CP EIR 01 - City of Redwood City

Transcription

Redwood City New General Plan
4.4 Biological Resources
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section describes existing biological resources in and around the plan area, as well as
applicable regulations pertaining to this resource. Potential impacts to biological
resources from implementing the New General Plan are identified and appropriate
mitigation measures are provided where necessary. Information in this section is based
on research and field reconnaissance conducted by Nomad Ecology.
4.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The plan area contains urban areas and open space, within which native habitats are
present. The majority of the native habitat within the plan area exists north of U.S. 101,
and consists primarily of open baylands including Bair Island, Bird Island, Greco Island,
the Redwood Shores Lagoon, and the salt crystallization ponds on the Cargill Property.
The bayland islands are preserved for their natural resources and are managed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge.
The Emerald Hills and Farm Hill neighborhoods in the southern boundaries of the plan
area are low density residential communities containing scattered areas of native
vegetation on private property. The southern, hilly upland portions of the plan area also
include the Edgewood County Park and Natural Preserve and Stulsaft Park. The
underlying geology of these areas includes serpentine bedrock1 which accounts for the
serpentine vegetation communities present in these parks (further discussed under the
heading “Vegetation and Habitats”).
Creeks and Tidal Waters
The plan area includes portions of two watersheds: Cordilleras Creek and Redwood Creek.
These systems include numerous small, unnamed tributaries that drain into these creeks,
not all are mapped. Several creeks outside of the plan area, including Belmont Creek in
Belmont, Pulgas Creek in San Carlos, and Marsh Creek in Menlo Park, drain into sloughs
that are within the plan area. Bayland vegetation and habitat types including deep
channel, tidal flats, etc. were defined using The Baylands Ecosystems Goals report (Goals
Project 1999). Creeks, tidal waters, and other hydrologic features in the plan area are
shown in Figure 4.4-1.
1
Brabb et. al. 1998
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-1
Source: Nomad Ecology, 2009
Legend
NO
RTH
1 inch equals 5,500 feet
Redwood City
General Plan EIR
Creeks and Waterbodies
2,750
FIG
0
Feet
5,500
4-4.1
Geografika Consulting 04.06.10
Cordilleras Creek
Cordilleras Creek and its one main tributary originate in the hills above Edgewood County
Park. Cordilleras Creek flows along the northwestern boundary of the plan area until it
reaches the tidally influenced waters near Smith Slough and Steinberger Slough through a
box culvert under U.S. 101. Cordilleras Creek is above ground for its entire length with the
exception of culverted sections at road crossings. The channel varies in character along its
length. At the upper reaches near Edgewood Park, the channel is meandering and
vegetated with willows (Salix spp.), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and other riparian
vegetation. Farther downstream near El Camino Real, Cordilleras Creek is in a concrete
channel with vertical sides and is vegetated with ornamental trees and shrubs. An
unnamed tributary to Cordilleras Creek originates in the Emerald Hills neighborhood and
flows westerly adjacent to Sylvan Way until it joins Cordilleras Creek near Edgewood Park.
This unnamed tributary is above ground for most of its length and is characterized by
coast live oak woodland.
Redwood Creek
Redwood Creek and its three tributaries flow through the plan area. Redwood Creek
crosses into the plan area from the Menlo Country Club in the Town of Woodside.
Emerald Branch, Jefferson Branch, and Stulsaft Branch originate in the hills to the west of
Redwood Creek. Emerald Branch and Stulsaft Branch join Jefferson Branch near Red
Morton Park. Jefferson Branch flows into Redwood Creek near Main Street in Downtown
Redwood City (City). Redwood Creek flows through a culvert under U.S. 101 and enters
the Bay between Bair and Greco Islands. Stulsaft Branch and Jefferson Branch are labeled
„Arroyo Ojo‟ on the USGS 7.5 minute topographic map but are known in the City as
Stulsaft and Jefferson branches.
Redwood Creek is above ground for most of its length and flows in a concrete walled
channel through urban areas of the plan area. Adjacent vegetation includes ornamental
trees and shrubs that are rooted in private residential yards. Redwood Creek flows
through a culvert at the corner of Maple Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, proceeds under
City Hall, and emerges at the Bradford Pump Station on Bradford Street between Main
Street and Jefferson Avenue. Downstream of this location, Redwood Creek is tidally
influenced and is characterized by tidal salt marsh habitat, including pickleweed
(Salicornia spp.) and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) vegetation.
Emerald Branch originates at Lower Emerald Lake. Lower Emerald Lake is a dammed
recreational facility at the Emerald Lake Country Club. The lake contains floating docks
and other recreational structures and supports freshwater marsh habitat, including
cattails (Typha spp.) and other wetland vegetation, along the margins. Emerald Branch
flows out of a culvert at the base of the dam into an eroded, vegetated channel. It flows
above ground until it reaches Canyon Park, where it enters a culvert and flows both below
ground and in a concrete channel through the residential neighborhood until it joins
Jefferson Branch near Red Morton Park.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-3
Stulsaft Branch originates in two drainages west of Farm Hill Boulevard near Edgecliff
Way. Stulsaft Branch flows above ground in a steep vegetated canyon, passes
underground under Farm Hill Boulevard and the residential neighborhood and emerges in
the canyon in Stulsaft Park. In Stulsaft Park, the channel is meandering and bordered by
coast live oak woodland. Stulsaft Branch goes below ground near Alameda de las Pulgas
and remains primarily below ground until joining Jefferson Branch originates at Upper
Emerald Lake and is surrounded entirely by residences. Jefferson Branch flows below
ground until it enters a steep canyon east of Jefferson Avenue characterized by coast live
oak woodland. The creek goes below ground again before it crosses Alameda de la Pulgas.
Jefferson Branch flows primarily below ground from Red Morton Park to the confluence
with Redwood Creek near the intersection of Broadway and Main Street in Downtown.
Tidal Waters
Due to its location on San Francisco Bay, the City has diverse and valuable estuarine
resources. The City‟s boundary extends north approximately 3 miles into San Francisco
Bay. Open water estuary habitat in the plan area borders Bird Island, Bair Island, and
Greco Island.
Tidal waters in the plan area include Belmont Slough, Steinberger Slough, Smith Slough,
Redwood Creek, Westpoint Slough, and Corkscrew Slough. Belmont Slough is northwest
of Redwood Shores. Steinberger Slough runs between Redwood Shores and Bair Island.
Redwood Creek separates Bair Island from the Port of Redwood City. Corkscrew Slough
runs east to west, separating the middle and outer Bair Island. Westpoint Slough runs
between the Cargill Property salt crystallization ponds and Greco Island.
The portion of Redwood Creek that is adjacent to the Port of Redwood City is
characterized as deep channel. Deep channels are defined as channels that are deeper
than 18 feet below Mean Low Lower Water. All of the other sloughs are characterized as
shallow channels, which contain water levels between 18 feet below Mean Low Lower
Water and Mean Low Lower Water in depth. Several of these sloughs have tidal flats
along their margins, which occur from below Mean Low Lower Water to Mean Tide Level.
Vegetation and Habitats
Vegetation communities and wildlife habitats in the plan area include non-native
grassland, native bunchgrass grassland, serpentine bunchgrass grassland, ruderal, coast
live oak woodland, northern coastal scrub, chamise chaparral, Central Coast riparian
scrub, and ornamental landscaped vegetation. Bayland vegetation communities and
habitats occupying tidal waters include Bay channel, tidal flat/mudflat, tidal marsh/salt
marsh, diked marsh, lagoon, and salt crystallization pond.
Sensitive natural communities are characterized as plant assemblages that are unique in
constituent components, restricted in distribution, supported by distinctive edaphic (soil)
conditions, considered locally rare, potentially support special status plant or wildlife
species and/or receive regulatory protection from municipal, county, state and/or federal
entities.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-4
The regulatory framework that protects sensitive natural communities is derived from
federal, state, and local laws and regulations, and is further discussed in Section 4.4.2.
Sensitive natural communities are identified in Table 4.4-1. The locations of vegetation
communities within the plan area are shown in Figure 4.4-2.
Table 4.4-1 Vegetation Communities in Redwood City
Vegetation
Sensitive Natural
Community
Non-Native Grassland
Approximate Acreage
174
Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland
X
9
Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland/Non-Native Annual
Grassland Mixed
X
66
Ruderal
NA**
Coast Live Oak Woodland
X
637
Northern Coastal Scrub
8
Chamise Chaparral
24
Central Coast Riparian Scrub
X
6
Freshwater Marsh and Seep
X
NA*
Streams
X
89,030 linear feet
Bay Channels
X
757
Tidal Flat
X
2,404
Tidal Marsh/Salt Marsh
X
3,998
Diked Marsh
X
257
Water Impoundment
15
Lagoon
X
193
Salt crystallization pond
X
1,466
Urban Landscape
128
Developed
7,781
* Note: Acreages are approximate because not all areas of the plan area were accessible during surveys.
** Note: Ruderal and Freshwater Marsh and Seep communities occurred in small, diffuse stands; these were not mapped.
Source: Biological Setting Memo, March 2009; Table BE-1, New General Plan, 2009.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-5
Source: Nomad Ecology, 2009
Vegetation Communities
City Boundary
Non-Native Annual Grassland
Central Coast
Riparian Scrub
Sphere of Influence
Bay
Freeway/Highway
Serpentine Bunchgrass Grassland/
Non-Native Annual Grassland Mixed
Bay Channel
Salt Crystallizers
Major Roads
Tidal Flat
Restoration Project
Tidal Marsh
Railroad
Water Impoundment
Diked Marsh
Urban Landscape
Creeks
Chamise Chaparral
Redwood City
General Plan EIR
Lagoon
Developed
Vegetation Communities
NO
RTH
1 inch equals 5,500 feet
0
2,750
FIG
Legend
Feet
5,500
4-4.2
Geografika Consulting 04.29.10
These vegetation communities are described by referencing commonly used vegetation
classification systems including California Vegetation2, Preliminary Descriptions of the
Terrestrial Natural Communities of California3, and A Manual of California Vegetation4.
Bayland vegetation types were described using the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals
Project5.
Upland Communities and Habitat Types
Non-Native Grassland
Within the plan area, non-native grassland is present along some of the Hetch Hetchy
right-of-way; on slopes in Stulsaft Park, Easter Bowl, Canyon Park, and Edgewood Park;
and is scattered on undeveloped parcels in the low density residential areas of the Farm
Hill and Emerald Hill neighborhoods.
Non-native grassland is dominated by a sparse to dense cover of non-native annual
grasses and weedy annual and perennial forbs (flowering plants), primarily of
Mediterranean origin, that have replaced native perennial grasslands as a result of human
disturbance. However, where not completely overrun by weedy non-native plant species,
scattered native wildflower species and native perennial grass species considered
remnants of the original vegetation, may also be common. This community occurs on
fine-textured, usually clay soils, which are moist or waterlogged during the winter rainy
season and very dry during the summer and fall. Germination occurs with the onset of the
late fall rains while growth, flowering, and seed-set occur from winter through spring.
With a few exceptions, the plants are dead through the summer and fall dry season,
persisting as seeds. Common non-native grass species found in this community include
soft chess (Bromus hordeaceous), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild rye (Lolium
multiflorum), wild oats (Avena fatua), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp.
gussonianum), hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum) and velvetgrass (Holcus
lanatus).
Non-native grasslands support a wide variety of insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds and
small mammals. This habitat supports a wide variety of herbivore species which in turn
support a variety of predatory hawks, owls, bats, and carnivores. Species commonly
associated with non-native annual grasslands include California meadow vole (Microtus
californica), Botha‟s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), black-tailed deer (Odocoileus
hemionus), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), black-tailed hare (Lepus californicus),
western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), barn owl
(Tyto alba), great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis), coyote (Canis latrans), and mountain lion (Felis concolor), among
others.
Holland and. Keil 1995.
Holland 1986.
4 Sawyer Keeler-Wolf 1995.
5 Goals Project 1999.
2
3
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-7
Serpentine bedrock underlies the southwestern portion of the plan area in Edgewood
Park, Stulsaft Park, and the Emerald Hill and Farm Hill residential neighborhoods.6 In
these areas, serpentine bunchgrass grassland is generally characterized by native grasses
and forbs tolerant of this substrate chemical properties such as erect plantain (Plantago
erecta) and the bunchgrass, purple needlegrass (Nasella pulchra). Serpentine bunchgrass
was observed in Edgewood County Park and Stulsaft Park, and also occurs in scattered
locations on private parcels in the Emerald Hill and Farm Hills neighborhoods.
As described by Holland (1986), serpentine bunchgrass is open grassland dominated by
perennial bunchgrasses. This community is restricted to serpentine sites where total cover
is typically low, but is markedly dominated by native species. Serpentine rock, also known
as ultramafic rock, weathers into soils rich in magnesium, iron, and silicates.7 8 This
chemical composition is typically toxic and nutrient poor for most plant species to
withstand, therefore creating a niche for plant species with physiological adaptations
suitable for processing these minerals.
Serpentine bunchgrass grassland provides habitat for a similar suite of wildlife species
found within non-native annual grasslands. This habitat also supports specific rare
endemic species adapted to serpentine habitats, such as the federally-threatened Bay
checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), where suitable densities of the
butterflies‟ host and nectar plants are present, such as at Edgewood County Park. Other
endemic serpentine species include the Edgewood blind harvestman (Calicina minor),
and Edgewood microblind harvestman (Microcina edgewoodensis), two species found
under serpentine rocks within grassland and woodland areas.
Ruderal
Within the plan area, ruderal vegetation is present along the sides of roads, buildings, and
near industrial areas. Ruderal vegetation is an assemblage of plants, often a mixture of
both native and non-native weed species that thrive in waste areas, heavily grazed
pastures, cultivated and fallow fields, roadsides, parking lots, footpaths, residences, and
similar disturbed sites in towns and cities and along rural roadways. Some urban weeds
are ornamentals, escaped from cultivation. Ruderal communities are difficult to
characterize and are often temporary assemblages. In areas of frequent human
disturbance, the majority of wild plants are often introduced weeds rather than natives.
However, ruderal species may at times be integrated into various other communities.9
Common plant species found in ruderal areas include bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides),
fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), red-stemmed filaree
(Erodium cicutarium), and non-native grass species including ripgut brome, wild oats,
and hare barley.
Brabb et. al. 1998.
Kruckeberg 1984.
8 Kruckeberg 1984.
9 Holland and Keil 1995.
6
7
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-8
Though ruderal vegetation is often the result of a high level of disturbance from grading,
mowing, discing or other impacts, this habitat can provide seasonal foraging and cover for
birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. Typically these habitats are utilized by species
that are adapted to disturbed habitats along urban boundaries such as raccoon, striped
skunk, Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginana), and American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos). Native songbirds such as American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), lesser
goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) and housefinch
(Carpodacus mexicanus) forage within ruderal areas. There is also a wide variety of
native butterflies that nectar on non-native thistles and mustards found within ruderal
roadside areas.
Within the plan area, coast live oak woodland is present in Edgewood County Park,
Stulsaft Park, Easter Bowl, on the Cañada College campus, and is scattered throughout the
Emerald Hills and Farm Hills residential neighborhoods. Coast live oak woodland is also
present along creeks and streams in the plan area, including Stulsaft Branch, Jefferson
Branch, Emerald Branch, and Sylvan Branch and is considered riparian vegetation in
these locations.
Coast live oak woodland is typically dominated by one tree species, coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia), which is evergreen and reaches 33-83 feet. The shrub layer is poorly
developed, but may include toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), gooseberry (Ribes spp.), and
blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea). This community integrates with coastal
scrub and mixed chaparral communities on drier sites and with other oak and evergreen
forests on moister sites.
Due to the high amount of food resources and cover within oak woodland, this habitat
provides foraging and nesting habitat for a wide variety of birds, amphibians, reptiles, and
mammals. Common bird species associated with coast live oak woodland include
chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus),
acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus),
western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica) and Cooper‟s hawk (Accipiter cooperii),
among many others. Mammals include black-tailed deer, mountain lion, coyote, and San
Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens), among others. Reptiles
and amphibians include gopher snake, western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis),
arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris), and California slender salamander
(Batrachoseps attenuatus), among others.
Within the plan area, northern coastal scrub was observed in Edgewood Park and near
Stulsaft Branch north of Farm Hill Road. It may be present in scattered locations in the
Emerald Hills and Farm Hills residential neighborhoods and in Stulsaft Park.
As described by Holland (1986), Northern Coastal Scrub comprises low shrubs, usually
5.25 feet tall, typically dense but with scattered grassy openings. It occurs on windy,
exposed sites with shallow, rocky soils and is patchily distributed from southern Oregon to
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-9
Point Sur in Monterey County. Coastal scrub is dominated by California sagebrush
(Artemisia californica), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), bush monkeyflower (Mimulus
aurantiacus), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum).
Due to the high amount of food resources and cover within northern coastal scrub, this
habitat provides foraging and nesting habitat for a wide variety of birds, amphibians,
reptiles, and mammals. Common bird species associated with northern coastal scrub
include Anna‟s hummingbird (Calypte anna), western scrub jay, spotted towhee (Pipilo
maculatus) and white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), among others.
Mammals include black-tailed deer, mountain lion, coyote, gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), brush rabbit (Sylvilagus nuttallii), San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat, and deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). Reptiles and amphibians include
northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coerulea), western fence lizard, ring-necked snake
(Diadophis punctatus), and California slender salamander, among others.
Chamise Chaparral
Within the plan area, chamise chaparral was observed in Edgewood County Park, in the
canyon along Stulsaft Branch north of Farm Hill Road, and may also be present in Stulsaft
Park.
As described by Holland (1986), chamise chaparral is a 3 to 9 feet tall chaparral
dominated by chamise. Other species in this community contribute little to overall cover.
This community is adapted to repeated fires by stump sprouting. Mature stands of this
vegetation type are dense with very little herbaceous understory or litter. It is present on
dry rocky steep slopes with little soil.
Due to the high amount of food resources and cover within chaparral, this habitat provides
foraging and nesting habitat for a wide variety of birds, amphibians, reptiles, and
mammals. Common bird species associated with chaparral include wrentit (Chamaea
fasciata), California thrasher (Toxostoma redivivum), spotted towhee, and Alan‟s
hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), among others. Mammals include black-tailed deer,
mountain lion, coyote, gray fox, black-tailed hare, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat,
and deer mouse. Reptiles and amphibians include northern alligator lizard, western fence
lizard, ring-necked snake, and California slender salamander, among others.
Urban Landscape
Urban landscape observed in the plan area includes parks, golf courses, lawns, sports
fields, and all areas that are planted and maintained as landscaped areas. Landscape
plantings include turf grass and ornamental species of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees.
Due to the intensive management of these areas (e.g., frequent mowing, rodent control),
habitat values for wildlife are limited. Within larger open space areas such as golf courses,
a higher variety of native wildlife can be supported. A variety of ducks, songbirds, raptors
and bats may utilize golf courses, such as Emerald Hills Golf Course, due to the diversity
of habitats present (i.e. wetlands, trees, brush and grass). Common species observed
include Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas latyrhynchos), red-shouldered
hawk (Buteo lineatus), Pacific tree frog, red fox (Vulpes vulpes), coyote and black-tailed
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-10
deer. Small parks and sports fields such as Red Morton Community Park and Hawes Park
typically support less wildlife, though woody vegetation along the borders of these fields
can provide roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat for songbirds and raptors. Frequently
predation is high within the urban landscape due to the higher densities of both
opportunistic native predators such as raccoons, gulls, crows, and ravens (Corvus corax),
and introduced predators, such as feral cats and red foxes.
Wetland Communities and Habitat Types
Central Coast Riparian Scrub
Within the plan area, central coast riparian scrub was observed in only a few locations:
along Cordilleras Creek in Edgewood County Park and downstream, along Sylvan Branch,
and along Emerald Branch between Lower Emerald Lake and Canyon Park. Most of the
streams in the plan area are characterized by coast live oak woodland vegetation although
scattered willow thickets may also be present.
As described by Holland (1986), Central Coast Riparian Scrub is a scrubby streamside
thicket, varying from open to impenetrable, dominated by any of several willow species.
This early seral community10 may succeed to any of several riparian woodland or forest
types in the absence of severe flooding disturbance. This community occurs on relatively
fine-grained sand and gravel bars that are close to river channels and, therefore, close to
groundwater. It is distributed along and at the mouths of most perennial and many
intermittent streams of the south Coast Ranges, from the Bay Area south to Point
Conception.
Central coast riparian scrub provides foraging and nesting habitat for a variety of
songbirds, as well as resting/ foraging habitat for fall-migrant/ neotropical warblers such
as yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), wilson‟s warbler (Wilsonia pusilla), and orangecrowned warbler (Vermivora celata). Raptors such as sharp-shined hawk (Accipiter
striatus) and red-shouldered hawk forage within this habitat. Riparian scrub is also
important in providing cover for amphibians and reptiles such as Pacific tree frog,
California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), San Francisco garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans),
and southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata pallida).
Freshwater Marsh
Within the plan area, freshwater marsh was present along the margins of Upper and
Lower Emerald Lakes and in slow moving portions of streams.
As described by Holland (1986), freshwater marsh is dominated by perennial, emergent
monocots11 1 to 15 feet in height. It typically occurs on sites that lack a significant current
A “seral community” means an ecological community currently occupying an area but part of a sequence of
ecological communities that have or will occupy that area. An early seral community means that biologists
expect the area to be succeeded by a different ecological community before the area reaches its ecological
climax.
11 Monocots are flowering plants, including grasses containing a single embryonic seed leaf.
10
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-11
and are permanently flooded by freshwater along the edges of water bodies, dune swales,
slough terrace edges, banks, channels, and mouth margins of rivers, bottomlands, ditch
margins, lagoons, ponds, reservoir margins, and along geologic faults. Common plant
species include rush (Juncus spp.), cattails (Typha spp.), knotweed (Polygonum spp.),
and small fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus).
Freshwater marsh provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species such as Pacific tree frog
(Hyla regilla), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), great blue heron (Ardea herodias),
and pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps). Special status species that utilize
freshwater marshes include California red-legged frog, San Francisco garter snake,
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) and southwestern pond turtle.
Non-native species that are often present within these habitats include introduced
Centrarchid fishes (i.e., bass, sunfish, and crappie), red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta),
and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). Typically, the presence of one or more of these
introduced species greatly reduces the potential for California tiger salamander, California
red-legged frog and/or southwestern pond turtle.
Streams
As described previously, major streams in the plan area include Cordilleras Creek and
Redwood Creek and its tributaries. Streams in the plan area vary from vegetated natural
channels to unvegetated concrete channels. Vegetation types that are supported by
streams in the plan area include coast live oak woodland, central coast riparian scrub,
freshwater marsh, and seep.
Due to the extensive urbanization within the watersheds of Cordilleras and Redwood
Creeks, and the concrete channelization of the creeks for most of their length through the
plan area, stream habitat for native aquatic species is limited primarily to the foothill
portions of the creek systems. Redwood Creek is above ground in the northeastern
portion of downtown and is characterized as a tidally influenced channel with tidal flat
vegetation on the banks. The wildlife habitat value of this portion of Redwood Creek is
addressed in the discussion of Creeks and Tidal Waters. Within the concrete channels,
vegetation consists of algae and some aquatic plants that grow within shallow pools.
Wildlife within the channels is limited to a few species such as Pacific tree frog, crayfish,
striped skunk, and raccoon.
In the foothills, the creeks are more natural, with earthen beds and banks, and in some
places, there are adjacent riparian floodplains consisting of willow riparian or coast live
oak woodland. These portions of the creeks provide habitat for wildlife to forage, breed,
and disperse. Within natural streams, a diversity of aquatic insects is present, and these
form the base of the aquatic food chain. Common species present include native fishes
such as threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and California roach
(Hesperoleucus symmetricus) and amphibians such as Pacific tree frog, western toad
(Bufo boreas), and rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa).
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-12
Bay Channels/Open Water
Within the plan area, bay channels include Westpoint Slough, Corkscrew Slough, Smith
Slough, Steinberger Slough, and Redwood Creek between Bair Island and the Cargill
Property salt crystallization ponds.
Bay channels include deep channels (deeper than 18 feet below Mean Low Lower Water),
and shallow channels (between 18 feet below Mean Low Lower Water and actual Mean
Low Lower Water). The sediments in deep channels vary from coarse sand to very fine
clay and salts. The sediments of shallow channels are primarily mud and are generally
unvegetated.
The San Francisco Bay estuary provides important open water habitat for special status
and common wildlife species. The nutrient rich waters and bay mud support abundant
invertebrate organisms that form the base of the food chain within the estuary. These in
turn provide important foraging, movement corridors, and nursery habitat for bay fishes,
foraging and rafting habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl; and important foraging habitat
for Pacific harbor seals.
Bay channels provide deep and shallow water habitat for invertebrates, bay fishes, and a
variety of birds. The channels provide habitat for invertebrates and fishes such as rock
crab (Cancer antennarius), opossum shrimp (Neomysis mercedis (relicta)), leopard shark
(Triakis semifasciata), bat ray (Myliobatus californica), brown rockfish (Sebastes
auriculatus), and California halibut (Paralichthys californicus). The channels provide
habitat to birds including: canvasback (Aythya valisineria), surf scoter (Melanitta
perspicilata), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), Forster‟s tern (Sterna forsteri), blackcrowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), western/Clark‟s grebe (Aechmophorus
occidentalis), among others. The channels also provide corridors for anadromous12 fishes
such as Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and steelhead (Oncorhynchus
mykiss). In addition, harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) utilize marsh areas adjacent to bay
channels and smaller sloughs as resting or haul-out sites during high tides.13
Tidal Flat
Within the plan area, tidal flats are adjacent to Greco Island and Bair Island, particularly
to the north in shallow areas. Tidal flat is also present in Steinberger Slough, Westpoint
Slough, and Corkscrew Slough along the margins.
Tidal flat includes unvegetated mudflats, sandflats, and shellflats. This habitat occurs
from below Mean Low Lower Water to Mean Tide Level and supports less than 10 percent
cover of vascular vegetation, with the exception of eel grass. Mudflats comprise the largest
area of tidal flat habitat. These expanses of fine-grained silts and clays support an
extensive community of diatoms, worms, and shellfish, as well as algal flora. More than
12
Anadromous fish live in the ocean for most of the life cycle, but breed in fresh water.
13
Goals Project 1999.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-13
one-half of the San Francisco Bay‟s tidal flat habitat is in the southern half of the San
Francisco Bay.
Tidal flats are biologically rich with invertebrate organisms, and provide important
foraging habitat for a variety of migratory shorebirds such as long-billed curlew
(Numenius americanus), western sandpiper (Calidris mauri), American avocet
(Recurvirostra americana), black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), marbled godwit
(Limosa fidoa), and long-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus) among others.
This habitat also provides important foraging and/or breeding habitat for bay fishes such
as Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus armatus), Pacific herring (Clupea
pallasi) and starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) among others.
Tidal Marsh/Salt Marsh (Including Muted Tidal Marsh)
Within the plan area, tidal marsh/salt marsh occurs on Greco Island, Bird Island, and Bair
Island. One muted tidal marsh is present on the northeastern portion of Bair Island.
Tidal marsh is vegetated wetland that is subject to tidal action. Tidal marsh includes salt
marsh and tidal brackish marsh. Salt marsh occurs in saline areas, while tidal brackish
marsh occurs in areas where there is significant freshwater influence. A muted tidal
marsh is a tidal marsh that receives less than full tidal flow because of an impediment,
either natural (such as a sandspit) or man-made (such as a culvert or tide gate).
Tidal marsh occurs throughout much of the Bay from the lowest extent of vegetation to the
top of the intertidal zone. Tidal marsh includes three general zones of vegetation: low
tidal marsh (between the lowest margin of the marsh and Mean High Water), middle tidal
marsh (between Mean High Water and Mean Higher High Water), and high tidal marsh
(between Mean Higher High Water and the highest margin of the marsh). Pacific
cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) and common pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) are the
dominant plant species in salt marsh. In high tidal salt marsh, pickleweed also grows with
saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), spearscale (Atriplex triangularis), alkali heath (Frankenia
salina), and jaumea (Jaumea carnosa).
Species that utilize tidal marsh for breeding and/or foraging include a large number of
invertebrates and fish such as chinook salmon, three-spine stickleback, longjaw
mudsucker (Gillichthys mirabilis), rock crab, opossum shrimp, and California bay shrimp
(Crangon franciscorum). Two federally listed mammals, salt marsh wandering shrew
(Sorex vagrans haliocoetes) and salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
raviventris), only occur within this habitat type. There are also a wide variety of
shorebirds and waterfowl such as ruddy duck, northern pintail (Anas acuta), red knot
(Calidris canutus), western sandpiper, American avocet, black-necked stilt, long-billed
dowitcher, and marbled godwit, as well as the State and federally listed California clapper
rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) and California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus). Songbirds that forage and nest in the tidal marshes include song sparrow
(Melospiza melodia), red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phaeniceus), and salt marsh
common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), among others. Raptors that forage
and breed include Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and northern harrier (Circus
cyaneus).
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-14
Diked Marsh
Diked marsh occurs on Bair Island. Diked marshes are currently being restored to tidal
influence on Bair Island and in a portion of Redwood Shores along Belmont Slough.
Diked marshes are areas that were once tidal but are now isolated from the tides. Diked
marsh usually occurs in low areas adjacent to levees or dikes that have no or poor
drainage. Diked marshes are seasonal wetlands and they can pond continuously for weeks
or months or may remain nearly dry.
Diked marshes may provide important habitat for a variety of wildlife, especially
waterfowl, shorebirds, and small mammals. Where they are located near or adjacent to
tidal marshes, they can be especially valuable as high tide refugia for small mammals and
as roosting habitat for shorebirds and waterfowl such as canvasback, northern pintail,
ruddy duck, and marbled godwit, among others. Diked marshes often are good foraging
and roosting habitat for shorebirds.14 Songbirds that forage and nest include marsh wren,
red-winged blackbird, and salt marsh common yellowthroat, among others. Raptors that
forage and breed include Peregrine falcon and northern harrier.
Lagoon
A lagoon is an impoundment of water that is subject to at least occasional or sporadic
connection to full or muted tidal action. The impoundment can be natural or artificial.
Within the plan area, a lagoon is present in the Redwood Shores area.
Lagoons support many of the same species of aquatic invertebrates and fishes that occur
in nearby shallow bays and channels. They also provide feeding or resting habitat for a
variety of water birds such as brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), canvasback, greater
and lesser scaup (Aythya affinis/ A. marila), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), and ruddy
duck15.
Salt Crystallization Pond
Salt crystallization ponds are large, persistent hypersaline ponds that are intermittently
flooded with bay water. The process of making salt in artificial ponds involves moving bay
water through a series of ponds, known as concentrators or evaporators, over a period of
several years. During this time, solar evaporation increases the waters salinity. Salt
crystallization ponds support a distinctive and highly specialized salt-tolerant biota
consisting of microalgae, bacteria, and invertebrates and are mostly unvegetated.
Cargill Inc. owns the salt crystallization ponds north of U.S. 101, known as the Cargill
Property.
Bair Island contains former salt crystallization ponds that became diked marshes when
they were no longer used for salt production. These areas are part of a Don Edwards
National Wildlife Refuge restoration project.
14
15
Goals Project 1999.
Goals Project 1999.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-15
Due to the high densities of brine flies, brine shrimp and other invertebrates, salt
crystallization ponds provide foraging habitat for a variety of birds such as Wilson‟s
phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor), American white pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchus),
American avocet, black-necked stilt, western sandpiper, and long-billed dowitcher. Dry
salt crystallization ponds and levees also provide important nesting habitat for Forster‟s
tern, Caspian tern (Sterna caspia) and burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia). Inactive salt
crystallization ponds, salt crystallization pond beaches, and levees currently provide
important nesting habitat for the federally-threatened western snowy plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus).
Numerous waterbirds use the salt ponds and their associated islands and levees primarily
for roosting, either at night or during high tide when their preferred foraging tidal marsh
habitats are submerged. Large mixed species flocks of shorebirds, gulls, terns,
cormorants, pelicans, herons, and other birds are often seen roosting or loafing on levees,
in shallow water, or on exposed mud in the ponds. Some of these species nest on islands
or levees within the ponds or on barren salt flats on the bottoms of dried ponds.16
Migration, Travel Corridors, and Habitat Fragmentation
The plan area is bordered by urban development to the west and east. Open space areas
are located on opposite sides of the plan area, within the foothills (Edgewood County Park,
Stulsaft Park) in the southwest and along the Bayshore (Bair Island, Bird Island, Greco
Island) in the northeast. These habitats primarily support various wildlife species adapted
to the different habitat types present. The foothills provide woodlands, brushlands, and
other upland community types whereas the Baylands provide tidal marsh and aquatic
habitats and limited upland habitats. Overlap of usage occurs for common, broad ranging
and/or opportunistic species whose habitat requirements are met in the foothills and the
Baylands (western fence lizard, raccoon, coyote, raven and northern harrier, among
others).
Habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation resulting from land use changes or habitat
conversion can alter the use and viability of wildlife movement corridors (i.e. linear
habitats that naturally connect and provide passage between two or more otherwise
disjunct larger habitats or habitat fragments). In general, studies suggest that habitat
corridors provide connectivity for, and are used by wildlife and as such, are an important
conservation tool.17 According to Beier and Loe (1992), wildlife habitat corridors fulfill
several functions. They maintain connectivity for daily movement, travel, mate-seeking,
and migration; plant propagation; genetic interchange; population movement in response
to environmental change or natural disaster; and recolonization of habitats subject to local
extirpation or removal. The suitability of a habitat as a wildlife movement corridor is
related to, among other factors, the habitat corridor‟s dimensions (length and width),
topography, vegetation, exposure to human influence, and the species in question.
16
17
EDAW et al. 2007.
Beier and Noss 1998.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-16
Species utilize movement corridors in several ways. “Passage species” are those species
that use corridors as thru-ways between outlying habitats. The habitat requirements for
passage species are generally less than those for corridor dwellers. Passage species use
corridors for brief durations, such as for seasonal migrations or movement within a home
range. As such, movement corridors do not necessarily have to meet any of the habitat
requirements necessary for a passage species‟ everyday survival. Large herbivores, such as
deer and elk, and medium-to-large carnivores, such as coyotes, bobcats and mountain
lions, are typically passage species. “Corridor dwellers” are those species that have limited
dispersal capabilities – a category that includes most plants, insects, reptiles, amphibians,
small mammals, and birds – and use corridors for a greater length of time. As such,
wildlife movement corridors must fulfill key habitat components specific to a species‟ life
history requirements in order for them to survive.18 In general, however, the suitability
and/or utility of the landscape – specifically, of the landscape as corridor habitat – is best
evaluated on a species-level.19
Movement corridors for wildlife through the plan area are severely limited due to the
density of urbanization (industrial, commercial, and suburban sectors). Wildlife
movement between the Bayshore to the north and foothills to the south would need to
move through approximately 3 miles of urbanized area. Wildlife movement through the
plan area is primarily limited to the creek and riparian corridors that connect the foothills
to the Bayshore area. Cordilleras Creek and Redwood Creek and their associated
tributaries have been channelized into either narrow earthen or concrete channels as they
flow through the central portion of the plan area. These channels provide corridors for
wildlife during low flow conditions, while during high flows they present movement
barriers, even for fish (e.g. velocity barriers for in-migrating salmonids). The urbanized
sections of these creeks are not suitable for most wildlife species and are primarily used as
thru-ways by species adapted to urban habitats such as raccoon, striped skunk, and
Virginia opossum.
Though movement for land mammals and other species is severely limited through the
plan area, resident and migratory birds and bats can utilize the urban forest for foraging,
roosting and breeding. For birds and bats connectivity of habitats may not be as
important as forest patch size and vegetation structure.20 Maintaining or reestablishing
vegetative corridors, as well as increasing patch size and vegetation structure within urban
areas can benefit land mammals, birds, bats and potentially other groups of species.
Special Status Species
Special status plant and wildlife species are defined as those species listed as Endangered,
Threatened, or Proposed for listing, or are designated as Fully Protected species under one
or more of the following regulatory statues: Federal Endangered Species Act, as amended
Beier and Loe 1992.
Beier and Noss 1998.
20 Andren 1994.
18
19
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-17
(Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Section 17), Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972, as amended (2001), California Endangered Species Act (California Code of
Regulations Title 14, Section 670.5), California Fish and Game Code (Sections 1901, 2062,
2067, 3511, 4700, 5050 and 5515) and Native Plant Protection Act of 1977. Special status
species also include locally rare species defined by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) guidelines 15125(c) and 15380, which may include species that are designated
as sensitive, declining, rare, locally endemic or as having limited or restricted distribution
by various federal, state and local agencies, organizations and watchlists. Their status is
based on their rarity and endangerment throughout all or portions of their range. The
regulatory framework that protects special status species is further discussed in Section
4.4.2.
In evaluating on-site habitat suitability for special status plant and wildlife species within
the study area, relevant literature, knowledge of regional biota, and observations made
during the field investigations were applied as analysis criteria. Criteria determinations
for occurrence potential of special status species are divided into the five categories
described below. These determination categories appear in Appendix E, which provides
a summary of the status, habitat affinities, flowering phenology, habitat suitability and
local distribution, and potential for occurrence for each of the target special status species.
Appendix E contains all special-status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the
plan area vicinity which is defined as the four USGS 7-½ minute Quadrangles that contain
the Plan Area (San Mateo, Redwood Point, Woodside, and Palo Alto) and the twelve
adjacent USGS 7-½ minute Quads (Cupertino, Half Moon Bay, Hayward, Hunters Point,
La Honda, Mindego Hill, Montara Mountain, Mountain View, Newark, San Francisco
South, San Gregorio, and San Leandro).
It should be noted that local distribution references refer to the California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB) Element Occurrence Index (EONDX) number.21 The
EONDX is an integer primary key (unique for each record) used within the CNDDB for
GIS relational databases. Although the EONDX is assigned sequentially, gaps may appear
as records are merged or updated. Factors influencing which determination criteria are
applied to target species is detailed below.
21

None denotes a complete lack of habitat suitability, local range restrictions, and/or
regional extirpations.

Not Expected denotes situations where suitable habitat or key habitat elements
may be present but may be of poor quality or isolated from the nearest extant
occurrences. Incompatible habitat suitability refers to elevation, geology, soil
chemistry and type, vegetation communities, microhabitats, and
degraded/significantly altered habitats. These factors create unsuitable ecological
conditions for the consideration of even a low occurrence potential within the
study area.
CDFG 2009e
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-18

Absent indicates specified taxa (group) not observed during field investigations
and were consequently ruled out. This category also refers to diagnostic vegetative
material of shrubby perennial species not observed on site. This category refers
only to plant species.

Possible indicates the presence of suitable habitat or key habitat elements that
potentially support a specific species or taxa.

Present indicates the target species was either observed directly or its presence was
confirmed by diagnostic sign (i.e. tracks, scat, burrows, carcasses, castings, prey
remains, etc.) during field investigations.
Special Status Plants
Based on the site reconnaissance, a review of available databases and literature,22 and
familiarity with the regional flora, a total of 79 special status plant species are known from
the region and were considered as part of this assessment.
Of these species, 48 were ruled out based on the lack of suitable habitat or range
restrictions. Eight species are known to occur within the plan area, primarily in Edgewood
and Stulsaft parks, and may occur in other areas of the plan area. Twenty-three species
were determined to have at least some potential to occur within the plan area based on the
presence of suitable habitat (i.e. serpentine grassland, grassland, chamise chaparral, oak
woodland, northern coastal scrub, and salt marsh). Special status plant species with the
potential to occur within the plan area are included in Appendix E.
Special Status Wildlife
Based on the field investigation, review of available databases and literature, familiarity
with local fauna, and on-site habitat suitability, a total of 100 special status fish and
wildlife species were considered as part of this assessment.23 Fifty-four of these were
determined to have at least some potential to occur within the plan area or adjacent
habitats based on the presence of suitable habitat. Special status wildlife species with the
potential to occur within the plan area are included in Appendix E.
4.4.2 REGULATORY SETTING
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (FESA), was created to
“conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend.” The
USFWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration‟s National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) have authority over projects that may result in a “take” of a
species listed as threatened or endangered under the FESA. Under the FESA, plant and
wildlife species, including all lower taxa including subspecies and varieties, are listed
22
23
USFWS 1999, 2008, 2009a,b; CDFG 2009b,c,e; CNPS 2001, 2009; CCH 2009, Hickman 1993
USFWS 1999, 2008, 2009a,b; CDFG 2009a,d,e; NMFS 2004, SAS 2006
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-19
threatened or endangered based on (A) the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of their habitat or range, (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, (C) disease or predation, (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting their continued existence. FESA listing categories include endangered,
threatened, and candidates for listing. FESA provides protection for species listed as
endangered, and prohibits the “take” of such species in areas under federal jurisdiction or
in violation of state law. A “take” is defined as any action to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.
Species listed as threatened do not warrant listing as endangered and are not provided the
same protection under Section 9 of the FESA; however, USFWS often applies the same
protection as authorized by Section 4(d) of the FESA. Section 4(d) also allows for
exceptions to the take rule under special circumstances.
If a project would result in a take of a federally listed species, either an incidental take
permit, under Section 10(a) of the FESA, or a federal interagency consultation under
Section 7 of FESA, is required prior to the take. Current inventories published for species
listed under the FESA include the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants,24
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That are
Candidates or Proposed for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of
Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions;
Proposed Rule,25 Endangered and Threatened Species; Establishment of Species of
Concern List, Addition of Species to Species of Concern List, Description of Factors for
Identifying Species of Concern, and Revision of Candidate Species List Under the
Endangered Species Act.26
Clean Water Act of 1977: Section 401 and Section 404
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) have jurisdiction over “Waters of the United States,” which include
navigable waters of the United States, interstate waters, all other waters where the use or
degradation or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce,
tributaries to any of these waters, and wetlands that meet any of these criteria or that are
adjacent to any of these waters or their tributaries.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes the USACOE to regulate any activity
that fills wetlands or “waters of the United States.”
Under Section 401 of the CWA, projects that require a permit from the USACOE under
Section 404 must also obtain water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB).
USFWS, 1999.
USFWS, 2005a.
26 NMFS, 2004.
24
25
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-20
Waters of the United States include marine waters, tidal areas, and stream channels.
Under federal regulations, wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and
that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas.”27 Presently, to be considered a wetland, a site must exhibit three
criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology existing under the
“normal circumstances” for the site.
Wetlands that are non-navigable, isolated, and intrastate only may not be subject to
USACOE jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA, pursuant to the “SWANCC”
decision.28 Although isolated wetlands may not be subject to USACOE jurisdiction under
Section 404, they are considered “waters of the State” under California‟s Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act (Cal. Water Code Sections 13020, et seq.) and, as such, are
subject to regulation by RWQCBs.
Policies regulating the loss of wetlands generally stress the need to compensate for
wetland acreage losses by creating wetlands from non-wetland habitat on at least an acrefor-acre basis. That is, mitigation requiring a no-net-loss of wetland functions and values
is typically required. Projects that cause the discharge of dredged or fill materials in
Waters of the United States require permitting by the USACOE. Actions affecting small
areas of jurisdictional waters may qualify for a Nationwide Permit, provided conditions of
the permit are met (such as avoiding impacts to threatened or endangered species or to
important cultural sites).
Development projects that do not meet the Nationwide Permit conditions, or projects that
disturb a larger area, require an Individual Permit. The process for obtaining an
Individual Permit requires a detailed alternatives analysis and development of a
comprehensive mitigation/monitoring plan.
Waters of the United States
“Waters of the United States,” which include “wetlands” and “other waters,” are defined by
33 CFR Section 328.3 as follows:

All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible
to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to
the ebb and flow of the tide.

All interstate waters including interstate wetlands.
33 C.F.R. Section 328.3(b).
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County vs. United Stated Army Corps of Engineers (2001) 531 U.S.
159.
27
28
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-21

All “other waters” such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent
streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows,
playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could
affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
o
which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational
or other purposes; or
o
from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or
foreign commerce; or
o
which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in
interstate commerce.

All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States
under the definition.



Tributaries of waters identified above.
The territorial seas.
Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than wetlands) identified above.
The USACOE generally does not consider the following waters to be “waters of the United
States.” However, the USACOE reserves the right on a case-by-case basis to determine
that a particular water body within these categories of waters is a water of the United
States. The EPA also has the right to determine on a case-by-case basis if any of these
waters are “waters of the United States.”



Non-tidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land.

Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water
created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic
reasons.

Water filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and
pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless
and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting
body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States [see 33 CFR
328.3(a)].
Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased.
Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and
retain water, and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering,
irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing.
Ordinary High Water Mark
USACOE jurisdiction over “other waters” extends to the limit of the Ordinary High Water
Mark or the upward extent of any adjacent wetland. The Ordinary High Water Mark, as
defined by 33 CFR Section 328.3(e), is the visible line on the shore/bank established by
the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as:

A clear, natural line impressed on the bank.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-22





Shelving.
Changes in the character of soil.
Destruction of terrestrial vegetation.
The presence of litter and debris.
Other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding
areas.
Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires authorization from the Secretary
of the Army, acting through the USACOE, to construct any structure in or over any
“navigable water of the United States.” Structures or work outside the limits defined as
navigable waters require a Section 10 permit if the structures or work affect the course,
location, or condition of the water body. The law applies to dredging or disposal of
dredged materials, excavation, filling, rechannelization, or any other modification of a
navigable water of the United States. It includes without limitation, any wharf, dolphin,
weir, boom breakwater, jetty, groin, bank protection (e.g. riprap, revetment, bulkhead),
mooring structures such as pilings, aerial or subaqueous power transmission lines, intake
or outfall pipes, permanently moored floating vessel, tunnel, artificial canal, boat ramp,
aids to navigation, and any other permanent, or semi-permanent obstacle or obstruction.
Navigable waters are generally defined as waters of the United States that are subject to
the ebb and flow of the tide, shoreward to the mean high water mark, and/or are presently
used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible to use to transport interstate or
foreign commerce, as defined in 32 CFR Section 322.2(a).
Marine Mammal Protection Act
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted on October 21, 1972. All marine
mammals are protected under the MMPA. The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions,
the "take" of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the
importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S.29
Congress passed the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 based on the following
findings and policies: some marine mammal species or stocks may be in danger of
extinction or depletion as a result of human activities; these species or stocks must not be
permitted to fall below their optimum sustainable population level ("depleted"); measures
should be taken to replenish these species or stocks; there is inadequate knowledge of the
ecology and population dynamics; and marine mammals have proven to be resources of
great international significance.
The MMPA was amended substantially in 1994 to provide for: certain exceptions to the
take prohibitions, such as for Alaska Native subsistence and permits and authorizations
29
NMFS.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-23
for scientific research; a program to authorize and control the taking of marine mammals
incidental to commercial fishing operations; preparation of stock assessments for all
marine mammal stocks in waters under U.S. jurisdiction; and studies of pinniped30fishery interactions.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712; MBTA), administered by the USFWS,
implements four treaties between the United States and Canada, Mexico, Japan and
Russia, respectively, to manage and conserve migratory birds that cross national borders.
The MBTA makes it unlawful in any manner, unless expressly authorized by permit
pursuant to federal regulations, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take,
capture, kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to barter, barter, offer to purchase, purchase,
deliver for shipment, ship, export, import, cause to be shipped, exported, or imported,
deliver for transportation, transport or cause to be transported, carry or cause to be
carried, or receive for shipment, transportation, carriage, or export at any time, or in any
manner, any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. The definition of
“take” is defined as any act to “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or
attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect.” This includes most
actions, direct and indirect, that could result in “take” or possession, whether it is
temporary or permanent, of any protected species.31 Although harassment and habitat
modification do not constitute a take in themselves under the MBTA or Fish and Game
Code, such actions that result in direct loss of birds, nests or eggs, including nest
abandonment or failure, are considered a take under such regulations. A list of migratory
birds protected under the MBTA, available in Section 10.13 of Title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulation, excludes non-native species that have been introduced into the U.S. or
its territories, and species that belong to the families not listed in any of the four treaties
underlying the MBTA, such as wrentit (Chamaea fasciata), European starling (Sturnus
vulgaris), California quail (Callipepla californica), Ring-necked Pheasant (Phasianus
colchicus) and Chukar (Alectoris chukar), among other species less common in California.
On December 8, 2004 the U.S. Congress passed the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act
(Division E, Title I, Section 143 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, PL 108–
447; MBTRA), which excludes all non-native migratory birds or birds that have been
introduced to the U.S. or its territories. It defines a native migratory bird as a species
present within the U.S. and its territories as a result of natural biological or ecological
processes. The USFWS published a list of the bird species excluded from the MBTA on
March 15, 2005 (70 FR 12710), which included two species commonly observed in the
U.S., the rock pigeon (Columba livia) and domestic goose (Anser anser „domesticus’).
30
31
A pinniped is a class of marine mammals including seals, sea lions, and walruses.
USFWS, 2005b.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-24
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; June 8, 1940) as
amended, provides protection for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and golden
eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) by prohibiting the taking, possession and commerce of such
birds, their nests, eggs or feathers unless expressly authorized by permit pursuant to
federal regulations. The Act also provides criminal and civil penalties for violations of the
Act and defines take as any action to pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture,
trap, collect, molest or disturb.
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of 1984, administered by the California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), recognizes that certain species of fish, wildlife, and
plants are in danger of, or threatened with, extinction because their habitats are
threatened with destruction, adverse modification, or severe curtailment, or because of
overexploitation, disease, predation, or other factors. The Legislature recognized that
these species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of ecological, educational, historical,
recreational, aesthetic, economic, and scientific value to the people of the state, and the
conservation, protection and enhancement of these species and their habitat is of
statewide concern. The CESA built on the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA)
(discussed below) and increased regulatory protection for plant species. Listing categories
under the CESA include endangered, threatened, rare or candidate for listing.32
CESA requires state agencies to consult with the CDFG when preparing CEQA documents
to ensure that the state lead agency actions do not jeopardize the existence of listed
species. It directs agencies to consult with CDFG on projects or actions that could affect
listed species, directs CDFG to determine whether jeopardy would occur, and allows
CDFG to identify “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to the project consistent with
conserving the species.
CESA prohibits the taking of state-listed endangered or threatened plant and wildlife
species. CDFG exercises authority over mitigation projects involving state-listed species,
including those resulting from CEQA mitigation requirements. CDFG may authorize a
taking through an incidental take permit, if the impacts of the take are minimized and
fully mitigated. Mitigation often takes the form of an approved habitat management plan
or management agreement that avoids or compensates for possible jeopardy. CDFG
requires preparation of mitigation plans in accordance with published guidelines.
California Fish and Game Code
The California Fish and Game Code provides protection for California’s plant and wildlife
species and precludes taking of species listed as fully protected by the CDFG. Section 86
defines take as any action to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt,
pursue, catch, capture, or kill. Unless expressly authorized under Chapter 1.5, Article 3,
32
CDFG Code Sections 2062, 2067 and 2068
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-25
Section 2081 (which outlines exceptions for taking of endangered and threatened species)
endangered, threatened, and fully protected species shall not be taken for any purpose.
Section 3503 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of
any bird; Section 3503.5 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of any
nests, eggs or birds in the orders Falconiformes (new world vultures, hawks, eagles,
ospreys and falcons, among others)or Strigiformes (owls); Section 3511 prohibits the take
or possession of fully protected birds; and Section 3513 prohibits the take or possession of
any migratory nongame bird or part thereof as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. Section 4700 provides protection for fully protected mammals unless expressly
authorized under Section 2081.7. Fully protected mammals include Morrow Bay
kangaroo rat, bighorn sheep, except Nelson bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni),
northern elephant seal, Guadalupe fur seal, ring-tailed cat, Pacific right whale, salt-marsh
harvest mouse, southern sea otter, and wolverine. Section 4150 provides protection for all
nongame mammals occurring naturally in California, which are not fully protected or furbearing mammals. Section 5050 provides protection for fully protected amphibians and
reptiles unless expressly authorized under Section 2081.7. Fully protected amphibians
and reptiles include blunt-nosed leopard lizard, San Francisco garter snake, Santa Cruz
long-toed salamander, limestone salamander, and black toad. Section 5515 provides
protection for fully protected fish unless expressly authorized under Section 2081.7. Fully
protected fish include Colorado River squawfish, thicktail chub, Mohave chub, Lost River
sucker, Modoc sucker, shortnose sucker, humpback sucker, Owens River pupfish,
unarmored threespine stickleback, and rough sculpin.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers both the Porter-Cologne
Water Quality Control Act and Section 401 of the CWA through the nine state RWQCBs.
The RWQCB with jurisdiction in the Bay Area is the San Francisco RWQCB. The PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act requires “any person discharging waste, or proposing
to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the ‘waters of the State’ to file a
report of discharge” with the RWQCB (Cal. Water Code Section 13260). Waters of the
State are “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the
boundaries of the state” [Cal. Water Code Section 13050(e)].
Pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, the RWQCBs consider waters of the State to include
(without limitation) rivers, streams, lakes, bays, marshes, mudflats, unvegetated
seasonally ponded areas, drainage swales, sloughs, wet meadows, natural ponds, vernal
pools, diked bay lands, seasonal wetlands, and riparian woodlands. The RWQCBs have
also claimed jurisdiction and exercised discretionary authority over “isolated waters,” as
discussed above.
Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) of 1977, which is implemented by the CDFG, was
created to “preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” The
NPPA gave the CDFG the authority to designate native plants as endangered or rare and to
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-26
regulate, through permits, activities such as collecting, transporting, or selling plants
protected by the NPPA. The NPPA also provides the definitions of native, threatened, and
endangered plants in Section 1901 of the California Fish and Game Code.
Among its goals, CEQA was intended “to preserve for future generations representations
of all plant and animal communities” (Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 21001c). Through this
process, impacts and mitigation to state and federally listed plant species are discussed.
California Native Plant Society
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed and maintains a list of rare,
threatened, and endangered plants of California. This information is published in the
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. The CNPS list is
endorsed by the CDFG and effectively serves as its list of “candidate” plant species. The
following identifies the definitions of the CNPS listings:

List 1A: Plants presumed to be extinct in California;

List 2: Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but are more
numerous elsewhere;

List 3: Plants about which more information is needed (a review list): and
List 1B: Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and
elsewhere;
List 4: Plants of limited distribution (a watch list).
CNPS List 1B and List 2 species are considered eligible for state listing as endangered or
threatened pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code. As part of the CEQA process,
such species should be fully considered, as they meet the definition of threatened or
endangered under the NPPA and Sections 2062 and 2067 of the California Fish and Game
Code. CNPS List 3 and List 4 species are considered to be either plants about which more
information is needed or are uncommon enough that their status should be regularly
monitored. Such plants may be eligible or may become eligible for state listing, and CNPS
and CDFG recommend that these species be evaluated for consideration during the
preparation of CEQA documents,33 as some of these species may meet NPPA and CESA
criteria as threatened or endangered.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) is a
California state agency that has regulatory jurisdiction over the Bay and its shoreline.
BCDC's jurisdiction generally extends to all areas of the Bay that are subject to tidal action,
including sloughs and marshlands, to a 100-foot shoreline band surrounding the Bay, to
salt crystallization ponds and managed wetlands as defined in the Act, and certain
designated waterways. Specifically, BCDC has jurisdiction over marshlands lying between
33
CNPS 2001.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-27
mean high tide and five feet above mean sea level; tidelands (lying between mean high tide
and mean low tide); and submerged lands (lands lying below mean low tide).
Redwood City Tree Preservation Ordinance
Chapter 35 of the Redwood City Municipal Code (“Tree Preservation Ordinance”) uses the
following definition for the word “tree”:

Any woody plant characterized by having a single trunk of a circumference of
thirty-eight inches (38″) or more, measured at any point between six inches (6″)
and thirty-six inches (36″) above ground level; or

Any woody plant characterized by having a single trunk which has been found by
the Park and Recreation Commission to have special significance to the
community, which plant shall be designated a "heritage tree." (Ord. No. 1536,
Section 1, 6-26-72)
The ordinance protects trees as defined above from being cut, removed, or caused to be
cut, moved, or removed without a permit from the City’s Parks and Recreation Director
(Director). If trees are damaged or removed without this approval the tree must be
restored to its former condition under the direction of Director, if restoration is not
possible the tree must be replaced with a tree as approved by the Director.
The ordinance states that any tree, regardless of size, may be declared a heritage tree, as
long as it is healthy and adapted well to the climatic condition of the area, is visible from a
public right-of-way, and meets one the following conditions:

That said tree has historical significance,
That said tree is indigenous to the area,
That said tree is one of a group of trees and that each is dependent on the other
tree for survival. (Ord. No. 1536, Section 1, 6-26-72).
Policy Consistency Analysis
All proposed development allowed by the New General Plan will be subject to
environmental review and will be reviewed for consistency with applicable policies and
implementation programs of the New General Plan. Policies NR-5.7 and NR-8.1 through
NR-8.5 within the New General Plan are focused on preserving, enhancing and restoring
habitats for native plants and wildlife through a variety of mechanisms such as protection
of sensitive habitats, as well as working to enhance and restore native habitats. Program
NR-27 specifically calls for the enforcement and compliance with all of the previously
described federal, state, and local regulations.
Program NR-22, as modified by mitigation below, would require that proponents of new
development in any area where sensitive biological resources exist (i.e. hillside and
Bayfront areas) to identify all such sensitive biological resources on project site(s) in
accordance with the methods and protocols of the USFWS, CDFG, and CNPS. Program
NR-23 would require proponents of any development in the plan area to mitigate any
potential adverse impacts to biological resources in accordance with the CEQA and other
applicable environmental regulations.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-28
The New General Plan also includes Policies NR-5.2, NR-5.3, NR-5.5, and NR-6.5, which
reduce potential pollution from construction activities by restricting development near
creeks and other waterways, and taking steps to reduce urban runoff. These policies
would promote compliance with Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA.
Policies NR-99.1 through NR-9.94 and Programs NR-34, NR-39, NR-40 would preserve,
maintain, and expand the number of trees within the plan area that would be protected
under the current Redwood City Tree Preservation Ordinance.
4.4.3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The City has not established local CEQA significance thresholds as described in Section
15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, significance determinations are from
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A significant impact could occur if development
allowed by the New General Plan would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish
or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.
4.4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
This impact analysis is based on a review of background information, including a query of
the CNDDB,34 review of existing environmental documents, knowledge of regional biota,
and a site reconnaissance of the plan area conducted by Nomad Ecology botanists and
34
CDFG 2009e.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-29
wildlife biologists on February 18 and 25, 2009. One additional field reconnaissance was
conducted by a wildlife biologist on March 9, 2009.
Issues Not Discussed Further
Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Conservation
Plan
There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation
Plan (NCCP), nor other similar approved conservation plan within or in close proximity to
the plan area. The closest HCP to the plan area is the San Bruno Mountain HCP, located
approximately 12 miles north of the plan area. The closest NCCP to the plan area is the
Santa Clara Valley NCCP, approximately 30 miles to the south in the Coyote Valley.
Owing to the distances between the closest HCP and NCCP to the plan area, adoption of
the New General Plan would result in no conflict to the provisions of these pertinent HCPs
and NCCPs and thus no impact would result.
Project Impacts
Impact 4.4-1: Development allowed by the New General Plan could result in
the loss of habitat, mortality, or indirect impacts to special status species.
(Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Development allowed by the New General Plan would primarily be infill and
redevelopment of areas already urbanized. However, up to 9,103 new housing units and
7.3 million square feet of non-residential development are anticipated, in addition to
identified transportation and infrastructure improvements. The New General Plan
emphasizes infill and redevelopment in urbanized areas of the City. Some development
allowed by the New General Plan could occur on parcels that are undeveloped or vacant or
on land adjacent to sensitive resources, which may result in impacts to biological
resources.
Future development activities and/or public improvement projects throughout the plan
area along streams, in grasslands that contain seasonal wetlands, in Bayfront areas, and
other wetland habitats could result in the loss of wetlands and riparian habitat. The New
General Plan would allow for the conversion of a portion of a parcel within the Bayfront
area along Steinberger Slough designated as Open Space in the existing General Plan to
Mixed Use – Waterfront Neighborhood. This map change would allow urban
development in an open space area that may harbor sensitive biological resources.
Development of empty parcels and redevelopment of currently developed parcels could
result in the removal of oak woodland and serpentine habitat/and or serpentine grassland.
Restoration or public access projects in Stulsaft and Edgewood parks could also result in
impacts to serpentine habitat/and or serpentine grassland.
With regard to the salt crystallization ponds on the Cargill Property, the New General Plan
would maintain the existing “Urban Reserve” designation for the western portion of the
site and provide an “Open Space- Preservation” designation for the eastern portion (Refer
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-30
to Section 4.2, Agriculture, and Section 4.9, Land Use and Planning, for further
discussion pertaining to the Cargill Property). The retention of “Urban Reserve” on the
western portion would continue the City’s designation of that portion of the site for
unspecified future conversion to urban use. The designation of the eastern portion as
Open Space – Preservation would allow for the continuation of the same allowable uses as
under the site’s current general plan designation, including salt harvesting activities.
Thus, the New General Plan would not introduce any physical change to the Cargill
Property and therefore would not result in any related significant environmental impact
related to biological resources on the property. As the City received a development
application for the property in May 2009, the potential development of the property is
considered in this EIR as part of the cumulative impact analysis. Please see Chapter 6.0,
Cumulative Impacts.
The Natural Resources and Built Environment Chapters of the New General Plan contain
policies and programs, which address the health protection, conservation, and
management of biological resources known to or expected to occur within the plan area.
The New General Plan includes several policies and implementation programs related to
the protection of biological resources in the plan area. Policy NR-8.1 requires that efforts
to protect sensitive biological resources are pursued. Policies NR-5.1, NR-5.3 through NR5.7, detailed in Appendix A, address the protection and enhancement of creeks, streams,
and sloughs including the preservation and protection of riparian plants, requiring
setbacks from and buffer zones around creeks, limiting construction activities within
creeks. Policies NR-6.1, NR-6.2, and NR-6.3 address the protection, restoration, and
maintenance of Baylands including tidal flats, tidal marshes, and salt marshes. Policies
NR-8.2 through NR-8.5 would require the restoration and protection of sensitive
biological resources, native habitat, and vegetation communities that support sensitive
wildlife species and would preserve and create contiguous wildlife habitat and movement
corridors. In regards to tree protection, Policies NR-9.1 and NR-9.3 would preserve and
expand the number of trees within the plan area, focusing on native and landmark treetypes. Furthermore, Policy BE-23.9 would preserve open space and habitat resources and
provide species protection.
Program NR-24 requires that whenever new development or redevelopment occurs
adjacent to an existing creek, the City will work with the developer to improve and
enhance the portion of the creek on or adjacent to the property, including daylighting and
creek restoration, wherever feasible. Program NR-25 requires protection of reasonable
setback areas along existing creeks from encroachment by buildings, pavement and other
impactful uses. Programs NR-26 through NR-31, NR-34, NR-37, NR-38, NR-40, NR-43,
and NR-46 require compliance with water quality standards and state and federal
regulations pertaining to habitat and wildlife preservation, enhancing fisheries
restoration, maintaining upland-bayland transition zones for wildlife refuge, consultation
with BCDC to restore and preserve Bayfront lands while maintaining public access, and
tree preservation. Adherence to these related policies of the New General Plan would
result in the restoration and enhancement of creeks, marshlands, riparian areas, and
wildlife habitat, and would allow for appropriate public access to Bayfront open space and
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-31
creeks. Refer to Appendix A for a detailed description of the referenced implementation
programs.
The New General Plan implementation programs include similar protective and
restorative measures for sensitive biological resources. Programs NR-22, NR-23, and NR27 address the identification of sensitive biological resources, mitigation of adverse
impacts, and compliance with State and federal regulations pertaining to habitat
preservation. While Program NR-22 requires new development proposals to obtain
qualified biologists to identify and map all sensitive biological resources on the project
site, this implementation program only specifies new development proposals in the
hillside and baylands areas, and not all projects, including public access/trails projects or
restoration projects. Furthermore, Program NR-23 requires the implementation of
measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts of development and/or public
improvements on fish, plant, and wildlife habitat in accordance with CEQA and other
applicable environmental regulations, but does not specifically address sensitive
vegetation communities including wetlands, riparian habitats, oak woodlands, or
serpentine grassland.
The wetlands, riparian habitats, oak woodlands, and serpentine grassland communities
within the plan area are important plant and wildlife habitats and are considered sensitive
biological resources. The loss of any part of these communities is considered a significant
impact and requires mitigation, identified below.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a: Modify Implementation Program NR-22 to read as
follows:
Program NR-22: Sensitive Species Biological Resources Identification.
For development applications proposed for sensitive hillside or Bayfront
biological resource areas, require qualified biologists to identify and map all
sensitive biological resources on the project site, including local, State and
federally sensitive, rare, threatened and endangered plant, fish and wildlife species
and their habitats; using methods and protocols in accordance with the USFWS,
CDFG, and California Native Plant Society; and make recommendations for
avoiding sensitive biological resources to the maximum extent feasible and
pursuant to program BE-2 in Urban Form and Land Use Chapter of the Built
Environment Element. These requirements shall be satisfied prior to approval of
any development proposal for the site.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b: Modify Implementation Program NR-23 to read as
follows:
Program NR-23: Mitigate Adverse Impacts of Development. Implement
measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts of development and/or public
improvements on fish, plant and wildlife habitat in accordance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other
applicable environmental regulations. For new development proposals in
the City in which unavoidable harm or removal of sensitive biological
resources could occur, require the development of a compensation
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-32
plan prior to City approval of any development proposal for the site.
Compensation could include purchase of mitigation credits for the
affected habitat types at an established mitigation bank, or
preservation and enhancement of in-kind habitat types (preferably
onsite). Required compensation ratios will be developed on a case-bycase basis in coordination with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
California Department of Fish and Game, San Francisco Regional
Water Quality Control Board, and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c: Obtain Permits and Implement Conditions of
State and Federal Permits for Impacts on Riparian Habitat, Wetlands, and
Other Waters of the United States. Potential impacts to wetlands are regulated
by the USACOE under Section 404 the CWA; CDFG under Section 1600 of the
California Fish and Game Code, and San Francisco Bay RWCQB. Prior to any ground
disturbing activities, and prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits
within the plan area, the City shall require the project proponent to obtain all
necessary permits pertaining to affected riparian habitat or Waters of the United
States, including wetlands, stream channel, and open-water habitat regulated by the
USACOE, CDFG, and San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Discharge of fill into Waters of the
United States will require a CWA Section 404 permit from the USACOE and CWA
Section 401 certification from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permitting process
will also require compensation for impacts to wetlands.
Significance After Mitigation: With the changes identified in Mitigation Measures
4.4-1a through 4.4-1c, program level impacts to sensitive biological resources would be
less than significant.
the loss of habitat, mortality or indirect impacts to special status plant
species. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
The New General Plan could allow future development or public improvement efforts that
lead to the loss of special status plants or indirect impacts that could degrade the habitat
of special status plants. Special status plants are known to occur in the plan area including
in Edgewood Park, Stulsaft Park, and Belmont Slough. Potential habitat for special status
plant species occurs in serpentine grassland, grassland, chamise chaparral, oak woodland,
northern coastal scrub, and salt marsh throughout the plan area.
New General Plan Programs NR-22, NR-23, and NR-27 address the identification of
sensitive biological resources, mitigation of adverse impacts, and compliance with state
and federal regulations pertaining to habitat preservation, which includes special status
plant species. Additionally, Policy NE-8.1 would protect threatened and endangered plant
species and Policy NR-8.4 would require consultation with regulatory agencies and other
organizations to conserve, acquire, and restore open lands that include plant species.
Refer to Appendix A for policy and implementation program details.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-33
However, there are no specific New General Plan components that call for avoidance of
and/or compensation for impacts to special status plant species. Future development
activities and/or public improvement projects throughout the plan area, including
potential future bayfront development, and restoration activities in Stulsaft and Edgewood
parks could result in the loss or indirect impacts to special status plant species. This
impact is considered significant and mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a: Avoid Impacts to Special Status Plants. The
loss of special status plants should be avoided or reduced to the extent feasible for each
project site associated with a sensitive biological resource area. Prior to consideration
of any development or public improvement proposal for the site, the project proponent
shall retain a qualified botanist approved by the City to conduct a special-status plant
survey, according to protocols established by the CNPS, CDFG, or the USFWS, to
identify and map special status plants and make recommendations for avoiding or
mitigating impacts to all special status plants on the project site. The botanist will
coordinate placement of protective temporary fencing outside of special status plant
populations to be preserved. Timing of field surveys and fencing should correspond
with the blooming period when target species are most conspicuous and easily
recognizable.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b: Compensate for Loss of Special Status Plants.
For each project that removes special status plants, the City shall require the
development of a compensation plan, including compensation for impacts to special
status plant species through preservation, enhancement, and/or restoration of habitat
to assist in the recovery of the species. The City shall require that any such
compensation plans are incorporated in project plans and conditions of project
approval.
Prior to construction, individual special status plant species within the work areas that
may be impacted shall be enumerated, photographed, and conspicuously flagged to
maximize avoidance, as well as to determine the total number of individuals affected.
Seed collection from individuals with mature seed that are likely to be impacted should
be collected and properly stored for post-construction propagation and reestablishment. The first six inches of topsoil within occupied habitat should be stored
separately on site and protected from exotic weeds seed dispersal for the purpose of
returning this soil horizon to its appropriate place in the profile in an attempt to
salvage any viable seeds in the seed bank.
4.4-2a, and 4.4-2b, program level impacts to special status plant species would be less
than significant.
the loss of habitat, mortality or indirect impacts to special status animal
Development allowed by the New General Plan could result in mortality or injury to
individual special status animals including the California red-legged frog, San Francisco
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-34
garter snake, California tiger salamander, southwestern pond turtle, Bay checkerspot
butterfly, Pacific harbor seals, and burrowing owl. Impacts to an undetermined acreage of
potential special status animal habitat could lead to indirect impacts to the species due to
future development activities and/or public improvement projects. Indirect impacts
include increased lighting from artificial light sources, increased human activity, and
increased harassment or predation of protected species by pets (i.e. cats and/or dogs).
New General Plan policies relevant to impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat that could
support special status species are listed under Impact 4.4-1.
New General Plan Programs NR-22, NR-23, and NR-27 address the identification of
sensitive biological resources, mitigation of adverse impacts, and compliance with state
and federal regulations pertaining to habitat preservation, but do not specifically address
the protection of specific special status animal species including the California red-legged
frog, San Francisco garter snake, California tiger salamander, southwestern pond turtle,
Bay checkerspot butterfly, Pacific harbor seals, and burrowing owl. The loss of habitat
and/or mortality of special status species would be considered a take as defined under the
federal ESA. This impact is considered significant and mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3a: Consult with USFWS if Federally-Protected
Species or Habitats are Identified. If habitats that potentially support special
status species are found within or adjacent to a project area, the project proponent
must consult with the USFWS under Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act
(or Section 10 if the project involves a federal action) and obtain all required federal
permits and approvals and comply with all applicable federal requirements.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3b: Consult with CDFG if Habitats Potentially
Supporting Southwestern Pond Turtle are Identified. If aquatic habitats,
riparian habitats, ponds, canals, creeks, or other drainages or water bodies with
adjacent upland habitats that potentially support southwestern pond turtle are found
in a project area, the City shall require that the project proponent avoid these habitat
areas to the extent practicable, and implement mitigation required by the CDFG.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3c: Avoid Impacts on Active Burrowing Owl
Nesting and Wintering Burrows. If active burrowing owl nesting or wintering
burrows are found on or in the vicinity of a project area, the project proponent will
implement mitigation strategies to avoid, reduce or mitigate impacts to burrowing
owls, as required by the CDFG.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-3d: Compensate for Impacts to Habitat for Special
status species. The City shall require compensation for impacts to special status
species habitat through preservation, enhancement, and/or restoration of habitat or
assist in the recovery of the species. Project plans and conditions of approval shall
incorporate all mitigation measures required by the USFWS and/or the CDFG.
4.4-3a through 4.4-3d, program level impacts to special status animal species would be
less than significant.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-35
the loss of habitat, mortality, or indirect impacts to special status avian
Development allowed by the New General Plan could result in the loss of habitat, mortality
or indirect impacts to five federal and/or state listed birds occurring in Baylands habitats
(i.e. tidal saltmarsh, tidal flat, lagoon, diked marsh, bay channels and salt crystallization
ponds), within tree groves, and along riparian corridors throughout the plan area due to
future development activities and/or public improvement projects. These species are
California black rail, California clapper rail, California least tern, western snowy plover,
great egret, snowy egret, great blue heron, and black-crowned night heron. Indirect
impacts to these species may include increased lighting from artificial light sources,
increased human activity and increased harassment or predation by pets (i.e. cats and/or
dogs).
California black rails are listed as threatened under the CESA. Western snowy plovers are
listed as threatened under the federal ESA, and California clapper rails, California least
tern and the salt marsh harvest mouse are listed as endangered under the federal ESA and
CESA. Other special status wildlife species occurring in Baylands habitats are federal
species of concern and/or California species of special concern. In addition, all nesting
birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and nesting raptors are protected
under the CDFG, Section 3503.5.
Relevant New General Plan policies include Program NR-22, NR-23, and NR-27 which
address the identification of sensitive biological resources, mitigation of adverse impacts,
and compliance with state and federal regulations pertaining to habitat preservation, but
do not specifically address the protection of federal and/or state listed avian species.
However, future development activities and/or public improvement projects could result
in the loss of habitat and mortality of listed avian species in the plan area. This impact is
considered significant and mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-4a: Avoid Impacts on Active Nest for Special
Status Avian Species. If nests for special status avian species are found on or in the
vicinity of a project area, or if there are potential effects related to the loss of foraging
habitat on nesting raptors, the project proponent will consult with the CDFG to
develop appropriate site-specific mitigation strategies to avoid impacts on active nests
and rookeries. Mitigation measures may include establishing protective nondisturbance buffer zones, timing restrictions, or compensation through acquisition of
replacement nesting habitat.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-4b: Avoid Impacts to Active Migratory Bird Nests.
If active migratory bird nests are found on or in the vicinity of a project area, the
project proponent shall consult with the USFWS Migratory Bird Permit Office and the
CDFG to develop appropriate site-specific mitigation strategies to avoid impacts on
active nests. Mitigation measures may include establishing protective nondisturbance buffer zones, timing restrictions, and monitoring restrictions. The City
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-36
shall require that project plans and conditions of approval incorporate mitigation
acceptable to the USFWS and/or the CDFG.
Significance After Mitigation: With changes identified in Mitigation Measures 4.44a, and 4.4-4b, program level impacts to migratory birds would be less than significant.
the loss or disturbance to active bat roosts and habitat of special status bat
Development allowed by the New General Plan could result in the disturbance or loss of
an undetermined number of active bat roosts and habitat of special status bat species due
to future development activities and/or public improvement projects. Special status bats
with potential to roost in the Redwood City area include pallid bat and western red bat.
Other non-special status bat species such as long-legged myotis, fringed myotis, hoary bat,
Yuma myotis, and California myotis also may roost and forage within the plan area. Bat
roost sites may be limited in availability and often have very specific habitat and/or
microclimate conditions. When a roost site is lost, individuals may not be able to find an
alternate roost in sufficient time for protection from the elements before expiring. Bat
roosts can occur within both man-made structures and natural areas such as wetlands,
riparian habitat and oak woodland. Potential roosts occur within the foothills, along
stream corridors, within manmade structures including bridges and within the Baylands.
Bats also forage over wetlands, and within grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian habitat,
and vegetated habitats within suburban areas depending upon the species.
New General Plan policies relevant to this impact to wetlands, riparian habitat, oak
woodlands and grassland are listed under Impact 4.4-1. Program NR-22, NR-23 and NR27 address the identification of sensitive biological resources, mitigation of adverse
impacts, and compliance with state and federal regulations pertaining to habitat
preservation, but do not specifically address impacts to special status bat species.
While no specific bat roosts are known, such bat roosts could occur throughout the plan
area. Future development activities and/or public improvement projects could result in
the loss or disturbance to active bat roosts and/or habitat of special status bat species.
This impact is considered significant and mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-5a: Avoid Impacts to Active Bat Roosts. If active bat
roosts are found on or in the vicinity of a project area, the project proponent will
consult with the CDFG to develop and implement site-specific mitigation strategies to
avoid impacts on active roosts, if feasible. Active bat roosts are protected under the
California Fish and Game Code, Section 4150 (nongame mammals) and under CEQA.
Mitigation measures may include establishing protective non-disturbance buffer
zones, timing restrictions, and exclusion devices implemented prior to or after the
maternity season.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-5b: Compensate for Impacts to Active Bat Roosts
and Habitat of Special Status Bat Species. When impacts to active bat roosts
cannot be feasibly avoided, the City shall require compensation for impacts to bat
roosts and habitat of special status bat species through preservation, enhancement,
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-37
and/or restoration of habitat or assist in the recovery of the species. The City shall
require that project plans and conditions of approval incorporate mitigation
acceptable to the CDFG.
Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-5a or
Mitigation Measure 4.4-5b would reduce impacts to active bat roosts and the habitat of
special status bat species to a less than significant level.
the potential spread of invasive weeds in the hillsides, creekside and
waterfront areas. (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
Construction activities for projects allowed by the New General Plan could result in the
introduction or spread of non-native invasive plant species. Spread of non-native invasive
plant species can displace native plant species and degrade habitat for wildlife. Invasive
non-native plant species are rated by the California Invasive Plant Council and the
California Department of Food and Agriculture.
Policy NR-88.3 of the New General Plan requires the replacement and control of invasive
non-native vegetation and animals to the extent feasible in parks and open space areas,
and encourages restoration of native vegetation, but does require invasive species
monitoring/control plans and conditions of approval prior to project construction. Future
development activities and/or public improvement projects could result in the spread of
invasive weeds. This impact is considered significant and mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-6a: Identify Invasive Weeds in Proposed Project
Area. Prior to consideration of any development proposal where the City finds
evidence of the presence of invasive weeds, the City will require a botanist to identify
and map the invasive weed populations on the proposed development site prior to
construction activities. Invasive weeds are defined as those species rated as ‘A’, ‘B’, or
‘C’ by California Department of Food and Agriculture or rated High Threat by the
California Invasive Plant Council.
Mitigation Measure 4.4-6b: Monitor and Control Invasive Weeds in
Proposed Project Area. After construction, sites will be monitored to detect the
spread or establishment of new populations of invasive non-native weed populations.
Significance After Mitigation: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-6a and
Mitigation Measure 4.4-6b would reduce impacts of invasive weeds to a less than
significant level.
May 2010
Draft EIR
4.4-38