcs by the City of Dublin P~k~
D cp~ucnt,~ ~d; 3) tcmpora~ loss of 394 a~es of S an Io~q~n kit fox habitat ~om
wctt~md ~catiou actiViSts. ~s t~c is expected to bc ~ thc fo~ ofh~, h~smcnt:
~d mo~alky to Sma ~ozqu~ ~t fox ~om habitat loss ~d mo~cadon~ com~c6on-rclatcd
dis~urb~cc, h'apping ~d ~loca~ion, loss of movement co~dors: ~d ~orcased predation.
Reasonable and Prudent ~ieasures
The Servicer believes the following reasonablg and prudent measures are necessary and
appropriate to mi~mize the effec~.ofincidental take:
1. ~v~inhni~e the potential for ham~, harassment, injury mad mortality to San Ioaquin kit foxes
aud California red-legged 5togs,
2. M~.imize the effects of temporary and permaner~t loss and degradation of habitat on San
Joaquin kit foxes and Califorrfia red-legged fi'ogs by habitat protection and enhancement.
07~03/02 14:~$ FA~ 916 414 6715
U.S, FISH & WILDLIFE SVR
~033/0~6
~{r. CM.vin C. Fong
32
Terms and Condifion~ ,
To ~o ~,xempt from the pr°rib{fions of Section 9 of the Act, th~ Corps shall ensure c0mpli~nce
wiih the following terms mud conditions, which ~mptement thc reasonable and prudent measures
described above. These terms and conditions are nondiscretionm'y,
1. To minin~ize the potential for harm, harassment, or mortality to San Joaquin kit foxes and
Califcmia red-legged frog¢, the Corps shall ensure the applicant complies with the
following:
a. The proposed project w/Il be implememed as described in this biological opinion,
the individual permit application package submitted to the Corp% except as
modified by'these terms and conditions.
b. Any per~on capturing or handling California red-legged frogs shall be a quaI/fied
biologist approved by the Service. A qualified biotogiet must have completed at
least four years of ~miversity trainir~'~ in wildlife bioiogy or a related science and/or
have demonstrated field experience in tl~e {de~tificatiorl and life history of the
California red-legged fro g.
c. Any p~son participating in any bullfrog eradication shall be a qualified biologist
approved by the Service.
- dj Ail ~urveys, den decomstructions, and monitoring described in fi-rs docmnent must
be conducted by a qualified biologist approved by the Service. In this instm~ce a
qualified biologist'must have completed at least four years of university training in
wildlife bioiog'y or a related science and/or have demonstrated field experience in
the identification ~nd life history of the San Joaquin ld.'t fox. In addition, the
biologist must be able to i~Ientify coyote, red fox, gray fox, and kit fox tracks.
e. An m'nployee ¢dudation program ahatl be conducted prior to the i~tiation of
ground disturbance activities. The program shall consist of a brief presentation by
persons knowledgeable in San Joaquin kit fox and California red-legged 'frog
biology and legislative protec±ion to explain e~,dangered species concerns to
contractors md their employees. The program shall include the following: a
description oftlxe San Joaquin ldt fox mad California red-legged frog and their
habitat needs; a report of the occurrence of San Joaquin kit fox and California red-
.~ legged frog in .the project area; an explanation of~he status of these species ahd
their protection under the Act; and a Ii.~t of measures being taken fo reduce effects
to these species during project construction and implementation.-A fact sheet
conveying this information shall be prepared for d~stribution to the above
mentioned people and anyone' else who enters the proje, ct site2
o?~o~/o~
14:35 PAX
916 414 6713 U,S, FISH & WILDLIFE
Mr. Calvin
f.
Fong .: 33
A representatiYe shall be app. ointed by the applicant who will be the conlact source
for any employee or contractor who might inadvertently kill or injure a San
Joaquin kit fox md California .redqegged frog or who finds a dead, inj~tred or
entrapped individual. The representative shall be identified during the employee
education program. The representative's name and telcphons number shall be
provided to the Service prior to the {nitiation of ground disturbance activities.
This representative shall have tke ~uthority to stop any work if a li~ted animal may
be harmed.
To m~,imize d~)wnslope erosion and sedimentation during the construction of
seasonal wetland, ponds .and riparian improvements on the 53 acre Tassajara
Creek Open Space, the 237 acre Northern Drainage Open Space, and the 394 acre
Lin Livennore Open Space, the contractor(s) must maintain erosion control
devicgs dm-lng ~ound disturbing activities and until all disturbed soils have been
stabilized. Plastic mono-filament erosion control matting jute or rope ne~tir~g shall
not be used for erosion control.
To the exten~ possible, night-time construction shall be minimized. Off-road traffic
ouBide o.f designated project re:cas shall be prohibited.
To minimize the effects of temporary and permanent loss .and degradation of habitat on
San Toaquin kit foxes and Califorrfia red-legged .frogs, the Corps shalI ensure that the '
appl:icmnt complies with the following:
Within 12 months of the date of issuance of the Corps permit, the applicant shall
record Service-approved conservatio2, easements which .~halt be placed on the 53
acre Ta~sajara Creek Open Space, the 237 acre Northern Drainage Open Space,
and the 394 acre Lin Livermore Open Space for the protection of California red-
legged frogs and San Joaquin kit foxes and their habitats in perpetuity from further
development. The easemem~ shall in.elude, but not be limited to, provisions and
responsibilities of the applicant and the land trust organization approved by the
Service for the protection of all habitats set aside including'any future trm~sfers of
the easements or fee interest that may be anticipated. The easements shall specify
ihe purposes for which it is established (i.e., measure$ to minimize effects to
California red-legged frogs and San ~'oaquin kit foxes associated with the DubSn
Ranch Development). The applicant shall provide the Service with a true copy of
the recorded conservation easements within 30 days ofit~ recordation. The
easements shall be held by a third party approved by the Service.
Within 24 months of the date of issuance oft he Corps permit, the applicant shall
construct all seasonal wetlands, ponds; and riparian enhancements on fl~e 53 acre
Tassajara Creek Open Space and the 394 acre Lin LiYermore Open Space, as
described in this opinion_
916 414
6713
U,S.
Fisa ~
~I.LDLI ?S aY1<
M_r, Calvin C, Fong
34
Within 30 months of the date of issuance of the Corp'~ permit, the applicant shall
construcl all seasonal wetland,, ponds, and riparian enhancement* on the 237 acre
Northern Drainage Open Space, a~ described in this opinion.
The appllom~t shall monitor the riparian improvements to the 53 acre Ta~sajara.
Creek Open Space a~ described in this opinion for a period of five years beginning
in the year following the completion of the riparian improvements. Should the
Service determine that the riparian improvements have failed to meet the below
described .qu¢cess criteria, thc applicant shall implement additional Service
approv, ed riparla~ improvementm or take other measures approved by the Service
and monitor for an additional five year period. The Service will consider the
riparial~ improvements to Tassajam creek to be successful in providing California
red-legged frog habitat if it meets the following criteria:
i. By the end of the five year monitoring period the improved 5,200 foot
reach of Tassajara Creek has an addkional 1.25 acres of canopy coverage
of native ripa~an vegetation.
The applicant shall monitor the riparian improvements, the three crea~ed California
tiger salamm~der ponds, ~ad the created California red-legged frog pond on the
237 acre Northern Drainage Open Space as described in this opinion for a period
of five years beg/m~ng in the year following the oompletion of the pond and
riparian improvement construction. Shoald the Service determine that the ponds
and riparian improvements have failed to meet the below described success
crite~ia~ the applicam §hall impIer~ent Service approved improvement~ to the
ponds or take other measures approved by the. Service and monitor for an
additional five year period, The Service will consider the created pond~ and
~iparimx improvements to be successful in providing California red-legged frog
habitat if they meet ali of the following criteria:
i. By the end of the five year monitoring period the improved 0.25 acres has
35% cover by native woody vegetation, and;
ii. By the end of the five year monitoring period each of the three California
tiger salamander pond~ and the California i-ed-legged frog pond has 50%
cover by obligate, faculative wetl~md, m~d faculati,~e plant species in its
outermost 10 feet.
The applicam shall monitor th.e created'seasonal wetlands and California red-
legged frog pond on the 394 acre Lin Livermore Open Space as described in this
opinion for a pm-iod of five year~ begirming in the year following the completion of
the pond and wetland constraetion. Should the Service determine that the pond
1V[r. Calvin',.."'_ Fong
35
and wetlands have failed to racet the below described success criteria, the applicant
shall implement Service approved improvements to the wetlands Md pond or take
other measures approved by the Service and monitor for an additional five year
period. The Service will consider the created wetlands and pond to be successful
in providing Califorr~a red-legged fro~ habitat if they meet ail o f the following
criteria:
Throughout the five year monitoring period the .3.17 acre California red-
legged frog pond remains inundated or satarated at the de~ end for a
period of 9 consecutive months of each year during non-drought years;
ii.
Throughout die five year monitoring period the california red-legged frog
pond maintains an even'age d~pth of 20 inch~s from March 1 through July
31 of each year during non-drought years to ensure sufiSci~.nt depth
through the tadpole rearing season~ and;
By the end of the five year monitoring period each of thc cloven seasonal
wetlands and tho Californi~ rod-legged frog pond has 50% cover by
obligate, faculative wetland, and facutative plant species within those
portions which have an average depth of less than 12 inches.
Within t2 months of the'date of issuance of the Corps permit, the applicant shall
endow a Service-approved fend for monitoring and perpetual management and
m~nte~ancc of the 53 acre Tassajara Creek Open Space, the 237 acre Northern
Drainage Open Space, and the 394 acre Lin Livennofe Open Space. The non-
wasting principal in the endowment must generate sufficien~ revenue to cover the
costs of ongoing operations arid management actions as outlined in die 1viaY
2002, Dubtin Ranch Northern Draiaage Mitigation Area Habitat Management
Plan, Dublin Ranch Lin ~,ivermore Mitigation Area Habitat Management. Plan= and
Ddblin Ranch Tassajara Creek Miligadon Area t-Iabitkt Management Plan, and this
opinion. Specific actions funded by the cmdowment shalI be addressed in the May
I5, 2002, Dublin Ranch Northern Drainage Mitigation Area Habitat Management
Plan, Dublh~ Ranch Lin Liv~rm ore Mitigation A.zea Habitat Management
Dhblin Ranch Tassaj ara Cr~k Mitigation Area Habitat Management Plan. lA third
party selected by the applicant and approved by t&~ S~rvice shat1 work wit& the
apptlcant to determine what amount of money is necessary for an endowment fund
to adequately finance th'e men, toting and perp~tua1 ma-oagement and maintenance
of the preserv~ ~.ud endangered species habitat protection are~. ~Th~ Resource
Manager shall be 'empowered to access and expend funds to inS151ement Service-
approved remediaI measures in te event responsible ?r~se~e Managers fa.il to.
fully implement the May 15~ 2002= Dublin Ranch NOrthern Drainage Mitigation
Area Habitat Management Plan, Dublin Ranch Lin Livmmore Mitigation Area
Habitat'Management Plan, and DubIin Ranch Tassajara Creek Mitigatic.n Area
0ZZ03/0~ 14:56
Mr. Calvin C. Fong 36
Habitat M~nag~ment Plan. Within 12 month~ of the date of issuanc~ of ~ Co~s
p~:, th~ app~c~ sh~l provid~ the S~ic~ ~d ~s Co~s docu~en~on
(I) ~nds for ~¢ pe~m~ m~gcm~nt of ~¢ 53 acm Tas~a Creek
Spa¢¢~ ~¢ 2~7 acre No~¢m Drainage Open Space, ~d ~¢ ~9~ acre L~
Mve~or¢ Open Space h~v¢ ~¢¢n =~sf¢~ed ~o ~¢ approp~a~e t~d p~
approved by thc S¢~0¢; (2) fl~¢ l~rd p~ has aoc~ied thc ~ds and
· ~ zdequal¢; ~d (Z) ~at ~l~se ~ds hav~ been d~osiicd ~ ~ account
endo~¢n0 thai wilt provide adequate tingeing for fha mo~m~ng ~d
manag~¢n~ ~d maint¢~s¢ of ~e 5~ acre Tassaj~a Creek Open Space, ~e 2~7
acre Nonh~ DraYage Open Space, ~d thc ~P¢ acre Lin Mv¢~or¢ Open Space.
ReasonabJe access to the $3 acre Tassajara Creek Open Space~ the 237 acre
Nor~hcm Drainage Open SPace, ~¢-~fl the B9¢ acre L~n L~vcrmore Open Space shall
be allowed with a 24-hour notice by the Service, Corps, EPA, or CDFG.
The applicant shall notify the Servioe when the development project is completed.
A written report shall be submitted te the Service, containirtg, at a minimum, the
following information: (1) a brief summary of the project action~, construction
methods md mate~Sals used to minimize effects to California red-legged frog and
San Joaquin kit fox habitat; (2) the number of California red-legged frogs
(iflc'l'i{difig ~iiiiil~s~ ~'~61~; and egg~)~ relocated from 'the construction area and ~
brief description of their condition (e.g. healthy, lethargic, smnnert~ noticeable
injuries, deformgd, etc.); (3) a summary of all California red-legged frogs and San
Joaquin kit fox injured or killed; (4) any problems that occurred which might have
prevented compliance; and (5) methods to avoid these problems in the future.
Upon construction of the seasonal wetlands, ponds and ripari~ improvements on
the 53 acre Tassajar~ Creek Open Space, the 237 acre Northern Dra/nage Open
Space, and the 394 acre Lin Livermore Open Spaee~ the applicant shall prepare
and submit an as-built report to the Service, contain~ng, at a mk~immm,
following information: (1) desc,.Spfion of the extent of work and the finished
condition of the created seasonal wetlands, pon~ md riparian improvements, and
(2) engineered as~built drawings, photographs, and text.
By December 31 of each year of the fi-re years following the construction of the
seasonal wetlands, ponds and riparian improvements or[ the 53 acre Tassajara
Creek Open Space, the 237 acre Northern Drainage Open Space~ and the 394 acre
Lin Livennore Open Space, the applicant shall prepere mad submit an annual
monitoring report to the Service, containing, at a minimum, the following
ii,formati0n: (1) monthly rain,ali data, (2) results of the l~ydrological mom'toting,
including average water depths, (3) the species composition ~d percent cover of
the vegetation, (4) any sightings or signs of California red-legged frogs, CaI{forrfia
tiger salmnanders, San foaquin kit foxeS, and bullfrogs, (5.) results of the
0~/0~/0~ 14:~? FAI
414 671S U.S.
W~.l u~O/ UOU
Mr. Calvin C. Fong
37
photographic monitoring, and (6) restoration and management recon~mendmions
and any reraediation needs.
Should a bullfrog be found on the 53 acre Tass4ara Creek Open Spaoe, the 237
acre Northern Drainage Open Space, and the 394 acre Lin Livermoro Open Space,
the applicant shall prepare Nd/mplement a Service approved bu~.og eradication
program wit~u one year of the irdfial bullfrog sighting. 1: or the remainder of the
five year monitoring period, by December 31 of each year following the
implementation of the bullfrog eradication progrm~ the applicant shall prepare and
submit a report re the Service, eontakdng, at a minimum, the fei[owing
information: (t) a smmnary of the bullfrog eradication methods and results,
(2) numbers and life classes of aLl bullfrogs eutharfized, (3) any recommendations
regarding how to improve the bullfrog eradication effort.
Reporting Requirements
The Service shall be notLfied within one working day of the finding of any injured or dead
California re~d4egged frog (irmlucSng adulls, tadpoles, and eggs) or San Joaquin ldt fox.
Notification shall include the date, time, and precise location of the specirneffincident, md any
information The S~-mdce coma~ person is Jan C. Knigh% Ckie£, Endangered
other portia;re' ' ' ' . ,-.:', _i~ ,~;,5];fe O~Ce at (91-65"4!4-~60-0. AmY ~njured
Species Di¥[sion in the Sacramento man anu ,,**~-,~, ,
Califbmia rod-legged frogs shall be collected and transported to the Redgewick pond at the ~
extreme upI~ er end of the Norther2 Drainage Preservatio~ Area by a Service approved and
permitted bi olog-ist. Any dead Cal/forrfia red-legged frog or San Joaquin idt fox shall be deposited
with the Service's Divisio~ of Law Enforcement, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CalLfomia
95825, telephone (916) 414-¢660.
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 7(a)(1) Of the Act d/roots ~Federal agencies to Utilize the. ir author~tie~ to further the
purpo,es of the Act by carrying out comservation programs for the befiefit of end,gered and
threatened ~:pecies and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Conservation recormmendations
are discretionary agency activities m mir2mize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on
listed spool es or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop information.
The S erv/eu proposed the followfl, g ,conservation recommendations:
1. The Service r~commends the Corps develop and kmplement the appropriate restoration
measures in areas desigaated in the Draft Recovery Plan for the Cafe%mia Red-Legged
Frc~ (Xana az~rora draYtomO (Service 2000).
2. The Service recommend~ the Corps develop and implement 'the appropriate restoration
me~.~sures in areas designated in the Recovery Plan for U~tand Species of the Sa~ Joaquin
Valley. California (Service. 1998).
U ['/ UO/ U~-
38
Mr. Cal m C~ Fong
3- The Service recommands that ~11 o'fthe oonse~a~on m~s~s ~plemant~d for th~ b~n~
of Califo~m ~d-legged ~ogs. ~so be ~plem~ted for CaHfo~ ~ger s~d~rs, ~d
t~t .~y C~ifo~a tiger s~l~ders founR be c~p~ ~d rzlocat~d to suimbl~ habitg
by a qualified biolo~st.
~ or~r for ff~e Se~ic~ to be k~t i~o~ed ofaction~ ~m~ing or avoiding adverse effe~ or
b~ef~ng ]is~cd species or ~e~ habitam, ~e Sc~icc rc~ests no. cation of ~e implemantation
of m~y oonse~aCon rcoo~cnda~ons.
REINITIATION - CLOSING STATEMqgNT
This concludes fon-nal' consultation on nhe proposed Dublin Ranch Development. As provided in
50 CFR 405!..16, reinifiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal ager~cy
involvement or control over the action has been maintained (of is authorized by law) and i5 (1)
the mount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new informatior~ reveals effects of the
agen,:y action that may affect listed species or critical habitat irt a manner or to an extent rtot
considered :in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner thai causes
an effect to ~he listed 5~eeies or critical habitat d[esignated that Was not considered ia this opinion;
or(4) a he'll' ~'~-~{es {~]{srd'~i or''~t{c~i-lt~$1~at deSi~{'ed ~ h~ly b~ aff~'cI'5~ the atfi'tn. In'
instances where the mount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such
take must c,~ase penr~ing reinkiation- ~
Tfyou have any.questions regarding this opirJon, please contact Mike Nepstad or Dan Buforcl at
(916) 414-6625.
Sincerely,
Cay C. Ooude
Acting Field Supervisor
Enclosures
ARD-ES, Portland, OP.
Corps of Eng-ineers, San Frmncisco CA (Attn: Bob Smith)
Catiforni~ ]Department offish and Oma~e, Yountv{Ile, CA (Arm: Janice Oma)
0T/05/02
LITEI~TURE CITED
Bell, H.'M, 1994. Analysis of habitat chazacteristics of the San Joaquin kit fox in its northern
ran;~e. M.A. thesis, California State University, Haywm'd= Califomiz 90 pp,
and LA, Whelan. 1924, Ecology and management of the bullfrog, U.S, Fish and
Wildlife Service Resource Publication I55. 23 pp.
California Natural Diversity Data Base. 1999. California Depamnent ofFish and Game,
Sa¢:amento, California.
1977. "Double clutching" and its possible si~ifican¢¢ in the bull~og. Copeia
1977(g):TgP-.75I.
Hall; H. M, 1983. Starers of the kit fox at the Betka~y wind turbine generathag (SVT~) project site,
Akmeda County, Californi. a..The Resources Agency, California Department offish and
Gar.'~e. Sacramento, California.
Harvey, H.T. and Associates. (1997). Santa Clara Valley Water District: California red-legged
frog distribution and stares-1997. Project No. 1164-01.
~ayes,
M. P., and M. R. Jermings. 1988. Habitat correlates ofdistr[bulion of the California red-
legged frog (Rana aurora draymnii) and, the foothiit yellowdegged frog"(Ran'a~o?lii):
impkicati0ns for management Pages 144.158. In: R. Sarzo, K. E. Severson, mndD. lq_
Patton (technical coordinators). Proceedings of the symposimn on the management of
amphibian% reptiles, and small mammals in North Aanerica. United States Department of
Agn~eutture, Forest S,rvice, Rocky Mountain Range and Experiment S ,ration, Fort Collins,
Colorado. General Technical Report (I'~gf- 165): 1-458.
Hayes, M.P, mid D.M. l(rempels. }986_ Vocal sac variation among frogs of the genus Rana
front western North America. Copela 1986(4):927-93 6.
Hayes, M.P, and M.M. Miyamoto. 1984. Biochemical, behavioral and body size differencea
bem'een Rana aurora aurora and R. a. draytonif. Copeia 1984(4): ~018-1022.
Hayes, M, P'., and M. R. Termant. 1985. Diet and feeding behavior of the California red-legged
frog: Ra~a aurora draytorzi~ (Rar~da8~. Southwestern Naturalist 30(4): 601-605.
Y. ennings, M. iR. 1988. Natural history and decline of native ran.ids in Califomia. Pages 61-72
FI. F.. De Lisle, ?. lq.. Brown, B. Kaufrnan, and B. McGurty (eds.). Proceedings of the
Conference On Cakifornjs. Herpetology. Southwestern Herpetologists Society, Special
PubI[cation 4:1-t43.
Yennirtgs, M. 1K., and M. P. Hayes. 1985. Pre-Ig00 overharvest of Caiifornia rsd~iegged frogs
(Ran~ aurora dray~oniO: The inducement for bulifrog (Rana catesbe'iana) introdnction.
Herpetological Review 3 t'(1):94-103.
1990. Fiaal report oft he smmS oft he Catiforrd~ re&legged frog (Rana aurora draytonfi)
------- i~n ~txe pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve. Final rep6rt prepared for the California
Departraent of Parks ancl Recreation, Sacramento, California, through Agreement (4-823-
~ ~' o California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park,
90t8)- Depmiment ofHerpe~ol ~, '
San ]Fr~mcisco, California. 30 p.
iermings, IvigP,., !Vi.P-Hayes, and D.C. l-logan& 1992. A petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife'
Servicc~ to place the California. red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytoniO and the western
pond tllirtlc (Clemmys marmorara) on the list of endangered and tl=eatened witdlif~ md
plants- 21 pp.
If_rase. IGC. sad M.G. l~rmncis. 1977. Apredarion deterrent in larvae ofthebullfrog, Rana
caresbeiarm. Transactions oft_he g_m~ic~ Fisheries Society 106(3)'248-252-
MeO~ew, J.C. t~79. Vu[Fes macrotfs. Mammal Species 123:1-6.
1972. Life History of the San J oaquin kit fox. California Fish ~d Game 58:t 62-
Morrell, S. H,
174.
p, ath%nn, G-B., ICW. Worcester, D. Holland~ mid J. Mmin. 199 I. Status of declining aquatic
repfi].*~, amphibians, and fishes in the lower Santa Rosa Creek, Cambria,.California- 21
pp.
Schwartz~ Iv].IC, gl. Rails, D.F. Williams, and R.C. Fleischer. 2000. Genetic varJa~io~ and
sub,l.mcture of San Joaquin kit fox population- IJnpubi~shed report.
Stebbin% R.C. 1981 A field guide to western reptiles and m-nphibians- Houghton Mifflin
Company, Boston'= Massadmserts. 336 pp.
Storer, T. L 1925. A synopsis of the m;n. ph[bia of CMifornim University of California
pub]icatio .ns' hx Zoology~ 27:1 -I-342.
Twedt, B. :[993. A comparative ecology of Rana aurora Baird and Girard and Rana
catesbeiana. Shaw at Freshwater Lagoon, Hu.mboldt Comty, California- Unp~bl.
t-Iun'~boldt State University, Arcata, Cal~fomia. 53pp + appendix.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service- 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plmnts: 12-month
petition finding for the California tiger salmm~der. Federal Register'5~(74):18353-
18354,
I996. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plan~s: t2-month petition finding for the
~ Califomiared-legged frog. Federal Register 6t(101):25813-25833.
199~I. Recovery l>lan for LIplamd Species of the San Joaquin Valleyi California. Portlm~d,
- Oregon. 319 pp.
2000. Draft Recovery. Plan for the Califomia Red-legged Frog (Rune aurora draytoniO.
Peri:land, Oregon. 258 pp.
~2001. Endangered Species Projects Database (Paradox). Sacramento Fish ahd Wildlife
Fie]~ Office, Sacramento, California.
Wallace, Roberts, and Todd. 1992. Draft Environmental Impact Report, State ClearingI¢ouse
No. 91103064, Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment Spec/ftc Plan. August 28, 1992.
White, P.J., H.B. Willimu, J.J. EIiason, and M.T. Hmason. 2000. Catastrophic decrease in a~
isoll~ted population of kit foxes.' Southwestern Namralist. 45(2):204-211.
Wright, A.~{: and A.A. Wright 1949. Hartdbook of~rogs and toads of~e United Stmes and
Canada. Comstock Publishing Company, Inc., Ithaca, New York. x~i + 640 pp.
I~ERSONAL COMMUNICATION
Heather'Belt, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA
Steve Bobzi. en, East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland, CA
Jeff Froke, 'Gol~auna, Pacifica, CA
,Sheila Lars¢:~ Sacramento Fish a~d Wildlife Office. Sacramento, CA
Sreven Morey, Califomia Energy Commissior~ Sacramen~o~ CA
S an
F~'ancisco
Project~ Site
Bay
Livermore
Pacific Ocean
'San lose
0
Santa
Miles
~coioazca. co~vsvr~r~vr-S
Sit~ici~ Map
ff~ H, T~ HARVEY &. ASSOCIATES
~-~cOL oclc~ CONsvLr~ "
Dublin R~nch Mitigation and Monitoring Plato
Proposed Develupme~tt Plan
M
Legend
1~4h~, Project Boundaw
USAOE d misdiutional
FaaJums la be Impacted
!-580
A .. fa," R'
E ¥
HARVEY & A$$OCI, t I'E,g
~co~oa~ ~. 6ot~
M5
Area. F
M
0 500
L
Lano~Lb ~ 220 ~
~n~h ~ 153 ~
M
M
M
* M
M
O~
M
747 ~t
C?
Channal t~not:h: 022
MH
mai L~no:h: 1008
05
60' CDFG Mitigatior~
USACE
l~litigation
~___--~,
!
I
Depth
Varies
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
75' min.
STREAM/OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR
not to sCale
Multi-Use '
Trail
O H. r H, ARVEY& ASSOCIATES.
ECOLOGICAL CONSU.rJ'ANT$
Dublin Ranth lVliligalion ~nd Monlloring Plan:
On-site Drainages Conceptuat Cros~ Setl|on
No. 555-~;6 Dale 5/15/'01 Flflum 6
LEGEND
H. :E IlARVEY & A. SSOCIAT, E.g
I~COLOGICAL C'O;VSL1LTANT$
[h~hl~ I~l~nrl~ Mil!geL!uti uAd I'~'eal~or/itg IPt~tlt
Selbsck f Open Space
(minimum 100 foot setback
irom top-of-bank)
West Bank
LEGEND
Hal[ye Willow and Oak SaFIIngs
I~ be Protected
Halloo Wilt, ow Cuttings Io be
Installed I[~ Floodplain
Holm A mUlli-use ball will be located viilhln
the salback ~m~ .on Ihe east bank
fassalara 1 Riparian ,
Creek Resloration
Channel Site Existing Riparian 'Habitat
width varies width varies
CDFG
juds~lction~l
area ml~[l,~ilon
Setback [ Open Spa6e
(setback varies Imm 0-500 It..
depending, on Lin property
boundary and [uture Fallen Rd,
~ocation)
East Bank
- D~blin Ranch ~tigation and Monitoring Plato
~yplc¢ Cr~ Section otT~ajara Creek
FI~o No, 555-26 Dale 5/15t01 Ff~ure
A
Legend
l O0-foot Creek clean-up and Livestock Excluskm Area
Ripmian Resloration Area,'
CDF_Cq.. M!t!g ._rio.n_
tAppmximalety 5g-leel)
Willow Guttings ~'zith Foliage Pmle~tor$
G~rbacjeMeb~ls to
be RemovM
Lbestoc~ Exclusion
Fence to be b~alled
Norlhem
Drainage
Channel
Riparian Resbmlior~ Area
Legend
Racl-teggad Frog Pond;
Pond 'l ,3,17 aorea
~sssomtl Wetland Ponds:
Po~ 2 1.84 e. cres
Pond 4, 0.~ acres
Pond 5 0.58 ~cres
~ond 6 0.67 acres
Pond 7
Pond 8 2,76
Pand 10
Pond 11
Pond 12
TotaJ Seconal
Wetland Ponds: 15.53 acres
Total Seasonal
Wetl~nd and
RLF Ponds: 18,70 a~r~
Fonts ~,4.9 a~d ~1 wi[iinco~om~
deeper su~zon~l~s wt~n m~xJmum
Lin Liva~ora F're~on Am~
~ ~.r. ~vv~r,~ xssoc~xrv~s
~ ~r co r~b o ~& L a° ~vs V%~ ~-s-
Dublin Ranch Mitigation and Monitoring Plan:
Li~,ermore :ire Plan
555-26 Data 5/1~101 Figure -I~. [l
North
A
pond 1
A'
Average 36-inch
Depth ,
North
B
I
P~nd 5
South
B'
Legend --'=--- ' ' ' "' :ES- '-
· ' ,I ~ _... r,~m' ·
Existing
grade
~ ~P Starlet plantings [ Dubl~ am, ch t'fili~g.n Summ~y:
[ Lin Livermore Miligafim 8i{e C~s Secffo~
FISH.& WILDLIFE 'SYR
tff:l. U55 / 056
~ztz,' CRLF Criticat Habitat
~ Project Area
v -/
\
L"- L E Y
o '~*. 2soo
Legend
E~RP'$an Joaqu[n Hit ~x .~lttlnas (all dal~
O A~E,~a, Type
Arlli]dnl DBn
Nab~l Den,
~an dg~qurn Kit Fox Rea.1
Scale 1:500,000
-California R%.0nal Water Quality
San Francisco Bay Region
~5~inst~n -H.-'Flickox Interact Address: http://www, s~wcb.ca.gov
Secretao~for 1515 Clay StTeet, Suite 1400, Oaklm~d, California 94612
Environmental Phone (510) 622-2300 · FAX (510) 622-2460
Protection
Via Certified 'WIa fl
No. 7100'2241 0000265003543
C ntrol Board 5" ' "lzq
Gray Davis
i~V~~ ~o,,~,.,zo~.
Pii~ No. 2198.'ll (K. HL)
Site No. 02-0t-C0508
The Jennifer Lin Family
C/o Mr. James Tong
4690 Clmbot Dr. Ste. 100
Pleasanton Ca. 94588
Subject:
Transmittal of Order No. R2-2003-0032, Water Quality Certification and Waste
Discharge Requirements, Dublin Ranch Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County
Dear Mr. Tong:
Enclosed please find a copy of the above-referenced Order, as adopted by the Board at its April
16, 2003, meeting.
Please' note the various required submittals and due dates for reports aad plans that are a pm-t of
the Order. We look £orvz~d 'to continue to Work with YOu in the development of these reports. In
addition, pi. ease ,note that as per our recent letter, there is an outstanding application fee of $9,500 that
must be remitted.
. If you have any questions or further comments, please con~act 32eith Lichten o£my staff via
email to klzl.~,rb2.swa'cb.ca, gov, or at (510) 622-23 80.
Sincerely,
Loretta 32. Barsamian
Executive Officer
Enclosure: Board Order No. R2-2003-0032
cc: Date Bowyer, RWQCB
Bruce Wolfe, RWQCB
Water Quality Certifications, USEPA, WTR-8
Water Quality Certifications, swRCB-DWQ
Bob Smith, U.S. A-my Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Division
California Environmental Protection Agency
Recycled Paper
CALiFOt~NIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD"
SAN FtOkNC]~S CO BAY REGION
ORDER No. R_2-2003-003 I
WASTE DIS CI-IARGE REQUIREMENTS AND WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION FOR:
CHANG SU-O LIN (AKA JENN~ER LEK), i-lONG LIEN LIN (Al<iA FREDERIC LIN), AND
HONG YAO LIN (AKA KEVIN LIN)
DUBLIN RANCH PROJECT, DUBLIN AND LIVEI~{OP~, ALAMEDA COUNTY
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, hereinafter
Board, finds that:
o
Chang Su-O Lin, t-long Lien Lin, and Hong Yao Lin (hereinafter Discharger) propose to
construct a mixed-use residential, commercial, and open space development on a 515-
acre site in the City of Dublin (hereinafter Project). The Project consists of the folloWing
elements:
Approximately 2,730 residential units at vmy/ng densities on about 271 acres;
b. Approximately 2.3 m/Ilion square feet of retail, office, and commercial uses on
about 146 acres;
c. 58 acres of parks;
d. Dedication of 45 acres as open space; and,
e. Associated roads, utilities, and other infrastructure.
There are approximately 10.22 acres of jurisdictional waters of the United States,
including creeks and wetlands, on theProject site. In addition, the site contains an
unspecified amount of seasonal creeks that are waters of the State. The site's waters of
the United States are comprised of.'
a. Freshwater seasonal creeks: 5,548 linear feet (0.52 acres, which includes 0.04
acres of associated seasonal freshwater wetlands, such as seeps);.
b. 0.92 acres of 1 freshwater pond;
c. 8.34 acres freshwater seasonal wetlands; and
d. 0.44 acres other wetlands.
The Project will result in the direct placement of approximately 20,300 cubic yards offiI1
into and/or other permanent disturbance of all of the 10.22 acres ofjurisdictiOnaI waters
of the United States, in61uding wetlands, and other waters on the Proj. ect site. ·
Waters on the Project site serve as habitat for the federally-listed threatened California
Red-Legged Frog (Ra~a aurora draytonii, hereinafter CRLF), and as habitat for the state
listed species of special concern and federal candidate-for-listing California Tiger
Order No. R2-2003~0031
Salamander (Ambystoma calb%rnicnve, hereinafter CTS).
Mitigation Plan: To mitigate for its permanent fill of 8.78 acres of freshwater wetlands,
includ~r~g seeps,, a 0.92 acre freshwater pond, and 5,548 linear feet of freshwater creeks,'
the Discharger wilt complete the mit./gation proposed in its "Project Area Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan, Dublin, California" (hereinafter Mitigation Plan), dated March 3, 2003,
and prepared by H.T. Harvey & Associates, and the Mitigation Plan's associated
documents. The Mitigation Plan is acceptable to the Board, with the required submittals
and revisions I/sted in the Provisions. The proposed mkigafion consists of the following:
a. On-site creek reconstruction. Two creeks wilt be reconstructed on-site. One
will be constructed with a len~h of approximately 754 feet (0.17 acres
jurisdictional area); the other will be reconstructed with a length of approximately
3,584 linear feet (0.82 acres jmfisdictional area). The creeks will connect at their
upstream ends to existing created creeks in the Dublin Ranch Phase I project. At
their downstream ends, they will discharge into underground culverts prior to
discharge into Arroyo Mocho;
b. Northern Drainage. 245 acres of the Northern Drainage watershed wilt be
placed under a conservation e~,sement, and grazing will be managed in this area.
This area includes approximately 8,441 l~ear feet o£the Northern Drainage. The
Discharger will rehabilitate a 0.08 acre CRLF pond, consWuct 3 new seasonal
freshwater ponds (0.98 acres total) that will provide breeding habitat for CTS, and
plant approx£matelY 0.25 acres of the Northern Drainage watershed with willow.
Additionally, the Discharger will complete other work as specified in the
Mitigation Plan and, 90 dab's pr/or to the beginning of construction for the lower
7.43 acres of the Northern Drainage, will submit a restoration plan for the lower
7.43 acres of the Northern Drainage watershed above Tassajara Road, including
the road crossing,, provided however, that the Discharger will submit said plans
not later than twelve months after the date of the issuance ofth/s Order, and all
work for the 7.43 acre-area, including the road crossing, shall be completed
within 36 months of the date of issuance of this Order;
c. Tassajara Creek. 53 acres of Tassajara Creek and an adjacent creek buffer,
including portions of its tributaries Northern Drainage, Molter Ranch Creek, and
an intermittent freshwater seasonal drainage,, w/ll be placed under a conservation
easement. This easement Mi1 be divided into two separate easements.
Approximately 36 acres will be placed into a habitat conservation easement .
("Tassajara Creek Management zone"), and.the remaining t7 acres will be placed
into a conservation easement on which the placement of pedestrian pathways and
stormwater controls is allowed. The Tassajara Creek mitigation area includes
approximately 5,360 linear feet of Tassajara Creek and about 1,300 linear feet of
the three tributaries. The Discharger wiI1 plant along floodplain terraces, and at.
least 1.25 acres of native r/par/an vegetation will become established in the
r/parban zone, and the dischargers will complete other actions as discussed in the
Mitigation Plan. Grazing will be excluded from the entirety of the 53-acre
conservation easement; and,
O~de~ No. 1t2-2003-0031
Lin Livermore. 394 acres of the Lin Livermore she, located approximately seven
miles to the northeast of the Project site, in Livermore, Mil be placed under a
conservation easement. Sixteen seasonal wetlands (22.61 acres) and a 3. t7 acre
CRLF pond w/Il be created, and grazing w/il be managed on the site.
I{abitat Management Plans: The Discharger has submitted Habitat Management Plans
for the Northern Drainage, Tassaj ara Creek, and Lin Livermore conservation areas.
These Plans are included as appendices to the Mitigation Plan, and describe how the
lands are to be managed under the conservation easements. They are acceptable to the
Board, with the revisions listed in the Provisions.
Post-construction stormwater management: The Discharger has submitted a "Revised
Stormwater Management Plan for DUblin Ranch, City of Dublin, California" (hereinafter
SWIrl-P), prepared by Balance Hydrologics, and dated March 2003. Th/s plan is
acceptable to the Board, with the submittals and revisions listed in the Provisions. The
plan includes the following measures to address the Project's post-construction urban
runoff imp acts:
a. Construction of a regional water quality pond. The pond would capture and treat
stonnwater runoff from an area of approximately 708 acres. The pond's .water
quality area will be at least 4.1 acres, wkich will be sufficient to treat t9.5 acre-
feet of water with a target detention time of 48 hours, with volume provided for a
.mJ~mmm permanent pool, associated vegetation, and o.ther design standards as set
forth in the SW1VfP. The pond's tributary area is comprised of:
i) 309 acres of the Project site;
ii) 254 acres of the Dublin Ranch Phase I project and Dublin Ranch Area A;
iii) The 92-acre Dublin Ranch Area G project; and,
iv) 53 acres of property adjacent to the western side of Dublin Ranch.
b. The Discharger will also implement site design measures; including "green
parking tot" designs, source control measures, 'and treatment controls for many
areas of the Project, as specified in the SWMP.
Future Creek Crossings. The Discharger intends to construct two or three bridges
across creek conservation areas. These bridges will reduce the effective connectivity of
the conservation area habitat, and this impact to the larger conservation areas has been
considered as a part of the Discharger's overall mitigation proposal. The expected
crossings are comprised of: one double-span bridge or two single-span bridges across
Tassajara Creek, associated with the Discharger's expected future development of the
land around the Tassajara Creek Conservation Area with residential uses; and, the Fatlon
Road crossing of the Northern Drainage. None of the bridge crossings is expected to
result in the placement of fill into the creeks below ordinary high water. However, creek
impacts during or associated with future bridge construction may occur, and this Order
requ/res submittal of a ROWD for the future bridge construction projects.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis has not yet been completed for
the anticipated crossings. Thus, this Order does not permit their construction, and future
Order No. R2-2003-0031
10.
permitting for their construction will be required. However, the Discharger has provided
conceptual designs for the three crossings, and the Board anticipates that the crossings
and any associated mitigation will be incorporated into the Mitigation Plan, as discussed
in that Plan.
Financial Assurance: The Discharger has subm/tted an estimate of the cost of creek and
wetlm~d nzitigation implementation, intended to serve as an estimate for the provision of
fmanciaI assurance adequate to ensure the success of the proposed mitigation. This Order
requ/res the Discharger to submit its revised estimates and appropriate supporting
information, to address the revised monitoringperiods in the 1Viitigafion Plan. The
Discharge has submitted the final estimates, but not the supporting information. This
Order requires the Discharger to submit, prior to the start of?roject construction, a bond
or other appropriate instrument of financial assurance, callable by the Board, in the
amount of $3,59.1,620, plus the additional amount necessary to cover the revised
mitigation periods. The financial assurance mount may be stepped down upon the
successful completion of a mitigation item (i.e., the Northern Drainage rrfitigation as a
whole, Lin Livennore mitigation as a whole, etc.), as determined by the Executive
Officer. In addition, the Discharger may propose to step down the financial assurance for
certain items, like fencing, unlikely to fail once they have been appropr/ately constructed.
A proposal to do so must be submitted, prior to the start of Project construction; with the
required financial assurance instrument and proposal. The mitigation fmanciaI assurance
estimates are:
a. For the Northern Drainage mitigation, $1,097,740;
b. For the Tassaj ara Creek mitigation, $479,408; · .
c. For the Lin Livermore mitigation, $1,001,340; and,
d. For the on-site creeks, $1,013,t32.
Long-term Management: The long-term management of the mitigation sites will be
transferred to an appropriate land management group or agency, subject to the approval of
the Executive Officer. The Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM) is one such
group that has expressed interest in serving as the land manager of the Northern Drainage,
-Tassajara Creek, and Lin Livermore conservation areas. The Discharger has submitted
PAR analyses estimating the endowment amounts necessary for the appropriate
management, in perpetuity, of the conservation areas. This Order requires the Discharger
to work with a third party land manager accepted by the Board to finalize the
determination of what amount of money is necessary for an endowment fund to
adequately 5nance the monitoring and perpetual management and maintenance of th~
preserve and endangered species habitat protection areas, and to submit th/s
determination to the Board, acceptable to the Executive Officer. The Discharger has
presently estimated t~hat an amount of $963,525 is necessary, and this Order requires
provision of at least this amount, or a greater amount, as determined through consultation
v~ith the accepted land manager. Under the present estimate, the $963,525 is distributed
as follows:
a. For the Northern Drainage conservation area: $452,083;
b. For the Tassaj ara Creek conservation area: $ t 86,794; and,
Or~l~r ~o. tl2-2003-0031
I1.
12.
13.
14.
15.
c. For the Lin Livermore conservation area: $324,648..
On september 21, 2000, the Discharger submitted an initial application for Water Quality
Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements for the Project. That application was
subsequently completed by additional submittals.
The Board has determined to regulate the proposed discharge of fill materials into waters
of the State by issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) pursuant to S ection
13263 of the California Water COde (CWC) and23 CCR §3857, in addition to issuing
certification pursuant to 23 CCR §3859. The Board considers WDRs necessary to
adequately address imp acts and mitigation to beneficial uses of waters of the State from
th/s project, to meet the objectives of the California Wetlands Conservation Policy
(Executiv? Order W-59-93), and to accommodate and require appropriate changes over
the life of the project and its construction.
The Board, on June 21, 1995, adopted, in accordance with Section 13244 et. seq. of the
CWC, a revised Water Quality Control Plan, San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan). This
updated and consolidated revised Bas~{n Plan was approved by the State Water Resources
Control Board and the Office of Administrative Law on July 20,. 1995, and November I3,
1995, respectively. A summary of regulatory provisiOns is contained in 23 CCR 3912.
The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses and water quality obi ectives for waters of the
Sta_te~ including surface waters and groundwaters. This Order is in complianee with the
Basin Plan.
The subject wetlands, seasonal creeks, and other waters on the Project site are located in
the South Bay Basin, and are tributary to Arroyo Mocho. ~An-oyo Mocho flows into the
Arroyo de ia Laguna, Alameda Creek, and thence to San Francisco Bay. The Northern
Drainage and Tassajara Creek mitigation are tributary to Tassajara Creek, and thence to
Arroyo Mocho. The Lin Livennore mitigation site is tributary to the Arroyo Las Positas,
and thence to Arroyo Mocho. The Basin Plan does not explicitly identify beneficial uses
for waters on the Project site. However, the Basin Plan states that "[t]he beneficial uses
of any specifically identified waterbody generally apply to ail of its tributaries." The
Arroyo de la Laguna and Alameda Creek have the following ex/sting beneficial uses
defined in the Basin Plan: agricultural supply, cold freshwater habitat, ground water
recharge, fish migration; water contact recreation; non-contact water recreation; fish
spawning; warm freshwater habitat; and wildlife habitat. Additionally, waters on the
Project site provide potential habitat for the' preservation of rare and endangered species,
including breeding and dispersal habitat for the federally listed threa~tened CRLF, and
breeding habitat for the state-listed species of special concern CTS.
The Basin Plan Wetland Fill Policy (policy) establishes that there is to be no net loss of
wetland acreage and no net loss of wetland value when the project and any proposed
mitigation are evaluated together,- and that mitigation for wetland fill projects is to be
located in the same area of the Region, whenever possible, as the project. The policy
further establishes that wetland disturbance should be avoided whenever possible, and if
Order No. tL2-2003-003 t
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
not possible, should be minimized, and only after avoidance and minimization of impacts
should mitigation for lost wetlands be considered.
The goals of the California Wetlands Conservation Policy (Executive Order W-59-93,
signed August 23, 1993) include ensm'ing "no overall loss" and achieving a "...long-term
net gain in the quantity, quality, and permanence of wetland acreage and values .... "
Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 28 states that "[iii is the intent of the legislature to
preserve, protect, restore, and enhance California's wetlands and th® multiple resources
which depend on them for benefit of the people of the State." Section 13142.5 of the
CWC requireJ that the "[h]ighest priority shall be given to improving or elflninating
discharges that adversely affect...wetlands, estuaries, and other biologically sensitive
areas."
This Order applies to the temporary and permanent fill and indirect impacts to waters of
the State associated with the Project, which is comprised of the components listed in
Finding 1. Construction of the project will result in the permanent placement of fill in
and/or disturbance of 10.22 acres of jurisdictional waters, including freshwater seasonal
wetlands, seeps, and creeks. The permanent impact of this fill on waters was identified as
a potentially significant impact in the Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter EIR) and
Negative Declarations certified for the Proj eot.
The Discharger has submitted an Alternatives Analysis and supplemental information
de~c~'ibed in the Staff Report to show that appropriate effort was made to avoid and then
to minimize wetland disturbance, as required by the Basin Plan. Board and federal
agency staff held extensive additional discussions with the Discharger regarding its
Alternatives AnalYSiS. The Board concurs with the conclusions of the Alternatives
Analysis, as supplemented.
Discharges o£ storm water associated with construction activity will occur. The CEQA
documents certified for the Project identify such discharges, including the pollutants
associated with them, as a potentially significant impact. The Discharger is responsible
for obtaining appropriate permits for these discharges, including complying with the rules
and' regulations of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements. This includes complying with the requirements of State Water Resources
Control Board Water Quatity Order No. 99-08-DWQ, the N-PDES General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (hereinafter General
Permit).
Discharges of storm water associated with the post-construction operation and
maintenance of the Project will occur following its completion. The CBQA documents
certified for the Project identify such discharges, including the pollutants associated with
them, as apotentially significant flnpact The Discharger is responsible for obtaining
appropriate permits for these discharges, including complying with the rules and'
regulations of NPDES permit requirements. This includes comply/ng with the
~equ~irements placed on the Project under NPDBS Permit CAS0029831, the NPDES
Order Bio. 1t2-2003-003
MunicipM Storm Water Permit that covers the City of Dublin. The Discharger has
submitted a SWlVlP for its project that, together with the additional submittals required
under this Order, is consistent with the requirements ofbIPDES Permit CAS002953 t,
Provision C.3, the permit provisions addressing new and redevelopment projects.
21.
22.
Because of the Project's proximity to sensitive resources, including special status species
habitat, and potential to discharge materials that could significantly impact those
resources, this Order requires the Discharger to submit a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan or Plans (SW-PPPs) for the Project, prepared pursuant to the provisions of
the General Permit, at least 60 days prior to the beginning of construction for the Project.
Discharges of ground water or other non-storm water during construction may be
required. This Order considers such discharges covered by the General Permit,
contingent on submittal of an acceptable discharge plan at least 30 days Prior to such a
discharge.
23.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires all projects approved by
State agencies to be in full compliance with CEQA, and requires a lead agency to prepare
an appropriate environmentM document (e.g., Environmental Impact Report or Negative
Declaration) for such projects. The Board finds, after review of the Project's
environmental documents, that al! environmental impacts have been identified and, with
compliance with the conditions of this Order, will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. On May 10, 1993, the City of Dublin certified the Addendetm .and Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Eastern Dublin General Plan Aznendment-and
Specific Plan, which includes the Project. On November 18, 1997, the City of Dubtin
certified Negative Declarations for Dublin Ranch Areas A through E, and on February 15,
2000, for Dublin Ranch Areas F, G, and H, which include the Project area andJZor areas
associated with the Project and its mitigation.
24.
On August 14, 2000;lhe U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) issued a Public Notice
for a proposed Individual Permit for the Project (Corps File No. 25144S) pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
25.
On JUly 1, 2002, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued
Biological' Opinion for the Project (T_TSFWS File No. 1-1-01-F-0208).
26.
Pursuant to 23 CCR Sections 3857 and 3859, the Board is issuing WDRs and Water
Quality Certification for the Project as described herein.
27.
The Board has notified the Corps, City, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), CDFG,
and other interested agencies and persons of its intent to prescribe WDRs and Water
Quality Certification for this discharge.
28.
The Board, in a public meeting, heard and considered all comments pertaining to the
discharge. ..
Order No. R_2-2003-0031
29.
This Project file is maintained at the Board under File No. 2199.9439 and Site No. 02-0I-
C0508.
IT IS HEREBY ORDER_ED that Chang Su-O Lin (aka Jennifer Lin), Hong Lien Lin (aka
Frederic'Lin), and t-tong Yao Lin (aka Kevin Lin)(hereinafter Discharger), in order to meet the
provisions contained in Division 7 of the California Water Code and regulations adopted
thereunder, shall comply with the following, pursuant to authority under CWC Sections 13263
and 13267:
A. Discharge Prohibitions
1. The direct discharge of wastes, including rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid
wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would
be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plains, is prohibited.
2. The discharge of floating oil or other floating materials from any activity in quantities
sufScient to cause deleterious bottom deposits, turbidity, or discoloration in surface
waters is prohibited.
3. The discharge ~f silt, sand, clay, or other earthen materials from any activity in quantities
sufficient to cause deleterious bottom deposits, turbidity, or discoloration in surface
Waters is pro?fibited.
4. The wetland fill activities subject to these requirements shall not cause a nuisance as
defined in CWC §13050(m).
5. The discharge of decant water from active dredging or fill sites and dredged material
stockpile or storage areas to surface waters or surface water drainage courses is
prohibited, except as conditionally allowed following the submittal of a discharge plan or
plans as described in the Provisions.
6. The ~oundwater in the vicinity of the Project shall not be de~aded as a result of the
Project activities or placement of fill for the Project.
7. The discharge of materials other than storm water, which are not otherwise regulated by a
separate NPDES permit or allowed by this.Order, to waters of the State is prohibited..
$. The discharge of drilling muds to waters of the State, or where such muds could be
discharged to waters of the State, is prohibited.
B. Provisions
Order No. R.2-2003-003
The Discharger shall ¢omply with all Prohibitions and Provisions of this Order
immediately upon adoption of this Order or as provided below.
The Discharger shall submit copies of all necessary approvals and/or permits for the
Project and mitigation projects from applicable government agencies, including, but not
Iirnited to, CDFG, USFWS, City of Dublin, and Corps, for each Project Component as
applicable to that component, prior to the start of construction on that component.
Project Implementation Deadlines
No construction shah commence on any Project component m~fil all required documents,
reports, plans, and studies required in the Provisions associated with that component have
been submitted to and found acceptable by the Executive Officer. For example, mass
gading for the Project may begin, within the timelines of the related Provisions, when the
required financial assurance documents, SW-PPP, and other documents required in the
Provisions have been accepted by the Executive Officer. In all cases where the
Discharger is required to make a submittal acceptable to the Executive Officer, the
Executive Officer may determine that construction may begin sooner than the specified
number of days for the submittal prior to the beginning of construction.
Not later than 60 days prior to the beginrfing of construction, the Discharger shall submit,
acCe. ptgble to the Executive Officer, a Plan that includes ali appropriate Mitigation Plan
implementation details that are not presently included in the Mitigation Plan. This
includes planting plans and details such as designs and construction drawings for in-'
stream structures, pond reconstructions, irrigation plans, and all other information, as
appropriate. Upon the Executive Officer's determination that the Plan is acceptable, the
Executive Officer may determine that constrUction may begin sooner than 60 days
following submittal of the acceptable Plan. ~-
A Plan for the following mitigation component may be submitted later than 60 days prior
to the beginning of construction, but must be submitted within twelve months of the date
of Board approval of this Order: the 7.43 acre mitigation area at the base of the Northern
Drainage watershed above Tassaj ara Road, including the reconstruction of the road
crossing.
A Plan for the proposed on-site creek reconstruction may be submitted later than 60 days
prior to the beginrfing of construction, but shall be submitted no later than the time of on-
site project design for adjacent urban development (i.e., residential and/or non-residential
uses), and shall include a schedule for construction at the same time as or prior to grading
for that adjacent development.
The Plan must include:
a. Proposed channel designs and earthwork for all creeks, including appropriate
longitudinal and Cross sections and plan views;
Order No
R2-2003-0031
A detailed planting plan, including species lists, plant sizes and numbers, and
planting designs relative to creek cross sections and plan views;
An irrigation plan for the mitigation areas, where irrigation is proposed;
A worlcplan for fuzure submittals of specific details and plans for all creek
sections that will be culverted~ bridged, or otherwise crossed or immediately
adjoined by roads, paths, or similar improvements;
A finalized financial assurances proposal with ail appropriate detai! on financial
assurances being provided to ensure the establishment and success, in perpetuity,
of the proposed mitigation;
An implementation schedule that provides for completion of construction of the
proposed mitigation within 24 months of the Board's adoption of this Order~
proposed timing for the reconstruction of the Tassajara Road crossing of the
Northern Drainage to a bridge design as specified above, and estimated timing for
the submittal of bridge crossing ROW]Ds for the Fallon Road/Northern Drainage
and Tassaj ara Creek crossings. However, completion of construction of the
Northern Drainage mitigation, except the 7.43 acre site and Tassajara Road
Crossing, may be as late as 30 months following the Board's adoption of tbJs
Order. Completion of construction for the 7.43 acre site and Tassajara Road
Crossing shall be no later than 36 months following the Board's adoption of this
Order. The implementation schedule shall ensure the completion of the maj ofity
of work within the first 12 months following Board adoption of this Order;
Incorporation ofH.T. Harwy & Associates' memo of March 12, 2003, into the
Mitigation Plan's Performance Standards and Success Criteria;
Revised Grazing Plan/Habitat Management Plan language to reflect that the
gazing regime in a conservation area may be altered during the grazing season,
within the limits of the Plans~ if it is clear that the expected performance standards
wilt not be met;
Incorporation of the following success criteria for the success of CRLF and CTS~
as per the Habitat Management Plans, into the Mitigation Plan:
i) CRLF: The proposed Northern Drainage and Lin Livermore mitigation
sites shall each resUlt in the creation and/or enhancement of habitat in
which CRLF are breeding and of high-quality dispersal habitat for CRLF,
and on which CRLF predators have been appropriately minimized. The
proposed Tassajara Creek mitigation site shall result in high-quality
habitat for the CRLF, in which CRLF are present and CtLLF predators
have been appropriately minimized.
ii) CTS: The proposed Northern Drainage mitigation sites shall result in the
creation of habitat providing hi~=A-quality breeding, larval, and aestivation
habitat; and,
All other information related to this Provision, Sections a-i, as appropriate.
As-built plans for the mitigation sites shall be prepared as per the Mitigation Plan, and
submitted to the Board within 8 weeks of the completion of mitigation site construction.
l0
~ 1
Order 1~o. R2-200~-003
Axnxuat monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Board by December 31 of each
monitoring year, as per the 1Vfitigafion Plan, and m~tiI the sites have met their performance
standards and final success criteria and the Executive O{ficer has accepted a notice of
mitigation completion for each site. Nionitorlng reports shall be prepared as described,
and shall also include the proposed annual grazing and special~-status species monitoring,
i~cluding photogaphs, residual dry matter monitoring results, and all other information,
as appropriate.
Not later than 60 days prior to the begirming of construction, the Discharger shall submit,
acceptable to the Executive Officer, draft conservation easements for all mitigation areas,
including finalized locations of the two easement zones on Tassajara Creek and the
adjacent tributaries as more specifically set forth herein. Upon the Executive Officer's
acceptance of the draft easements, the Executive Officer may determine that work may
begin sooner than' 60 days after subrrJittal of acceptable easements. The drafts shall be
finalized within ten months of the date of adoption of this Order-and finaIexecuted
easements, acceptable to the Executive Officer, shall be submitted within twelve months
bfthe date of adoption of this Order.
a. The Tassajara Creek Conservation Area (TCCA) easements shall follow the
stability analysis completed by Berlogar GeoTechnicat Consultants, as reported in
the Mitigation Plan, sufficient to provide that the boundary between the habitat
conservation area ("Tassajara Creek Management Zone," or TCMZ) and the
private conservation area is at or outside a stable setback from the banks of
· Tassajara Creek, Moller !Ranch' Creek, and the Northern Drainage. The private
conservation area easement may allow the following uses in that area: a
pedestrian trail; water quality features (e.g., vegetated swales or detention basins
to treat stormwater runoff); and, the placement of fill into upland areas.
b. The construction of a pedestrian trail within the Northern Drainage Conservi~/on
Area shall be prohibited, except upon submittal, acceptable to the Executive
Officer, of an acceptable trail desi=~n. Such a, design shall minimize any
encroachment into the Conservation Area. Where encroachment is necessary, it
shall be limited to hill areas on the south side of the Northern Drainage (e.g.,
along the existing paved water tank access road, or at a similar elevation).
The Discharger shall submit a ROWD or ROW-Ds for each of its proposed bridge
crossings of the conservation areas as discussed in the Findings, and receive appropriate
review and action by the B card, prior to beginning construction of those projects.
Not later than 60 days prior to the beginning of construction, the Discharger shall submit,
acceptable to the Executive Officer, a SWMt~ implementation plan. The SW1VIP
implementation plan shall include the following:
a. A work plan and schedule for the proposed submittal, acceptable to the Executive
(jfficer, of final designs for the proposed regional water quality pond, and
including a schedule for the pond's construction and completion, not less than 48
months after the beginning ofProj ect construction, or after the development of at
least 60 percent of the Project (streets and utilities in place and building pads
11
Order No2 R2-2003-0031
10.
graded), whichever occurs first.. This shall also include a work plan and schedule
for the submittal of an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) plan, as described in
the SWlvIP, that addresses O&M for the regional pond and other BMPs;
Submittal of finalized Storm Water Quality Deed Restrictions and proposed
funding amounts under the Deed Restrictions, sufbcient to ensure the appropr/ate
O&M of the regional pond and other BMPs for their lifetime;
Provision for subm_/ttal to 'the Board of City of Dublin-approved post-construction
Stonnwater Management Plans for projects in the General Commercial,
Commercial, and medium-high and high-density residential areas, within areas B,
C, and I-I, at the time those projects are constructed.
Board staff shall review the submitted SW1VfPs to determine whether appropriate
design measures, source controls, and treatment measures, as described in the
project SWMP, have been included to the maximum extent practicable (M_BP) in
those projects. Should the Executive Officer determine that the Plans have failed
to include those measures to the MEP, the Executive Officer shall notify the
Discharger and the City of Dubtin of this determination in writing. After such a
notification, future sub-project specific S-W-MPs shall be submitted, acceptable to
the Executive Officer, at least 60 days prior to the berg of construction for
each sub-project. Should a sub-project specific SWMP be unacceptable to the
Executive Officer, then Board staff shM1 provide comments on the SWMP within
30 days of S.WMP submittal. TbJs process (i.e., required submittal of sub-project
SWM-Ps, acceptable to the Executive Officer, prior to construction)shall continue
until the C{ty~ofDublin has demonstrated, acceptable to the Executive Officer,
that it has revised/ts review and approval process sufficient to ensure that
appropriate BMPs will be included to the MEP in Dublin Ranch Sub-projects.
Not later than 60 days prior to the beginning of construction, the Discharger shall submit,
acceptable to the Executive Officer, proof of financial assurahce adequate to ensure the
success of the proposed creek 'and wetland mitigation as described in l~inding 9. This
may consist cfa bond, certificate of deposit, or other instrument callable by the Board in
· the event of creek and/or wetland mitigation failure. This financial assurance shall be no
less than $3,591,620. Not liter than one week before submitting its proof of financial
assurance, the Discharger shall submit a report, acceptable to the Executive Officerl w/th
the supporting information necessary to demonstrate that this~ amount includes that
necessary to cover the revised mitigation periods, as revised in the Mitigation~ Plan. The
Discharger may submit, acceptable to the Executive Officer, a proposal to "step down"
the mitigation over time, as described in the Findings.
Not later than 60 days prior to the beginning of construction, the Discharger shall submit,
acceptable to the Executive Officer, a draft agreement with a third party appropriate to
manage the conservation areas perpetuity. Upon the Executive Officer's acceptance of
the draft agreement, the Executive Officer may determine that work may be~n sooner
than 60 days after submittal of the agreement. The draft shall be finalized within ten
months of the date of adoption of this Order and a final executed agreement, acceptable to
I2
Order No. tL2-2003-0031
the Executive Officer, shall be submitted within twelve months of the date of adoption of
m_is Order. The fmaIized dram and final agreements shall include a determination
regarding what amount of money is necessary for an endowment fund to adequately
finance t~ke monitoring and perpetual management and maintenance of the conservation
areas. Tn_is amount shall be not less than $963,525.
.12.
13.
Not later than 60 days prior to the beginning of construction of any project component,
the Discharger shall submit, acceptable to the Executive Officer, a SWPPP to address the
Project's expected conslTuction stage impacts.
Any changes t6 the final mitigation plans referenced in the Provisions must be approved
in writing by the Executive Officer.
Notice
14.
of Mitigation Completion
When the Discharger has determined that an area of the mitigation (i.e., Northern
Drainage, Tassajara Creek, Lin Livermore, On-site Creeks) has achieved the performance
standards and final success criteria specified in the Mitigation Plan, it shall submit a
notice 0fmifigation completion (notice), acceptable to the Executive Officer. The notice
shall include a status report on the implementation of the long-term maintenance and
management portion of the'Mitigation Plan and a description of the status of the
mitigation component that has been determined to be successful. After acceptance of the
notice in writing by the Executive 0£ficerl the Discharger's submittal of annual
mitigation monitoring reports for that n-fitigation component is no longer required.
Other Provisions
15.
16.
' Ail reports pursuant to these Provisions shall be prepared under the supervision of
suitable professionals registered in the State of CaliforrJa.
The Discharger shall immediately notifY the Board by telephone whenever an adverse
condition occurs as a result of this discharge. Such a condition includes, but is not
lknited {o, a-'violation Of the conditions of this Order, a significant spill of petroleum
products or toxic chemicals, or damage to control facilities that would cause
noncompliance. Pursuant to CWC §t3267(b), a written notification of the adverse
condition shall be submitted to the Board within two weeks of occurrence. The written
notification shall identify the adverse condition, describe the actions necessary to remedy
the condition, and specify a timetable, subject to the modifications of the Board, for the
remedial actions.
17.
Should discharges of otherwise uncontaminated ground water contarrfinated with
suspended sediment or other non-storm water that has accumulated in utility trenches or
other portions of the Project be required, where such discharges are not otherwise covered
by an applicable NPDES permit, such discharges may be considered covered by the
General Permit, following the Discharger's submittal of a discharge/treatment plan,
13
Order No. R_2-2003-0031
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
acceptable to the Executive Officer, at least 30. days prior to such a discharge.
The Discharger shM1 notify the Board hn writing at least 30 days prior to actual start dates
for each Proieot component (i.e., prior to the start of grading or other construction activity
for any.Proj ~ct comp onent, including the creek and wetland mitigatiOn components).
The Discharger shall at all times fully comply with the engineering plans, specifications,
and technicM reports submitted with its application for water quality certification and the
completed report of waste discharge.
The Discharger is considered to have full responsibility for correcting any and ail
problems that arise in the event cfa failure that results in an unauthorized release of
waste or wastewater.
The discharge of any hazardous, designated or non-haZardous waste as defined in Title
23, Division 3, Chapter 15 of the California Administrative Code, shall be disposed of in
accordance with appIicable state and federal regulations.
The Discharger shall remove and relocate any wastes that are discharged at any sites in
violation of this Order.
In accordance with CWC §13260, the Discharger shM! file with the Board a report of any
material change or proposed change in the ownership, character, location, or quantity of
this waste discharge. Any proposed material change in operation shall 'be reported to the
Executive Officer at least 30 days in advance of the proposed implementation of any
change. This shall include, but not be limited to, all significant new soil disturbances, all
proposed expansion of development, or any change in drainage characteristics at the
Project site. For the purpose of this Order, this inctudes any proposed change in the
boundaries of the area of Wetland/waters of the United States to be filled.
The following standard conditions apply to this Orddr:
Every certification action is subject to modificaticm or revocation upon
administrative or judicial review, including review and amendment pursuant to
CWC §13330 and 23 CCR §3867.
Certification is not intended and shall not be construed to apply to any activity
involving a hydroelectric facility and requir/ng a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) license or an amendment to a FERC license unless the
pertinent certification application was filed pursuant to 23 CCR §3855(t>) and that
application specifically identifi4d that a FERC license or amendment to a FERC
license for a hydroelectric facility was being sought.
I4
Order ~No. R2~200~-0031
25.
26'.
27.
28.
c. Certification is conditioned upon total payment of any fee required pursuant to 23
CCR §3533 and owed by the discharger.
The Discharger shall maintain a copy of this Order at the Project site so as to be available
at all times to site operating personnel and agencies.
The Discharger shall permit the Board or its authorized representative at all times, upon
presentation of credentials:
a. Entry onto Project premises, including all areas on which wetland fill or wetland
mitigation is located or in which records are kept.
b. Access to copy any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of
this Order.
c. InsPection of any treatment eqUipment, monitoring equipment, or monitor/rig
method required by this Order.
d. Sampling of any discharge or surface Water covered by this Order.
This Order does not authorize commission of any act causing injury to the property of
another or of the public; does not convey any property rights; does not remove liability
under federal, state, or local laws, regulations or rules of other programs .and agencies, nor
does this Order authorize the discharge of wastes without appropriate permits from other
agenciss or organizations.
./
The Board will consider recission ofth/s Order upon Project Completion and the
Executive Officer's acceptance of notices of completion of mitigation for all mitigation,
creation, and enhancement projects required or otherwise perm!tted now or subsequently
under this Order. '
I, Loretta K. Barsamian, Executive Officer, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full,
complete, and correct copy of an Order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality
r 'O
Control Board, San Franmsc Bay Region, on April t6, 2003.
x',,~Lo~rCt~a I<2. Barsamian
Executive Officer
15
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
333 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105-2'1'97
lP, eg~,flatory Branch
SUB JECT: File Number 25144S
Mr. James Tong
6601 Owens Drive, Suite 100
Pleasanton, California 94566
Dear Mr. Tong:
Enclosed is yo~.rr signed copy of~t Department of the Army permit (Enclosure 1) to construct a
masterplanned residential, commercial and open space development "m the City of Dublin,
Alameda County, California.
Please complete the appropriate parts of "Notice to Permittee" form (Enclosure 2), and return
it to this office. You are responsible for ensuring that the contractor and workers executing the
activity :authorized herein are knowledgeable with the terms and conditions of this authorization.
ShoUld you have any questions regarding this matter, please call Bob Smith of our Regulatory
Branch at 415-977-8450. Please address ail correspondence to tl~e Regnlatory Branch and refer
to the file number at the head of this letter.
Enclosures
Copy Furnished (w'/encl I only):
US EPA, San Francisco, CA
US FWS, Sacramento, CA
CA RWQCB, Oakland, CA
CA DFG, Yountville, CA
sincerely,
Lieutenant Colonei, U.S. Army
District Engil~e.er
{PRIVATE }
NOTICE TO PERMITTEE
Please use the fondus below to report the dates when you stm~ and finish fl~e work a~tthorized by the enclosed permit Also if you suspend work
for an extended period oft/me, use the forms below to report the dates you suspended and resumed work. The second copy is for your
records. If you fred that you cannot complete the work within the time ~anted by the permit, please apply for a time extension at least one
monttx before your permit expires. If you materially change the plan or scope 0fthe work, it will be necessary for you. to submit new drawings
mid a request for a modification of your permit.
(cut out as needed) .................................................................................................................... * ....... ' ........ ' .........
Date:
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF WORK under Department of the Army perrrfit No, 25144S
TO: Disnict Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197
In compliance with the conditions of the permit dated 5/23/03 to consn-uct a master planned community in the City of Dublin, this is to notify
you that the work was completed on
Permittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al.
Address: 8601 Owens Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94566-
Date:
NOTICE OF RESU~.M~I'TION OF WORK under Department of the Army permit No. 25144S
TO: District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197
In compliance with the condkions of the permit dated 5/23/03 to construct a master plmxned community in the City of Dublin, this is to noti~
you that work was resumed on
Permittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al.
Address: 660t Owens Drive, Suite 100 Pteasanton, CA 94566-
Date:
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF WORK under Depa~nent of the Army permit No. 25144S
TO: District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197
In compl/ance with the conditions of the permit dated 5/23/03 to construct a master planned community in the City of Dublin, this is to ~oti~
you that work was suspended on
Permittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al.
Address: 660t Owens Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94566-
Date:
NOTICE OF COMIvIENCE3/fENT OF WORK under Deparnnent of the Army permit No. 25144S
TO: District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197
in compliance ~ith the condbtions of the permit dated 5/23/03 to construct a master planned cormnunity in the City of Dublin, this is to notify
you that work was commenced on
Permittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al.
Address: 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94566-
t Aug 94
NOTICE TO PEm~iITTEE
Please use the fo~nns below to report the dates when you start and finish the work authorized bythe enclosed permit Also if you suspend work
· for ap. extended period of time, use the forms below to report the dates you suspended and resumed work. The second copy is for yom'
records. If you fred that you cannot com¢lete the work within the time granted by the permit, please apply for a thme extension at least one
month before your permk expires. If yon~materialty change the plan or scope of the work, it will be necessary for you to submit new drawings
and a request for a modification of your permit.
(cu*~ oz~t as needed) .............. - .... ~ ................................................................................................................ r ..........
Date:
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF WORK under Department of the Army perm/t No. 25144S
TO: District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Re~latory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197
In compliance with the conditibns of the permit dated 5/~3/0~ to construct a master planned community in the City of Dublin, this is to notify
you that the work was completed on
Permittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al.
Address: 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94566-
Date:
NoTIcE OF RESUlVI-PTION OF WORK under Depamnent of the Army permit No. 25144S
TO: District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197
In compliance with the conditions of the perrnJ~ dated 5/23/03 to construct a master p!armed community in the C~ty of Dublin, 'this is to notify
you that work was resumed on
Permittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al.
Address: 6601 Owens Drive', Suite I00 Pleasanton, CA 94566-
Date:
NOTICE OF SUSPENSION OF WORK under Depamnent of the Army permit No. 25144S
TO: D/strict Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105-2197
In compliance with the conditions of the permit dated 5/23/03 to construct a master planned community in the City of Dublin, this is to notify
you that work was suspended on
Permittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al..
Address: 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 100 Pleasanton, CA 94566-
Date:
NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF WORK under Department o~the Army permit No. 25144S
T°: District Engineer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, 333 Market Street, 8th Floor, S an Francisco, CA 94105-2197
In compliance with the conditions of the permit dated 5/23/03 to construct a master planned Community in the City of Dublin, this is to notify
you that' work was commenced on
Permittee: Jennifer Lin, et. al.
Address: 6601 Owens Drive, Suite 100 Pteasanton, CA 94566-
I Aug 94
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT
Permittee: Jennifer Linn, et al.
?ermit No.: 25144S.
Issuing Office: San Francisco District
NOTE. The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term
"this office" refers to the appropriate .district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the
permitted activity, or the appropriate official of thai affice acting under the authority of the commanding officer.
You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below.
Project Description:
You are authorized to discharge filI into 10.22 acres of wetlands and waters of the United
States to construct a residential and commercial development. Work shall be carried out in
accordance with the attached plans and drawings labeled "APPLICATION BY: Jennifer Lin, et
al; LOCATION: Dublin, CA; COUNTY: Alameda; PURPOSE: Residential, Commercial and
Open Space Development." in 17 sheets, dated April 17, 2000 and April 21, 2003.
Proj oct Lo cation:
The project site is located on unnamed drainages between Tassajara Road and FalIon Road in the
City of DUblin, Alameda, County', California.
Permit Conditions:
General Conditions:
1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on Oct 15~ 2008. Ify0u find that you need more
time to complete the authorized activity, submit your ~equest for a time extension to this office for consideration at least
one month before the above date is reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and
conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you may.
make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to
maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to '~band0n it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modifi-
cation of this perm!t'from this office, which may require restoration of the area.
3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeologicat remains while accompli~hizcg the activity authorized
by th}s permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state
coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places.'
ENG FORM I721, Nov 86
1
4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of~ke new owner in the space
provided and forward a copy of the p~rmit to this office to validate the ~ransfer of this authorization.
5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, yon must comply with ~he conditions
specified in the certification as special conditions to this perntit. For your convenience, a copy of the certifica-~ion is
attached i~ it cor~tains such conditions.
6. You mus~ allow representatives from this off%ge to inspect tl~e authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to
ensure thai it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permk.
Special Conditions:
1. The permittee shall co'mply .with the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion~a issued on July 1,
2002 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Service pursuant to Section ? of the Endangered Species Act. A
copy 0£ the opinion is attached.
2. h/litigation shall be carried out in accordance with the mitigation and monitoring plan preparedfor this
project by H.T. Harvey & Associates labeled: "~roject Area t~[itigatioh and Monitoring Plan, Dublin, Cali-
fornia'' dated March 3, 2003.
Further [nformation:
1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized To undertake the activity described above pursuant tof
( ) Section I0 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of t899 (33 U.S.C. 403).
(X) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
( ) Section 103 of the 1V~arine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413).
2. Limits of this authorization.
a. Tt~is permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Fe4eraI, stare, or local authorizations required by l~w.
b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
c. This pern~it does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project.
3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does.nor assume any li~bility for the
following:
a. Dmr~ages to the pertained project or uses thereof as a result of other oermitted or unpermitted activities or fi'om
na~m'ai causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as ~/result of current or future activities undertaken by or on
behalf of the United States in the public interest.
c. D~ages to persons, property, or to other per~tted or unpermitted activities or swucrures caused by the activity
authorized by this pem~it.
d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the ~ermi~cted work.
e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit,
4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to
the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided.
5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision: This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the
circumstances warrant. Circumstances thai could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the follow-
lng:
a. You fail t0 comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incom-
plete, or inaccurate (See 4 above).
c. S[gmificant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public
interest decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and
revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR
326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement thiocedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requir-
ing you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where
appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply
with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in )3 CFR 209.170) accomplish the
corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost.
6. Extensions. General condition I establishes a time limit for the completion of the activity authorized by this
permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized acthdty or a reevalua-
tion of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to a request for an extension
of this time limit.
below, as permittee, indicates that yon accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of
This permit becomes effective when the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below.
(District ~7~gine er)Mi~~ LTC, EN
When the structures or work authorized by this permit are still in existence at the time ~e proper~ is transferred, the terms
and conditions of this permit w[I1 continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the properW. To validate the tr~sfer of
this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with irs terms and conditions, have the transferee sign
and date below.
(Transferee) (D ate)
San
Francisco
AF
Francisco
Bay
Livermo,re . .~
Pacific OCean
San Jose
DetaiI j
I /
PURPOSE: .ltesidtntial, Comme~{al and Open
Space D~v~lopm~nt
SO'~CB OF BASB: NGVD
~IACBNT PROFB~ O~RS:
Se~ Applicadon
V[CU~r rf MAP
Sc'at~: 1" = 10 mi
APPLICATION 'BY:
f~nnifer L{n, et al.
cio fames Tong
6601 Owens Dr., So-itc 100
Pleasanton, CA 94566
PROJECT AREA
LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'~ East of
Tassajm-a Road and 200'~ North o71-580.
COIJq'ZFY: Alameda
FIGURE: 1 of I7 DATE: April 17, 2000
PD?~POSE:' t~.¢sidonfia[, Con.inertial and Open
Space Dcvclopmcn~
SOUP~CB OF BASE: NGVD
.4.DIACER!T PROPERTY OWNERS:
Application
DETAIL AREA Iv[.&.?
Soalc: 1" = 3 mi
A.PPLICATiON BY:
.~muifer Lin, ct. al.
· ¢/o .[ames Tong '
6601 Owens Dr., Sake 100
P[aasan~on, CA. 9456~
PROYBCT AR_BA
LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'± East of
Tassaj aza Road and 200"-. _~orih of
COU-NT¥: Alam'~da.
FIGD~B: 2 of 17 DAT~: April 17, 2000
M5
M2
N?
M
05
M5
H
------ CO
LEGEND 1-580
M7
M6
co
MH
05
1
GC
PURPOSE: RcsidcntiaI, Commercial and Open
Space Development
SOURCB OF BASB: NGYD
ADJACENT PROPBRTY OWNBRS:
S¢¢ Application
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
0 250 500 100D
SCALE: 1 "= 1000'
APPLICATION BY:
Yennifer Lin, ct. at.
¢/o James Tong
660t Owens Dr., Suite
Pleasanton~ CA 94566 '
PROJECT AREA
LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900% East of Tassajara
Road and 200'± North of 1-580.
COUNTY: Alameda
FIGURE: 3 of 17 DATE: April 21, 2003
PLqLPOSE: Resid~atlaJ, Cormmercisl and Open
Space DeveIopm~nL
SOURCE OF BASE: NGVD
.AZ)3ACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
See Application
FVRISDICTIONAL WA'~'~z~:S OF
LT~ITBD STATES
0 250 500 ~ 000
SCALE: 1" = ! 000'
APPLICATION BY:
Jennifer Li~ et. J.
:/o James Tong
650I Owens Dr., Suite
Pteasanton, CA 9456~
PROIECT AREA
LOCATION:' Dublb, CA. 900'± East of Tassajara
Road and 200'-'- North of 1-580.
COUNTY: Almmeda
FIGURE: 4 of I7 DATE: ApX1 17, 2000
AREA
'\
F
ARnA B
J
LEGEND
I-5~0
WATEP.~. O~= TH~ UNITED eTAT~5 TO. [SE ?ILL~D
AREA
AREA
PURPOSE: Residsmtial, Commercial and Opsn
Space Development
SOURCE OF BASE: NGVD
ADIACBNT ?ROPBRTY OWNERS:'
See Application
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
TO BE FTLLED
0 250 500 1000
$CALF": 1 "= 1000'
APPLICATION BY:
Jennifer Lin, bt. al,
eYo James Tong
660t Owens Dr., Suite t00
Pl~asanton, CA 94566
PROJECT AREA
LOCATION: Dublin,.CA. 900% East of Tassajara
Road and 200'~: North ofi-580,
COUNTY: Alameda
FlOUR.E: 5 of 17 DATE: April 21, 2003
AREA
AREA B
AREA H
AR~=A C
1-580
LI:GRND
PUR_POSE: Residential, Commercial and Open
Space Development
SOURCE OF BASE: NGVD
AJDIACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
See Application
ON-SITE MITIGATION
0 ' 250 500 -I000
SCALE: 1 "~ 1 00O'
APPLICATION BY:
7ennifer Lin, et. at.
c/o James Tong
6601 Owens Dr., Suite
Pleasanton, CA 94566
PROJECT At~BA
LOCATION: Dnblin, CA, 900"-. East of Tassajara
Road and 200'± North of 1-580.
COUNTY: Alamcda
FIOUR~: 6 of 17 DATE: .April 21, 2003
PI/RPOSE: ResidendaI, Commercial and Open
Space Development
SOURCE OF BASE: NGVD
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
See Application
OFF-SITE MITIGATION
APPLICATION BY:
Jennifer Lin, et. al.
c/o James Tong
6601 Owens Dr., Suite 100
Pleasanton, CA 94566
PROJECT AREA
LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'± East of
Tassajara Road and 200'± No.~rla o£I-580.
COUNTY: Alameda
FIGURE: 7 of t 7 DATE: Apr-il 2 t, 2003
Norl~m D~na~e
Riparian R~
PURPOSE: Resident{al, Commercial and Open
Space Development
'SOURCE OF BASE: NGVD
ADJACENT PROPERTY' OWNERS:
See App~i'eaSi On
NORTHERN DP,_gJ~AGE & REDGWICK
PLAN VIEW
APPLICATION BY:
Jennifer Lin, et. al.
e/o. Jam~s. Tang
6601 Owens Dr., Suite 100
Pleasantoa, CA 94566
PROJECT AREA
LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'± East of
· Tassa~ara Road and 200,4- North o£I-580.
COUNTY: Alameda
FIGURE: 10 of 17 DATE: April21,2003
PURPOSE: Residential, Commercial and Open
Space Development
SOURCE OF BASE: NGVD
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
S ce App lication
NORTHERN DRAINAGE & REDGWICK
SECTION VIEW
APPLICATION BY:
Jenrdfer Lin, et. M.
c/o James Tong
6601 Owens Dr., Suite t00
Pleasanton, CA 94566
PROJECT AR~A
LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'± East of
Tassajara Road and 200'* North ofi-580.
COUNTY: Alameda
FIGURE: i I of 17 DATE: April 2I, 2003
Legend
Red.qeggec~ Frog Pond:
Pond I · 3.17 acres
Seasonal Wetland Ponds:
Pond 2 1.84 acres
Pond 3 0.99 acres-
Wetland and
R~F Ponds: 25.73 ac~es
Exisling Stock Pond
Originally Proposed Wetland
Pond
~ New Seasonal WetJand Pond
Exis~ng Wetlands to be
preserved and Enhanced
36 inch average ponding depth
~2 inch average pond[ng depth
Ponds 1,4,$ and 11 will Incorporate
deeper subaones with maximum
depths of 48 inches
Lin Liverrnore Conservation Area
USACE Tributary WatBr to Ps
preserved and Ennanced
Seasonal Drainage to be Presaged
and Enhanced
PURPOSE: Residential, Commercial and Open
Space Development
SOURCE OF BASE: NGMD
ADJACENT PROPERTY OW-N~RS:
See Application
LIN LIVERMORE MITIGATION SITE
PLAN VIEW
APPLICATION BY:
Jennifer Lin, et. al.
c/o James Tong
6601 Owens Dr., Suite 100
Pleasanton, CA 94566
PROJECT AREA
LOCATION': Dublin, CA. 900'~- East of
Tassajara Road and 200,4- North of 1-580.
COUNTY: Alameda
FIGURE: 12 of 17 DATE: April 21, 2003
PURPOSE: Residential, Commercial and Open
Space Development
SOURCE OF BASE: NGVD
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
See Applicat/on
LIN LIVERMOtLE MITIGATION SITE
SECTION VIEW
APPLICATION BY:
Jennifer Lin, et. al.
c/o James Tong
6601 Owens Dr., Suite 100
Plea¢anton, CA 94566
PROJECT AREA
LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'± East of
Tassajara Road and 200'-' North ofi-580.
COUNTY: Alameda
FIGURE: 13 of 17 DATE: April 21,2003
PURPOSE: Residential, Commercial and Open
Space Development
· SOURCE OF BASE: NOVD
AD/ACENT PROPERTY OI~krERs:
'Se~ ApiJIi~o~
TAS SAJ'AR.A CREEK
PLAN VIEW
APPLICATION BY:
Jennifer Lin, et. al.
.¢Zo. James. Toag
6601 Owens Dr., Suite 100
Pleasanton, CA 94566
PKO3'ECT ASLEA
LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'~- East of
Ta~sajava Road and 200'-' North ofi-580.
COUN2~: Alameda
FIGURE: I4 of 17 DATE: April 21, 2003
Setback / Open Space
(average 100 foo( setback
from, top-of-bank)
West Bank
Tass~a~
Creek
Channel
wi~h varies
Biparian
Restoratior~
Site
width varies
ODFG
jurisdictional
area mRigstian
Existing Riparian Habitat
Setback / Open Space
(setback varies from 100-260 ft.
depending on Lin property
boundary and future Fatlon Rd.
location)
East Bank
LEGEND '"
Native Willow and Oak Saplings
to be Protected
Native W~11ow Cuttings 1o be
Installed in Floodplain and at'Foe of
Eroded Streambank Slope
Existing Fence to be Removed
Garbage / Debris to be Removed
Noie: A muili-use trail will be located within
the setback area on the east bank
PURPOSE: Residential, Commercial and Open
Space Development
SOURCE OF BASE: NOVD
AD/ACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
S se Application
TASSAJARA CREEK
SECTION VIEW
APPLICATION BY:
Jennifer Lin, et. al.
c/o James Tong
660t Owens Dr., Suite 100
Pteasanton, CA 94566
PROJECT AREA
LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'± East of
Tassajara Road and 200'± North of I-580.
COUNTY: Alameda
FIGURE: I5 Of t7 DATE: April 2i, 2003
87
PIJR_POSE: Residential, Commercial and Open
Space Development
SOURCE OF BASE: NQVD
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNrERS:
See Application
LOWER NORTbI~SKN DRAINAGE
PLAN VIEW
APPLICATION BY:
Jennifer Lin, et. al.
o/o lames Tong
6601 Owens Dr., Suite L00
Pleasanton, CA 9456~
,2--
PROJECT AREA
LOCATION: Dublin, Cji. 900'± East of
Tassajara Road and 200'± North ofi-580.
COUNTY: Alameda
FIGURE: 16 of 17 DATE: April 21, 2003
~D
PLrRPOSE: Residential, CommerciM and Open
Space Development
SOURCE OF BASE: N'GVD
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
See Application
LOWER NORTHERN DRAINAGE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF ADDITIONAL
RESTORATION SITE WHE~ SPACE IS
AVAILABLE
APPLICATION BY:
Jennifer Lin, et. al.
c/o 7ames Tong
6601 Owens Dr., Suite 100
Pleasanton, CA 94566
PROJECT
LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'± East of
Tassajara Road and 200'± North oft-580.
'COUNTY: Alameda
FIGURE: l?A of 17 DATE:April 2t, 2003
PURPOSE: Residential, Comme~dal and Open
Space Development
SOURCE OF BASE: NGVD
ADiIACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
See Application
LOWER NORTHERN DRAINAGE
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF ADDITIONAL
RESTORATION SITE WHEtLE SPACE IS
LIMITED
APPLICATION BY:
[Jennifer Lin, et. al.
c/o Yames Tong
6601 Owens Dr., Suite 100
Plcasanton, CA 94566
PROIECT ARBA
LOCATION: Dublin, CA. 900'± Bast of
Tassajara Road and 200'± North oft-550.
COUNTY: Alameda
FIGURE: 17B of I7 DATB: April 2 I, 2003
~TA?.F~,,I= CALIE.OENIA THE RE~.QURC. F.~, GE~CY
DEPARTMENT OF FiSH AND GAME
CENTRAL COAST REGION
(707) 944-~20
PO~T OFFICE BOX 47
yOUNTVILLE OALIFOI~IA ~4$gg
782g ~;[LVEPADD '{'PAIL
NAPA CALIFORNIA g~.5~$
2003
Mr, James Tong for Ms. Jemfifer Lin / Charter Properties
4690 Chabot Drive, Suite t 00
Pleasanton, California 9458g
Notification Number: P,3-2000-124!
1603 L.&KE AND tTREA1VIBED ALTEi: TION AGREEMENT
This agreement is ismted by me Department ofFish md (3'ama purmmut to Division 2, ChaPter 6 of the California Fish
and Game Code: '
WItEREAS, the applicant Mr, James To~ fo~ Ms, Jennifer Lin / Charter Properties, hereafter called the Operator,
submitted a ~igrmd NOTIFICATION proposing to substantially divert or obslmct t58 natural flow of, or substantially change the
bed, chmne~ or bank of~ or use rectorial from th~ stremmbed or lake of the following wa~r: Tassaj~a Creek,. northern drainage
and unnamed waterways, located north of Highway ~80, east of Tassajam P. oad, and west of Falton Road in ~%e Cirf of Dublit%
tn the Counrf ofAlamed~, Sta~ of Californ~; and
VOtEREA8, the Departmen~ has determined that such operalions may substautially adv~,sely affect existing fish and
wildlife resources including water quality, by&clogs,,, aquatic, or terrestrial plant or a~i~,t, spec/es; and
WltEREA. S, ~he project hms undergone the aPpropriatc review under th, California Environmental Quality, Act; and
WItER~AS, thc Operator stroll undertake the project as proposed in th~ Sigr~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION cud
PROJI~CT CONDITIONS (attached). If the Operator changes the project from that described in the PROfBCT
DESCRIPTION ~d does not include the ?KO,CT CONDITroN$, this agreernant is no longer valid; and
WHEREAS,/he agreemen! shall expire on D_~eember 3__L_2D04; with the work to occur between Apti/15 and
Octobe~ 1; and
WI-~EREA, g, notI:d~g in this agreement authorizes ~ Operator to trespass on amy larmI or property, nor doe~ it relieve
the Operator of the responsibiEty for ccrmpllanoe with appHcable Fede2al~ State, or local laws or ordin, ances. Placement~ or
removal, of any materid below the level of oral/nary high w~ter may come ruder the jurisdiction oft, he U. S. Army Corps of
Eng/mer~ pursuarrt to Section 404 of the Clem Wat,r Aog
THEREFORE, the Op~ator m[y proceed wi~ the project as described in the PR. OJBCT DESCRIPT[0N and
PROJECT CONDITIONS. A copy ofth/s agreement, w/th t~ached PROJECT DESCRIPTION cud PROJECT
Co ,rorrtoNs, be provided to contractors and sltbcontractors and shall be ~.~/heir possession m the work site.
Failure to comply with all conditions ofthi~ agreemeat may result in legal action.
Thi~ agreement is ~pprowd by:
Regional Manager
Cem~'M Co~t Region
Young
3UN, 9~ 200~ 1: £~PM
?
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
.C~L COAST ~ION
~07) g44~20
~ O~tCE B~ 47
YOUN~JL~ ~LI~1A 94599
7~2~ ~ILV~DO T~Ik
NAPA, ~LIFO~IA 94668
-'---HO. '754- -.-.P. 3/13 ........
Notification NUmber: !~3-2000-1249
Tassajara Creek,. Northern Drainage and unnamed waterways, Alameda C~un~
iVir. James Tong for
Ms. krmit%r lin
4690 Ciiabot Drive, Su/te 1 O0
?leaSanton, CaLifornia 94588
PROJECT DESCRIPTION and PROJECT, ,COAq)ITION$
The Dublin Rmuoh p~oject is a 515 acre residential and commercial development located not~ of
Interstate 580 and east of Ta~saj~a Road, in the City of Dublin, Alameda County. The project
site is known to be occupied or provide suitable habitat for a number ofspec~ status plants and
av~ma!s including California tig~ salamander (CTS), California red legged bog (CRLF) and San
Jbaquin kit £ox
The projzct is de~ailed in the HT Harvey Dublin Ranch Mhigation and Monitoring Plan dated
March 3, 2003 and Habitat Management Plans tot the Northern Drainage, Tassajara Creek, and
Lin Livermore md the Mitigation and Monitoring Report for California tiger salamander.
The project impacts will result in ~e filling of a, pproxima~ly 5.25 acres (5,548 linear feet) of
cka~nag~s and two ponds. The pond~ consist of an approximately 032 acre per~nuiaI pond near
the center 0fthe site and the 0.25 acr~ pond near Fallon Road, both of whicl'~ are known to
provide habitat for CKLF and CTS. The project will also result in thc loss of CRLF and CT8
aestivation, dispersal, and foragLug habita~ throughout thc majority of the 515 acre s~te,
Approximaizly 7.59 acres of DFC jurisdlctiorml area will be created or enhanced off site, a ratio
of approximately 3:1 for loss ofrlparian vegetation and scattered willows arid approximately a
1: I ratio on an'acreage basis for loss of drainage bed and banks not supporting woody vegetation.
in addition ponds suitable for CTS breeding will be created on the Redgwick Parcel and the Lin-
Livermo~ site.
Padre I of 7
JUN ~ 9. ~00B 1: ££PM
All mitigation for project knpacts w/Il occ~ off d~ a, ~ee loo~on~. ~e ~o~ dmina~
~ea, located no~h o~ the projec~ die is.~o~ to suppo~ CT~, ~, ~d golden eagle. ~
~ea ~dudes ~e Redge~iok P~o~l, approx~at~ly 24~ ~r~s ~d ~e ~o~e~ ~En~ge~ a
on the Redgewick p~oel, ~ the No~ ~nage do~s~e~ of~o Redg¢~ P~cel, ~
¢~sfing offch~M pond ~1t b~ deepened, ~e ouffall pipe ~ be r~hced by ~ boulder
spill.ay ~d ~e ~p~ co.der ~iI1 be fenc~ ~d plmf¢d ~o ~¢ habitat Mr Cz~fo~a red
le~d ~og. ~'~o mb-roches ofTassaj~a ~ek, insm~ ~c~s ~I1 be ~a~d ~
~co~age fo~a~on ofsco~ pooh to bene~ C~i~a red legged ~ogs.
Approximately 53 acres of Ta~sajara Creak, we~t of Ta~aajara Road; will be emhanced through
fencing and planting of willow euttlngs in the lower floodphin, Restoration wi11 coeur along
approximately $,200 linear feet (1.25 acres) of Tasaajara Creek, approximatMy 900 feet of an
unnamed adjacent tributary, and 5070 linear feet (0.25 acres) of the Northern Drainage,
On ~e 394 acre Lin-Liveaunore site, approximately 3,17 acres of freshwater wetlands and ponds
will be created and a 15 acre wetland complex wili be Preserved and enhanced.
Two separate drainage channels, approximately 4,338 linear feet with an average width of 60 feet
from top of bank to top of bank and !0. foot wide channel bottom% will be constructed on the
project site and will' continue to &sin north to south to the O-3 channel system. The G-3 Channel
system is an Alameda County District Facility operated by Zone 7, A 754 foot long drainage will
be located in AreaF and the other 3;584 foot long drainage in Area g. Drop' structures
constructed of native materiab will be used to stabilize the channel and provide habitat diversity.
The banl~ will be a maximin 3:1 slope and will be h.woseeded with a native grass seed mix and
Plaiii&d' with naive trees and shrubs. An approxiraately 75 foot wide open space corridor will be
preserved adjacent to the ctrainages..Detailed plans for construction of the on-site ehannels will
be submitted to the Department before eormtmetio~ begins.
Conditions
Ali work shall be done according to plans (Project Area Mitigation and Monitoring Plan,
HT Harvey, dated March 3, 2003) submitted to the Department, unless othervdse noted in
this permit The operator shall notify, the Department of any modifications made to the
project plans ~ubmitted to the Department. At the dis=etlon of the Department, minor
plan modification~ may require mi amendment to this agreement. At the.discretion of the
Department, if substantial changes are made to the ori~ind plans thi~ agreement becomes
veld and the operator must submit a new notification.
h ephemeral clmnnels all construction will be done while there is no flow and vehicles
wilt not be driven or equipment operated in water covered portions of the channel, or
where wetland vegetation, or aquatic organbms may destroyed, except as otherwise
provided for in this agreement. If channels are flowing at the time work i, to be clone, the
Contractor shall implement a water diveraioa plan which allows water to gravity flow
around or through the work site using temporary culverts or flow is pumped using pumps
mm~e 2 of 7
DaT~ l~xepar~d: May 19, 2003
3UN.
i:£BPM
and hoses. Flows sha~i be diverted only when construction of the diversion is complete.
Cofferdams shall o~y be built ~om rust,als such as.cle~ ~ver ~ rock (l~ss ~ 1 ~%
~es), sheet pil~g, or s~dbags (filled with ete~ s~d, placed ~d r~oved by h~d)
wMch ca~e Ii~le or no salutation. Cofferd~s will be installed bo~ ups~e~ ~fl
do~s~e~ of the id~n~fied eomtmeiion sites. ~e cofferd~ sh~! b~ adequate to
prevent seepage ~d ~] r~ in pl~e ~fiI ~I work ~ ~e ch~eb (top o~b~ to
top ofb~) is complete, Nomal flows will be resiored to affected ~e~ i~e~ately
upon ~mpletion of work.
The time limit for completing the w°rk subject to this agreement shall be confined to the
period of April 15 to October 1 of any year, exc.ept as otherwise stipulated in this
Agre~ment, Any exception to this time re~trictlon shall be handled on an individual site-
SPecific basis and shslI only extend the work period of the geaeral time window :fi'om
October I to October I5 of any year, This request shall be in writ-tea form and submitted
at least 10 day~ in advance of proposed time extension period. The Operator will notify
DF(2 of the date of commencement of operations and the date of completion o{
operations,
The time lirnit given for completing the grading and ffliing of on site wetland features,
including ponds and chmmels which will be permaneafly fried as a result of the project
may b~ extended beyond October 1 as long as any silt laden runo£fis contained On the
project site.
No debr~s, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, rubbish~ cement or concrete or washings
flaereof, oil ar pe~le~ products or oth~ org~c or e~en ma~a! ~om ~uy
ean~on, or asso~ated sc~ of whatever ~ sh~I be d~osited ~ 150 feet
of file ~gh wat~ m~k of~y wat~ of~e State or be ~lowed m ~t~ or placed wh~e it
may be w~hed by r~all or ~offinto waters of~e State. ~en op~a~ons ~e
completed, ~y excess maters or debris shah be r~oved ~om &e work ~ea. ~pscts
~ me~ of oonc~trated ~o~d squ~els b~ows s~tabte for u~e by CTfl or b~o~g
owb outside of the pe~ent ~P~t foo~ ~1t be m~n~zed.
6, Water quality in the chmuel and Pond is the responsibility of the operator.
Stag-Jag and storage amos for equipment, materials, fuels, lubric~ts and solvents, shall be
Ioeated outside oft he chanfiel and banks, avoiding areas of concert's, ted grovmd squirrels
burrows suitable for use by CTS or burrow/ng owls outside of the permanent impaqt
footprim.
Appropriate erosion control measures shall be installed prior to and maintained during
construction, At no time shall any silt laden nmoffbe allowed to enter the channel or
storm drains,
The construction m-ea shall be flagged to identify the limits of the agreed work area to
prevent damage to adjacent ]mbNat.
JUN.
~.200~
10.
i:£BPM
]~U. 764--' ---W, b/ll~ ..........
Disturbance or removal of vegetation shrill not exceed the m~r~narn necessary to
complete operations,
11,
Restoration shall include the recontoming of stripped or exposed areas,
12.
Any wildlife meountered during tho course of construction shall be allowed to leave the
e'on~metion area unharmed,
I3,
The project site has been identified as an area that is suitable for, or known to be
inhabited by, listed species~ CRLF and SJK.F~ and species of :pecial concern, CTS and
western burrowing owl. This agreement does not allow for the take, or incldent~l take of
any Federal or State listed species. Liability for any take of such limd species remains
the responsibility of the Operator for the duration o£the project Any unauthorhec~ mlte
of such species may result in prosecution and nulHfy th/s agreement. IfCRLF or any
other listed species is found in the proposed work area, or in a toeation which could be
impacted by the work proposed, the Opera, or shal/comply wi~h the appropriate Sta~e and'
Federal permit condition~ to erasure this sp~ies is pro,coted. If the work requires that the
spec/es be rembved, distm'bed or othea'wise impacted, the Operator shall comply with the
appropriate State and Federal permits. If any State l~sted species or species of special
concern is ~countered during project construction the applicant will notify the local
Department representative w/thin 24 hours by telephone-or e mag.
14.
Applicant ha~ acquired and agree~ to preserve approxLmatel.y 245 acres of exi.sthxg habitat
mam~gement ~ lands in the Nlorthem Draimge./Redg.e~ pm'eel, approx~mo~ely 55
'ae~-s-6n'-Tassajara Creek, and appmximately'~94 acres on the 1.2n-Livermore sito. All
habitat enhancements shall be done according to plan~ submitted to the Department as
Project Area Mitigation ~d Monitoring Plan, I-IT Harvey, dated March 3, 2003, unless
otherwbe noted in th_is permit. The operator shall noZify the Depmmmt of~y
modifications made lo the project plans submitted to the Department. At the discretion of
the Departmemt, m/nor plan modifieatiom may require an ame~rtmeat'to this agreement
At the discr~on of the Depm~cment, ifsubstandaI change~ are made to the original plans
this agreemem becomes void and the operator must ,ubm/t a new notification. These
er~hancement measure~ shall be completed so that these HM lands are suitable'
replacement for the disturbance that may affect the ~pechl status speeiem Addttiorml
measm'es to conserve CTS on ~e Lin-Llve~raom site :will %, ' .Smalized m~d approved by
the Departmentwi~n 3 months of the execution ofthh agrement .
15,
Comervation values for the ~ lmads owned or aequh'ed by AppEcmt shall be preserved
through a conservation easement ~at is approved and held by the Department or other
approved entity. Applicant agrees to provide the Department a recur preliminm:y title
report ~d Level I envkonmental report for the I-!M lands as needed. All documents
conveying ~ lands mad all conditions of title are subject to the'approval of the
Department, the Department of General Services and; if applicable, the Fish md Game
Commbsion.
iiI
JUM.
16.
Applicant agrees to record the Easement within twelve (12) months of the execution of
this Agreement. This requirement will mitigate impacts to habitat caused by ~'ading and
construction activ/tles by the ?reject. The Dcpamnent its designee or successor, shall
hold the comervatJon easement md protect all HM lands conveyed under th/s Agreement
solely for the purposes o£conscrvation, protection, restoration, and enhancement of the
speeiaI status species habitats. This covenant shall remzin in effect with the land and no
use of gueh land shall be permitted by the Departm~mt or any subsequent title holder or
assignee which' is in conflict with the stated conservation purposes of this Agreement.
The Departmem, ~ts designee or successor, may allow grazing on the It/Vi lands if said
uses cz the management of said uses do not conflict in any way with the Department's
conservation goals.
17.
Appl/cant agrees to establish an endowment which'will be determined alter preparation of
the approved Plm'~ for the tong-term management of the HM tand~, Applicant shall
transfer these fimds to the Department, or its designee, upon the Department's approval of
the biologioa! suitability of the I-{M lands, exception~ and'conditions oftitle, and
acquisition by the Depm'a'nent or an agent approved by the Depm'tment of I-{M lands as
provided herein, The funds shall be in the fonn cfa check drawn from a banking
institution located with/n Cai/forn/a or approved by the Department, Such funding shall
be mod a~ principal for a permanent capital endowment. /nterest from this mount shall
be ava/labb for operations, management and protection of the ItM lands acquired
pursuant to tkis Agreement. Operation, management and protection aetivit/es may
include reasonable adm/nistrat[ve overhead, biological monitoring, improvements to
· b!9!9_~_c..~ o .anYin8 eapaci~ !aw enforcment, measm~e% and anY other aetion~ designed to
protect or improve the habitat values of the RM lands. Money received by ~e
Department pursuant to this provision shall be deposited in a special account est~blishod
pursumt to Oovernment Code Section 16370, The Depm'tment maypooI the endowment
with other endowments for the operation, management and protection of I-tM lands for
local populations &the species of concern noted in the agreement.
18.
l_f, in the opinion of the Department, conditions ar/se, or clumge, in such a manner as to be
considered deleterlou~ to the stream or '~Idl~£e, operations shall cease until coffee'dye
measures approved by the Department are taken.
19,
If the Operator needs more time to complete the authorized act/v/~, the.work.period
be extended on a day-to-day basis by Imice Gan at (209) 835-6910 or to the Youn~'ille
office a~ (707) 944-5520,
20.
A copy of this agreement must be provided to the contractor and ail subcontractors who
work witHn the stremn zone ~d must be in the/r possession at the work ~ite.
21.
Building materials and/or oon~tmct~on equipment shall not be stockpiled or stored where
they could be washed into the water or where they will cover aquatic or riparian
vegetation.
~age $ of 7
Opora=or~ s ini
Notifica=~o~ A~ber RJ-200~TJ-124~
JUN.
22,
-'N0.764.-
zone, All such debris ~d waste shall ba picked up ~y ad prop~ly disposed of at ~
appropHae site.
23, Departmem personnel or its agents may inspect the work site at any time.
24, The Operator is liable for compliance with the ton'ns of this Agreern~mt, including
violations committed'b7 the contractors md/or subcontractors. Th, Department reserves
the rlght to mmpen, d consu-uetion activity described in this Agreement if the Depamnent
detenn/nes auy o£the following has occurred:
A). Failme to comply with any of the conditions o£ this Agreemmt
B). Information provided in support of the Agreemmt is determined by the Department to
be inaccurate.
C). Information becomes available to the Department that was not known when prepariag
the original conditions of this Agreement (including, but not limited to, the occurre, uce of
State or federally listed species in the area or risk to resources not previously observed)
D),The project as described in the Agreement has changed or conditions affecting fish
aud wildlife resources change.
Any violation of the terms of this Agreement may tomtit in the project being stopped, a citation
being issued, or charges being filed with the District Attorney. Contractors and subcontractors
may also be liable for violating the conditions of this agreement.
Amendments and Renewals
'The'op~rat0r '~liali notifY the Department before auy modifications we made in'the project plans
submitted to the Department. Project modifications real/require au amendment or a new.
notification,
This Agreomem is transferable to subsequent owners oft, he project property by requesting an
amendment.
To renew the AD'oement beyond the expiration date, a written request for a renewal must be
~ubmitted to the Department (1600Program, ?ott Office Box 47, Younwille, California 94599)
for cor~ideration at least 30 days before the Agreement expiration date. A renewal requiret e~
fee. ,The Fee Schedule can be obtaine~l at Www.rlia,Ca, 8ox/1690. or.by?hone at(707) .944-5520.
Renewal, o£the original Agreement are issued at the discretion of the Department.
To modify the project, a written requea for au amendment mu.~t be submitted to the Department
(1600 Program, Post Office Box 47, Yountville, California 94599). The fee for au amendment is
one-half(%) of the original fee. Amendments to the original Agreement are issued at the
discretion of the Department.
Noti£ica=ion Number R~-200gc1249
IUN,
Please note that lpou may not proc~ed with construction untll yourproposed project has
undergone CEQ~4 review and ti~e Department signs the/tgreemena
I, the unda~'signed, state that the above is the final description of the project i am
submitting to the Department for CEQ/t review, leading to an ~4greement~ and agree to
implement the conditions above required by the Dej~artment as ~art of thatprojeet. I will not
tJroaeed with this jJroject until the De23artme#t signs the/.greement. I also under~tand that
the CEQ~t review may result in the addition of measure~ to the project to avoid, minimlz, e, or
compensat~ for significant en~
Operator'~ ~am.e (prtlat):
Operator's s~gna~
Signed the ....
~ ?entaI tmjoacts:
Da=~ /~repared~ Mmy l~,
O~ra=or's initiala ~
3UN. 9. ~003 1: ~4PM
~=a "F~ (Fi~e No.
754-----P. 1{3/13 .............
Thura
Dublin Ranch. Planning Area "F" (File No, 98.068)
SON Number: 19991t2040
Type: NOD
Project DascriFtlon
MasterVestin~ Tenative Map 7148 ~r a 323 6 ~c~ sI~ (Ames E, F, G ~n~ H) to provide far development of Low, Medium, Medlum-~
De~Slty R=siQent aI~ Nei~hborhaod Commerclai, General C=mmem~l and Campus Offi~ Uses.
Project Read Age~y
Dublin, Ci~ of
Co. Ct Info.atica
Prlmn~ Con.ct:
Michel Po~o
City oF
~t0-8~3-6~10
100 Civic Pa~ay
Dublin
~,
P~jeCt Laaa~o~
COUnty: A~amsda
O~: Dublin
~egion:
C~as Streets'. T~s~ara Rd
P~I Nor
To~ahip:
~er Le~on I~: No~h of the 1,580 F~eway, east 0fTasaaja~a
De~inaflona
hls is to advise that the ~ Lead Agency ~ Responsible Agency has approved the project described above on I/1/1900 and
Ilowing de~inaUons regaling the p~ descrlbe~ above.
1. ~e pm~am ~ will ~ will n~ h~vs a stgnifi=nt effe~ 0~ the environment.
2. ~ An Environmental fmp=~ RepoA wes pmpare~ for th= proJe~ pumuant to the provisions of CEQA.
~ A Nega~ve D=clara~on was Drepamd for this project pursuan[ to the provisions af CE~',
3. Mit~gatio~ measures ~ ~m ~ were not made e ~andit~on of ~e approval =f the pmJe~.
4. A Statement af Overriding Considerations ~ was ~ was nat adop~d for this proje~.
5. F~ndlngs~m ~ were not made pumuantto the ProViSions
Final EIR Aval~ble at; City ~eS I~0 Civic Plaza, Dublin, ~li~rnta 94568
Da~ Recefvedl ~20/2000
http://www, ceq~uet, ea. gov/Doe_.nod_Description.a~p?DocPK=511 S40 ~,~,~ ~,,~
JUN. ~. ~OB 1: ~SPM
,, OPR- Dublin Ranch - Ptarmi,
~ea" H" (File No, PA 98-070)
I'tU, F~Q- - --4-% .LLL/LL~
C~tlifornia Home
Thum
Dublin Ranch - Planning Area "H "(File No, PA 98-070)
SOH Number: 1999112042
Type: NOD
Project Description
Master Veatfng Tenat~e Map 7t4S ~r a 323.6 ~m ~im (Ames E, F, G end H) to provide ~r development of Low, Medium, Mediu~-P
Den~i~ Residential, Ne~ghbo~ood Commeml~i, General 0~mmemlal and Campu~ O~ Uses.
PmJe~ Lead ~ency
Dublln~ C~ty of
Co~ct i~ ~a~on
PHma~
Mbhaet
City of Dublin -
Dublin
Project Lo~flon ....
Count: Atameda
C[~: Dublin
Region:
Pa~l Nat
T~nahip:
Range:
Se~ion:
Other Location
De~jna~ans
. . - -~. ~.---~ ......... ~-.-~ he~ approved~e proj~m d%crJbed above ~ I/1/lg00 and
~ltowlng de~lnat~na mga~mg the p~iect d~rlbed above.
t. Th~ project ~ w~ll ~ ~tt not heve a signifi~nt effe~ an the environment
2. ~ An Envlronmant~l Impa~ Repo~ wa~ papered ~r thla pmje~ pumuant ~ the provbions of CE~
~ A N~g~ive Declaration was prepared for thb pmje~ pursuant to the.provisbna of CEQA.
3, Mitigation mnasura~ ~ ~re ~ ~m not mede a condit~an of the app~va~ oflhe pmja~.
4. A ~tement of ~erdding Co~idemtb~ ~ wa~ ~ was not adop~ ~r this
S. Rndlng~ ~ wee ~ warn n~t made pumuant ~ ~e provisbns af CEQA.
Final ~iR Available at; City Offices 100 Civic Plaza, Dubiin,
Da~ Recelve~t 3~0~000
h~p:/fwww.ceqanet, ca.gov/Doc_nod-Descripdon.asp?DoePK=511 $72 61512003
Mr, Jame~ Tang ~0'{ Owen~ D~ve, ,~u(.t~ ~0 F~: j
- ._ ~. ~ , _~ ~ ............... . --/~
Dat~
OFFICE USE ONLY
Planner Date
The QUick Check has determined that the application submittal is incomplete and cannot be accepted.
The Quick Check has determined that the application appears to cOntain the items required by this checklist
(completeness as defined by Section 65943 will be determined within 30 days of application) and processin~ will be~in.
For assistance or questions regarding this form, please contact: PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF, CITY OF DUBLIN,
100 CIVIC PLAZA, DUBLIN, CA 94568, (510) 833-6610.
g:\formsXappsubreq/sdr
-6-
Du~lin Ranch - Impacts of I~-~,w State and Federal Per..~its
I Right of Ways
New Permanent Open Space
Environmentally Released for Development
r--~--1 Eliminated Planned Community park
~ Drainage Channet
I Proposed Water Quality Basin
IGleason Drive (Under Const.)
I Proposed Roads
--{Miles
Imagery backdrop coiled:ed in March 200;!. by
Space [magingt ]nc. for .Dublin San Ramon Services District.
Property ownership boundaries are representational
and for planning purposes only.
1 inch equals 1,001 feet; September, 2003
Former Stock Pond
Legend
Project Boundary
Development Areas
Habitat Types
Non-native Grassland/
Dryland Agricultural
Freshwater Marsh/Aquatic
to be tmpacted
tsolated Willows and Riparian
~ Vegetation to be Impacted
Seasonally Ponded
Wetlands to be Impacted
Defined Drainage Channel
to be Impacted
/",,~ Defined Drainage Channel
with Wetlands to be Impacted
OGICAL CONSULTANTS
0 600 feet
Tassajara Creek
Northern Drainage
On-Site Drainages
Lin-Livermore
0 1 mile
approximate scala in miles
Ba~e Source: USGS Ouangle 7' Min. Llverr~3re, Cai{C; 1961,
Photomvised 1980 and A{tamant, Calif. 1953, Photoreais~l t981
ProjectVicinity
Legend
Project Boundary
Project Area
On-Site Drainages
Mitigation Area
Drainages from Phase I
Connect to On-Site Drainages
M5
Area F
M
L
.lhann¢l Lcn~jt;h = 220 fl:
Lcnot:h = I 53 fi;
M
Channel Lcn~Jt:h = 747
Lenot;h = 57,:3
CF
L~noth = 922 fc
0 500 feet
NP
M
CONSI --
Channel L¢not:h = 1005 fl:
Legend
Northern Drainage and Tributary Waters
Northern Drainage Clean-Up
and Livestock Exclusion Areas
Proposed CaliforniaTiger Salmander
Breeding Ponds to be Created
Ofl-channe~ California Red-legged Frog
Pond to be Restored
Restored Channel with Step / Pool
Morphology
Unpaved Access Road
~orthern Drainage
Coneervalion Area
USACE Wellands to be Preserved
and Enhanced
Riparian Restoration Area
Lower Northern Drainage Chart-up Area
~:I,~,~,"[,^'~'c"~''"~'] ~ H. T.'!HA:RVEV &'~ASSOClATES :'
ECOLOGiCAL CONSULTANTS i'll
500' 1,000'
H. T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES
ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS