HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution - 14-37- 20141210 - IPMRESOLUTION NO. 14-37
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MID PENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE INTEGRATED PEST
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT
AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (the "District") is a lead
agency, as provided for under §21 067 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA");
and
WHEREAS, the District is proposing a project known as the Integrated Pest Management
Program ("IPMP" or "Project") to comprehensively guide management of pests on District
properties, with the intent of formalizing and streamlining the procedures for careful
management of pests throughout the District's open space preserves ("OSPs") while protecting
natural resources and public health; and
WHEREAS the District determined that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment and thusly concluded an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") would be needed to
satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to informing
the public and the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District ("Board
of Directors") as to the environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives to said
project; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") was filed with the California Office of
Planning and Research on September 16, 2013 and distributed to involved public agencies and
interested parties for a 30-day scoping period that concluded on October 15, 2013, to initiate the
EIR process and collect written comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the Draft
EIR; and
WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held on September 30, 2013 to gather public
input on the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion of a Draft EIR were
published on September 26,2014; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 60-day period that concluded on
November 10, 2014 and filed with the California State Office of Planning & Research under
State Clearinghouse No. 2013092033; and
WHEREAS, a public information meeting on the Draft ErR was held on October 21,
2014 to provide information to the public regarding the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2014, the Final EIR was published and addressed all
comments raised on the environmental issues associated with the project; and
Resolutionsl2014/14-37 )PM FEIR & MMRP 1
WHEREAS, Section 21000 et. seq. of the California Public Resources Code and Section
15000 et.seq. of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines") which
govern the preparation, content, and processing of environmental impact reports, have been fully
implemented in the preparation of the EIR; and
WHEREAS, on December 10, 2014, the Final EIR for the Project was presented to the
Board of Directors. The Final EIR includes the Draft EIR, all comments and recommendations
received on the Draft EIR, a list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting
on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments made on environmental issues associated with the
project, and all revisions to the Draft EIR (collectively, the Final EIR for the Project).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors, as follows:
1. The Final EIR was completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 (Cal. Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.), as amended,
and the State Guidelines thereto (Cal. Code of Regs. 15000 et seq.).
2. The Final EIR was presented to the Board of Directors and was independently
reviewed and considered by the Board of Directors.
3. The Final EIR reflects the Board of Directors' independent judgment and analysis.
4. Exhibit A, Findings of Fact, attached hereto and incorporated herein, are made by the
Board of Directors. The Project will not result in any significant and unavoidable
environmental impact which cannot be mitigated. The findings contained in Exhibit
A are supported by substantial evidence in the record.
5. Exhibit B, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, attached hereto and incorporated
herein, is adopted to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
The mitigation measures shall be binding upon the District and any affected parties. The
Final EIR adequately addresses the environmental impacts, mitigating measures, and
alternatives to the project. The Board of Directors hereby certifies the Final EIR in
accordance with the requirements of CEQA.
6. The General Manager or designee shall file a Notice of Determination.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on December 10, 2014, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
CYR, HANKO, HARRIS, HASSETT, KISHIMOTO, RIFFLE, SIEMENS
NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
Resolutionsl2014114-37_IPM FEIR & MMRP 2
ATTEST: APPROVED:
President
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I, the District Clerk of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District by the above vote at a meeting thereof duly
held and called on the above day.
Resolutionsl2014114·37 _rPM FEIR & MMRP 3
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION 14-37 -FINDINGS OF FACT
Introduction
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District), the lead agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has approved the Integrated Pest Management Program
(IPMP). These CEQA Findings of Fact are prepared in compliance with Section 21081 of CEQ A
and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines to support the approval of the IPMP by the
District. In describing the purpose of Findings, CEQA states that:
No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental
impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects
on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out
unless both of the following occur:
(a) The public agency makes one or more of the followingfindings with respect to
each significant effect:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by
that other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to afinding under
paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific
overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the
project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. [Public Resources
Code Section 2I08I}
The IPMP would comprehensively direct management of all pests on District properties and is
intended to fonnalize and streamline guidelines and procedures for careful management of pests
throughout the District's open space preserves (OSPs) while protecting natural resources and
public health. The project would be primarily a vegetation management program in wild lands;
however, it will also include some rodent and insect pest management strategies at District
owned structures.
The IPMP Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which was prepared by the District to evaluate
the environmental effects of implementing the IPMP, has been certified by the District as being
adequate under CEQA. The EIR examines the overall environmental effects of implementing the
IPMP as proposed in the program of activities described in the proposed IPM Guidance Manual.
The IPMP is intended to provide the District flexibility in the design of its annual IPM activities
and to allow growth in the program. If IPM activities that are substantially different from the
activities described in the EIR are added, substantially greater growth in the IPMP occurs (e.g.,
the District substantially increases staffing and funding year-over-year to substantially expand
the program), or new chemicals with different active ingredients from those described in the EIR
are proposed for use, the District will independently assess whether this EIR and the IPM
Resolutionsl20141l4-37_IPM FEIR & MMRP _Exh A 1
Guidance Manual provide adequate evaluation of those activities. If it is detennined that
adequate evaluation is not provided, the District may be required to amend the IPM Guidance
Manual and prepare any appropriate subsequent/supplemental environmental documents.
Pest management proposals that are consistent with the IPMP will be evaluated for
environmental effects in light of the infonnation presented in the EIR, in accordance with
Section 15161 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The environmental analysis contained in the EIR provides a thorough evaluation of effects on the
environment that would or could occur as a result of implementing the IPMP. Because the EIR
identified significant effects that would or could occur as a result of the project, and in
accordance with the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines, the District hereby adopts these
Findings. All significant effects of implementing the IPMP will be reduced to a less-than
significant level after implementation of recommended mitigation.
Because no significant unavoidable effects on the environment will remain after implementation
of the IPMP with its adopted mitigation measures, a Statement of Overriding Considerations
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 is not needed as part of the approval of the
IPMP.
CEQA Section 21081 Findings
The District has reviewed the Final EIR for the IPMP, consisting of the Draft EIR (DEIR),
Responses to Comments on the DEIR, and revised sections of the DEIR. The District has also
reviewed the Monitoring Mitigation and Reporting Program (MMRP) and considered the public
record on the project (references provided in Chapter 8, "References," in the DEIR).
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, for each significant effect identified in the
DEIR, the District must make one or more of the findings. The District hereby makes the
following findings regarding the significant effects of the proposed project, pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The District has defined the approach to implementing mitigation measures for the IPMP by the
MMRP. The mitigation measures avoid or mitigate to a less-than-significant level all significant
environmental impacts of the IPMP. Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that
when a public agency is making the findings, as directed by State CEQA Guidelines Section
15091 (a)(1) and Section 21081 (a) of the Public Resources Code, the public agency shall adopt a
MMRP for the changes that it has either required of the project or made a condition of approval
to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully
enforceable through pennit conditions, agreements, or other measures. The District hereby
adopts the MMRP, and commits the District's qualifying IPM projects to full and complete
implementation of the mitigation measures set forth therein. These mitigation measures are
binding and enforceable obligations with which the District must comply.
Biological Resources
Impact 4.2-1: Impacts to Special-Status Wildlife Species.
Manual, mechanical, or chemical treatments could result in direct mortality of special-status
amphibian, reptile or fish species, or impacts to their federally designated critical habitat. Manual
Resolutionsl2014114-37_1PM FEIR & MMRP_Exh A 2
or mechanical treatment of host plants or chemical application of pyretluin could result in direct
mortality of special-status invertebrates. Manual treatments could result in direct mortality of
special-status mammal species through trapping within structures and loss of occupied roosting
habitat for special-status bats. As a result the project would result in potentially significant
impacts to special-status amphibian and reptile species (California red-legged frog, foothill
yellow-legged frog, northern western pond turtle, San Francisco garter snake, California tiger
salamander), special-status fish (tidewater goby, central California coast steelhead, central
California coast coho salmon), special-status invertebrate species (bay checkerspot butterfly,
Callippe silverspot butterfly, Smith's blue butterfly, and Zayante band-winged grasshopper), and
special-status mammal species (Townsend's big-eared bat, western red bat, fringed myotis, hoary
bat, long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, and pallid bat, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat
and Santa Cruz kangaroo rat).
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or
avoid the significant effects on the environment. This mitigation will reduce the potentially
significant effects of the project to a less-than-significant level.
. Facts in Support of Finding
The District adopted the following mitigation measures that will reduce to less-than-significant
levels the project's potential impacts related to direct mortality of special-status amphibian or
reptile species, or impacts to their federally designated critical habitat.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a: Mitigation for impacts to special-status amphibian and reptile species
(California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, northern western pond turtle, San
Francisco garter snake, California tiger salamander).
Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical IPM treatments in an area that is both
federally designated critical habitat and suitable aquatic habitat for California red-legged
frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, northern western pond turtle, San Francisco
gartersnake, or California tiger salamander, the District will consult with the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW) as appropriate pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act and
California Endangered Species Act (ESAICESA). Appropriate measures will be
developed in consultation with USFWS and CDFW to ensure there is no loss of critical
habitat for these species, or that unavoidable loss of critical habitat will be replaced
through habitat enhancement or restoration. Such measures may include avoidance of
breeding habitat, limiting activities to manual removal of vegetation, conducting
activities outside the breeding season, or relocation and mitigation.
Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical IPM treatments within 15 feet of occupied
habitat for California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, northern western pond
turtle, San Francisco garter snake, or California tiger salamander, the District will consult
with USFWS and CDFW. Appropriate measures will be developed in consultation with
USFWS and CDFW to ensure there is no take of these species, or that unavoidable take is
fully compensated for through habitat enhancement or restoration activities, or purchase
of mitigation credits. Shooting, trapping, and gigging of aquatic species will be
conducted only by a qualified biologist with experience in the identification of frog and
turtle species. Inadvertently trapped California red-legged frogs, foothill yellow-legged
frogs or northern western pond turtles will be released immediately upon discovery.
Resolutionsl2014/14·37_IPM FEIR & MMRP_Exh A 3
rf permanent loss of federally designated critical habitat cannot be avoided, compensation
will be provided through protection and enhancement of habitat within the District open
space, purchase of off-site mitigation credits, and/or contribution to regional conservation
and recovery efforts for the species as detennined in consultation with the USFWS and
CDFW.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-lb: Mitigation for impacts to special-status fish (tidewater goby, central
California coast coho salmon, central California coast steelhead).
All mechanical or chemical rPM treatments will be avoided within estuarine marshes,
lagoons, or adjacent stream reaches that provide suitable habitat for tidewater goby. rf
manual, mechanical or chemical rPM treatments are required in areas where suitable
habitat for tidewater goby is present, the District will conduct protocol level surveys for
tidewater goby before implementation of such rPM treatments. If tidewater goby is
identified during these surveys, only manual rPM treatments will be implemented.
Manual rPM treatments will not occur during the tidewater goby spawning period (spring
through summer). Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical rPM treatments in an
area that is federally designated critical habitat for central California coast coho salmon
or central California coast steelhead, the District will consult with the USFWS, NMFS
and CDFW as appropriate pursuant to ESAICESA.
Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical rPM treatments in occupied habitat of
central California coast coho salmon or central California coast steelhead, the District
will consult with USFWS, NMFS, and CDFW.
rf permanent loss of federally designated, critical habitat, or occupied habitat outside of
federally designated critical habitat, cannot be avoided, compensation will be provided
through protection and enhancement of habitat within the District open space, purchase
of offsite mitigation credits, and/or contribution to regional conservation and recovery
efforts for the species as determined in consultation with the USFWS, NMFS, and
CDFW.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-lc: Mitigation for impacts to special-status invertebrates.
To avoid impacts to special-status invertebrates from pyrethrin spray, all District staff and
contractors using pyrethrin spray will be trained in the identification of problem wasps
and special-status invertebrates to ensure that proper species are being targeted. rf
special-status invertebrates are observed, pyrethrin treatment will not be used in these
areas.
Prior to conducting any manual, mechanical, or chemical rPM treatment in serpentine
habitats, surveys will be conducted for dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta), purple owl's
clover (Castilieja densiflora), and exserted paintbrush (Castilleja exserta) during the
appropriate blooming period and host plants containing eggs, larva, or pupa of bay
checkerspot butterfly will not be treated.
Prior to conducting any manual, mechanical, or chemical rPM treatment in suitable dune
habitats, surveys will be conducted for host buckwheats (Eriogonum latifolium and E.
parvifolium) during the appropriate blooming period, and host plants containing eggs,
larva, or pupa of Smith's blue butterfly will not be treated.
Resolutionsl20 14/14-37 _I PM FEIR & MMRP _ Exh A 4
Prior to conducting any manual, mechanical, or chemical IPM treatment in Zayante sandhills,
surveys will be conducted for Zayante band-winged grasshopper and they will be
avoided by treatments.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1d: Mitigation for impacts to special-status bats.
To mitigate for IPM activities to remove roosting bats in buildings:
If removal of bats is necessary in a human-occupied building or prior to demolition or major
renovation of a building in which signs of bats are evident, a qualified biologist will
conduct surveys for roosting bats. Surveys will consist of daytime pedestrian surveys to
look for visual signs of bats (e.g., guano), and if determined necessary, evening
emergence surveys to note the presence or absence of bats. If evidence of bat roosting is
found, the number and species of roosting bats will be determined. If no evidence of bat
roosts is found, then no further study will be required.
When bat roosting sites are located in buildings, exclusion of bats from the building will
occur outside of the April through August nursery season.
If roosts of special-status bats are determined to be present and must be removed, a bat
exclusion plan will be prepared and submitted to CDFW. The exclusion plan will
describe the method of exclusion, which may include the use of one-way doors at roost
entrances (bats may leave but not re-enter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can
be confirmed by a bat expert to contain no bats. No bats will be excluded until the plan is
approved by CDFW and alternative roosting habitat is available. The bats will be
excluded from the roosting site before the site is closed.
To mitigate for removal of large trees during the April through August nursery season to tree
roosting bats:
Avoid removal of trees greater than sixteen inches diameter breast height (dbh) during the
April through August nursery season when possible.
If removal of trees greater than sixteen inches dbh during the April through August nursery
season cannot be avoided, a qualified biologist will conduct surveys for roosting bats
where suitable large trees are to be removed. Surveys will consist of daytime pedestrian
surveys to look for visual signs of bats (e.g., guano), and if determined necessary,
evening emergence surveys to note the presence or absence of bats. If evidence of
roosting bats is found, the number and species of roosting bats will be determined. If no
evidence of bat roosts is found, then no further study will be required.
If bat roosting sites are located in trees to be removed, such removal will occur outside of
the April through August nursery season if possible.
If roosts of special-status bats are determined to be present and must be removed during the
April through August nursery season, a bat exclusion plan shall be prepared and
submitted to CDFW. The exclusion plan will describe the method of exclusion, which
may include the use of one-way doors at roost entrances (bats may leave but not re
enter), or sealing roost entrances when the site can be confirmed by a bat expert to
contain no bats. No bats will be excluded until the plan is approved by CDFW and
Resolutionsl20141l4-37_1PM FEIR & MMRP _Exh A 5
alternative roosting habitat is available. The bats will be excluded from the roosting site
before the site is closed.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1e: Mitigation for Impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat and
Santa Cruz kangaroo rat.
The District will consult with CDFW in areas where IPM treatments require removal of San
Francisco dusky-footed woodrats occupying buildings or require removal of wood rat
nests located within 100 feet of buildings. Consultation will occur prior to removal of
woodrats or their nests. Management actions will be determined in consultation with
CDFW and may include the live capture and relocation of wood rats to suitable adjacent
habitats, and removal of nesting sites within buildings. Nest middens will be dismantled
by hand under the supervision of a biologist. If young are encountered during the
dismantling process, the material will be placed back on the nest, and the nest will remain
undisturbed for two to three weeks in order to give the young enough time to mature and
leave the nest on their own accord. After two to three weeks, the empty nest can be
dismantled. Nest material will be moved to suitable adjacent areas within the mixed oak
woodland that will not be disturbed. As woodrats exhibit high site fidelity, buildings with
previous woodrat nests will be regularly inspected for potential intrusion to prevent
infestation.
The District will consult with CDFW on management in areas where Santa Cruz kangaroo rat
is found occupying buildings, or nests located within 100 feet of buildings must be
removed, prior to nest removal occurring. Management actions will be determined in
consultation with agencies.
Explanation Regarding Reduction of the Potentially Significant Effect
Statutory and regulatory provisions of Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, Sections 7
or 10 of FESA, and Section 2081 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code include
mitigation requirements that will be reasonably expected to result in less-than-significant effects
to aquatic and/or terrestrial resources and associated habitats. The requirements are enforceable
by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (for Section 404), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) (for Section 404[b][I]), San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) (for Section 401), USFWS and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) (for FESA), and CDFW (for CESA). With the attainment of permits and authorizations
related to these laws and regulations, an IPM project that affects these resources will be required
to include actions that prevent or compensate for any potential significant effects to covered
species, habitats, habitat values, and natural processes. The enforceable mandates and
performance standards included in these laws and regulations will, therefore, result in less-than
significant environmental effects.
Impact 4.2-3: Impacts to Federally protected wetlands.
Application of herbicides adjacent to or within wetlands or other waters, the discharge of dredge
or fill during manual and mechanical activities, and the conversion of wetland habitats from
stock ponds to ephemeral wetlands may alter the chemical and biological integrity of wetland
and other waters, and result in a change to wetland type, function, and overall acreage resulting
in a potentially significant impact to wetlands and other waters of the United States.
Resolutionsl2014!l4-37 _IPM FEIR & MMRP _Exh A 6
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or
avoid the significant effects on the environment. This mitigation will reduce the potentially
significant effects of the project to a less-than-significant level.
Facts in Support of Finding
The District adopted the following mitigation measure that will reduce to less-than-significant
levels the project's impacts related to disturbance or loss of wetlands and other waters of the
United States.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-3: Mitigation for impacts to federally protected wetlands.
When seeking a change in habitat type from stock pond to ephemeral wetland to control bull
frogs and non-native fishes, the District will implement the following measures to compensate
for the loss of wetlands and other waters of the United States:
The District will prepare a wetland delineation and will determine the exact acreage of waters
of the United States and waters of the state that would be affected as a result of project
implementation.
The District will replace on a "no net loss" basis (minimum 1: 1 ratio) (in accordance with
USACE and/or RWQCB) the acreage and function of all wetlands and other waters that
would be permanently removed, lost, or degraded as a result of project implementation.
Wetland habitat will be replaced at an acreage and location agreeable to USACE and the
RWQCB and as determined during the Section 401 and Section 404 pennitting processes.
Compensatory mitigation will be approved by USACE and RWQCB.
The District will obtain a USACE Section 404 Permit and RWQCB Section 401 certification
before fill or dredge of wetlands or water of the United States. The District will
implement all permit conditions.
When conducting manual and mechanical treatments within waters, the District will implement
the following measures to compensate for the loss of wetlands and other waters of the United
States:
The District will estimate the quantity of dredge or fill material that may be discharged
incidental to these activities and coordinate permitting with the USACE, including
application for coverage under the Nationwide Permit program as appropriate.
If activities will result in permanent impacts to waters, the District will replace or restore on a
"no net loss" basis (minimum 1:1 ratio) (in accordance with USACE and/or RWQCB)
the acreage and function of all wetlands and other waters that would be removed, lost, or
degraded as a result of project implementation. Wetland habitat will be replaced at an
acreage and location agreeable to USACE and the RWQCB and as determined during the
Section 401 and Section 404 permitting processes. Compensatory mitigation will be
approved by USACE and RWQCB.
When conducting chemical treatments within or with potential to affect waters and with the
potential to discharge directly or indirectly to waters of the United States, the District will
implement the following measures to compensate for the loss of wetlands and other waters of the
United States:
Resolutions/2014/14-37_IPM FEIR & MMRP_Exh A 7
The District must consult with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB which may require the
District to submit a Notice of Intent to Discharge, develop an Aquatic Pesticide
Application Plan. The permit includes design and operational Best Management Practices
(BMPs) that must be implemented to reduce the level of contaminated runoff, including
monitoring and reporting to document and minimize pollutant discharge and ensure
pollutants do not adversely affect waters. If pollutants are found to be exceeding water
quality standards, application must stop or additional BMPs must be developed to bring
the activities into compliance.
Explanation Regarding Reduction ofthe Potentially Significant Effect
Statutory and regulatory provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1600 et
seq. of the California Fish and Game Code include mitigation requirements that will be
reasonably expected to result in less-than-significant effects to wetlands, streams, lakes, and
associated habitats. The requirements are enforceable by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (for
Section 404), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, formerly California
Department of Fish and Game, for Section 1600), and San Francisco Bay RWQCB. With the
attainment of permits and authorizations related to these laws and regulations, an IPM project
that affects wetlands will be required to include actions that prevent or compensate for any
potential significant effects to covered habitats, habitat values, and natural processes. The
enforceable mandates and performance standards included in these laws and regulations will,
therefore, result in less-than-significant environmental effects.
Cultural Resources
Impact 4.3 -1: Change the significance of an historic structure.
The project includes manual and mechanical IPM activities for buildings that could change the
significance of an historical resource by incorporating barriers or building retrofits to buildings
or structures that have not been evaluated for historical significance. This would be a potentially
significant impact.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or
avoid the significant effects on the environment. This mitigation will reduce the potentially
significant effects of the project to a less-than-significant level.
Facts in Support of Finding
The District adopted the following mitigation measure that will reduce to less-than-significant
levels the project's impacts related to the potential for altering historical structures.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1: Built environment survey.
Prior to implementation of building retrofits or barriers that are visible on the exterior and not
consistent with the vernacular nature of rural buildings, historic-age (50 years) structures will be
surveyed by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The
structure will be evaluated for eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historic
Resources. If structures are determined to be eligible for the California Register of Historic
Resources, building retrofits or barriers will follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring,
and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, or the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
Resolutionsl20141l4-37_IPM FEIR & MMRP_Exh A 8
Explanation Regarding Reduction ofthe Potentially Significant Effect
Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 identifies specific procedures that must be adhered ifIPM activities
would result in changes that would be visible on the exterior of historic-age (50 yea rs) structures.
These procedures require that a qualified architectural historian survey the structure and the
structure be evaluated for eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources.
If eligible, the District would follow the Secretary of the Interior's recommendation for alteration
of the structure. Adherence to the mitigation measure and the applicable regulations will ensure
that historic structures, if proposed for alteration, would be handled properly.
Impact 4.3-3: Disturb human remains.
It is unlikely that unknown human remains would be unearthed by earth-disturbing activities
associated with pest management activities because of their limited area and techniques which
are limited to shallow soil disturbance. Nevertheless, the potential exists for previously
undiscovered human remains to be discovered when soils are disturbed.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or
avoid the significant effects on the environment. This mitigation will reduce the potentially
significant effects of the project to a less-than-significant level.
Facts in Support of Finding
The District adopted the following mitigation measure that will reduce to less-than-significant
levels the project's impacts related to the potential for previously undiscovered human remains
to be discovered when soils are disturbed by earth-disturbing activities associated with pest
management activities.
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3: Halt ground-disturbing activity.
If human remains are encountered, all work within 100 feet of the remains will cease
immediately. The District will contact the appropriate county coroner (San Mateo County, Santa
Clara County, or Santa Cruz County) to evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and
protocols set forth in § 15064.5( e) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further disturbance of the site or
any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains will occur until the County
Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition, which will be made within two
working days from the time the Coroner is notified of the discovery, pursuant to State Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are
determined to be Native American, the Coroner will notify the California Native American
Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, which will determine and notify the Most Likely
Descendant (MLD). The MLD may recommend within 48 hours of their notification by the
NAHC the means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and
grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or failure of the MLD to make a timely
recommendation, the human remains and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity
on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.
Explanation Regarding Reduction ofthe Potentially Significant Effect
Mitigation Measure 4.3-3 identifies specific federal and state code and procedures that must be
adhered if human remains are encountered during earth-disturbing activities. Adherence to the
mitigation measure and the applicable regulations will ensure that human remains, if encountered
during earth-disturbing activities, would be handled properly.
Resolutionsl2014/14-37 _lPM FElR & MMRP _Exh A 9
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 4.4-1: Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Manual control methods used for pests in buildings, recreational facilities, fuel management
areas, rangeland and agricultural fields, and natural areas would not result in discharge of
sediments into aquatic areas. Erosion control measures required by BMP 28 would be
implemented on sites with loose or unstable soils, steep slopes (greater than 30 percent), where a
large percentage of the groundcover would be removed, or near aquatic features that could be
adversely affected by an influx of sediment.
Chemical treatments, when used, would be implemented consistent with Pest Control
Recommendations prepared annually by a licensed Pest Control Advisor, would be conducted in
accordance with proposed BMPs. BMPs would require that chemical control operations be
conducted under the supervision of a person holding a Qualified Applicator License or Qualified
Applicator Certificate for pesticides; require all storage, loading and mixing of herbicides be set
back at least 300 feet from any aquatic feature and all mixing and transferring occur within a
contained area; require that application cease when weather parameters exceed label
specifications, when wind at site of application exceeds seven miles per hour, or when
precipitation (rain) occurs or is forecasted with greater than a 40 percent probability in the next
24-hour period.
Because the District proposes to use chemical treatments on rare occasions in wetlands (dry
season) and along stream banks; the IPMP would have the potential to result in residual aquatic
pesticide discharges to waters of the United States. Therefore, implementation of the IPMP
would have the potential to result in violations of water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements. This is a potentially significant impact.
Finding
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that mitigate or
avoid the significant effects on the environment. This mitigation will reduce the potentially
significant effects of the project to a less-than-significant level.
Facts in Support of Finding
The District adopted Mitigation Measure 4.2-3: Mitigation for impacts to federally protected
wetlands (described above) that will reduce to less-than-significant levels the project's impacts
related to potential to result in violations of water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
Explanation Regarding Reduction of the Potentially Significant Effect
Statutory and regulatory provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1600 et
seq. of the California Fish and Game Code include mitigation requirements that will be
reasonably expected to result in less-than-significant effects to wetlands, streams, lakes, and
associated habitats. The requirements are enforceable by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (for
Section 404), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, formerly California
Department of Fish and Game, for Section 1600), and San Francisco Bay RWQCB. With the
attainment of permits and authorizations related to these laws and regulations, an IPM project
will be required to include actions that prevent or compensate for any potential significant effects
to water quality standards or waste discharge requirement. The enforceable mandates and
Resolutionsl2014114-37 _IPM FEIR & MMRP_Exh A 10
performance standards included in these laws and regulations will, therefore, result in less-than
significant environmental effects.
Selection of Preferred Alternative
The EIR evaluates three project alternatives: the No Project Alternative, the Enhanced Early
Detection and Rapid Response Alternative, and the Pesticide Avoidance in Buildings
Alternative.
Findings
The No Project Alternative would not be environmentally superior to the Project, nor would it
meet several important project objectives. The Pesticide Avoidance in Buildings Alternative
would obtain project objectives, but would not be environmentally superior to the Project with
respect to historic resources and hazards.
The Enhanced Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) Alternative was considered the
environmentally superior alternative in the EIR because it would involve increased surveys for
pests and more rapid treatment. Implementing a comprehensive EDRR program under this
alternative would require a significant increase in staffing and funding above current levels in
order to survey all existing and new properties for pest problems and to quickly treat a majority
of these pest populations.
The preferred alternative assumes future IPM activities would be conducted with the available
level of staff and funding, including a new Integrated Pest Management Coordinator. The
preferred alternative achieves the overall objectives of the project and incorporates early
detection measures within the practical constraints of the overall District program.
Conclusion
The Final EIR concludes that the IPMP, with the incorporation of BMPs and mitigation
measures, and with consideration of alternatives, will not create any significant unavoidable
effects to the environment. The mitigation measures listed in conjunction with each of the
findings set forth above, as implemented through the MMRP, will eliminate or reduce to a less
than-signi ficant level, all potentially significant environmental impacts.
References
For complete lists of references used in preparing the EIR, see Chapter 8, "Referen ces," in the
DEIR.
ResolutionsI2014114-37_IPM FEIR & MMRP_Exh A 11
EXHIBIT B to Resolution 14-37--Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the
Integrated Pest Management Program
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) Integrated Pest Management Program
(IPMP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It is prepared for adoption by the District, pursuant
to Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Section
15097 states that an MMRP must be adopted by the lead agency "when a public agency has
made the findings required under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 15091 (of the
CEQA Guidelines) relative to an EIR or adopted a mitigated negative declaration in conjunction
with approving a project. In order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions
identified in the EIR or negative declaration are implemented, the public agency shall adopt a
program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the
measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects."
Background and Environmental Impact Conclusions
On September 26,2014, the District released for public review the Draft EIR for the IPMP to
provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with information about the potential
environmental effects associated with implementation of the IPMP and to seek their comments
on environmental issues. The Final EIR was completed in December 2014; it included all public
and agency comments along with responses to significant environmental points raised in those
comments. The District has certified the Final Program EIR and approved the proposed IPMP.
The environmental impact analysis in the EIR found that implementation of the IPMP would
result in less-than-significant environmental impacts for all but four environmental effects
related to biological resources, cultural resources, and hydrology and water quality. For the four
potentially significant impacts, the EIR identified mitigation measures capable of reducing these
impacts to less-than-significant levels. The mitigation measures were adopted as part of the
District's approval of the IPMP.
For the most part, the environmental impacts related to the proposed IPMP would be less than
significant, because of the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be
incorporated into IPM proposals (listed in Table 3-4 of the Draft EIR). These BMPs consist of
management actions that the District would incorporate into IPM projects for the purpose of
protection of human health and preventing significant environmental effects.
Where potentially significant impacts could not be entirely avoided as a result of the project
description, including its BMPs, mitigation measures are required. In this case, the mitigation
measures involve mitigation for biological resource, cultural resource -related effects. The four
impacts that could result in potentially significant effects on the environment were: Impact 4.2-
1, Impact 4.2-3, Impact 4.3-3, and Impact 4.4-1 (see Section 4.2, Biological Resources; Section
4.3, Cultural Resources; and Section 4.4, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft EIR).
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This MMRP includes the mitigation measures adopted by the District to reduce Impact 4.2-1,
4.2-3,4.3-3, and 4.4-1 to less-than-significant levels. The MMRP fulfills the District's obligation
as the CEQA lead agency to ensure the timely implementation of the mitigation measures
Reso lutionsl20 14/14-37 _IPM FEIR & MMRP _ Exh B 1
identified in the BIR. The MMRP is presented in tabular format. The table columns contain the
,
following information:
Impact: Lists the impact by number for each resource topic, as designated in the EIR.
Mitigation: Provides the number and text of the mitigation measures, each of which has been
adopted by the District and incorporated into the project.
Implementation Responsibility: Identifies the entity responsible for implementing the mitigation
measure. The District, at its discretion, may delegate implementation responsibility or portions
thereof to qualified consultants or contractors.
Implementation Timing: Lists the time frame during which the mitigation measure will be
implemented.
Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the responsible party for confirming and reporting on
implementation of the mitigation measures and the action(s) that would demonstrate successful
completion of the mitigation measure.
Verification (Date and Initials): Identifies the date the completion action(s) for the mitigation
measure were concluded and by whom.
Resolutions/2014114-37_IPM FEIR & MMRP_Exh B 2
Impact 4.2-1: Impacts to Special-Status
Wildlife Species. Manual, mechanical, or
chemical treatm ents could result in
direct mortality of special-status
amphibian, reptile or fish speCies, or
impacts to their fe derally designated
critical hab ita t Manua[ or mechanical
treatm ent of host plants or chemical
application of pyrethrin could result in
direct mortality of special-status
invertebrates. Manua[ treatments could
res ult in direct mortality of special-status
mammal species through tra pping within
structures and loss of occupied roosting
habitat for special-status bats. As a
result the project would result in
pote ntia[1y significant im pacts to specia[
status amphibian and reptile species
(Ca[ifornia red-legged frog, foothill yellow
[egged frog, northern weste rn pond
turtle, San Francisco garter snake,
Ca[ifornia tiger salamander), specia[
status fish (tidewate r goby, central
Ca[ifornia coast stee[head, central
Ca[ifornia coast coho salmon), specia[
status invertebrate species (bay
checkerspot butterfly, Callippe si[verspot
butterfly, Smith's blue butterfly, and
Zaya nte band-winged grassho pper), and
special -status mammal species
(Town send's big-€ared bat, weste rn red
bat, fringed myotis, hoary bat, long-€ared
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a: Mitigation for impacts to special-status
amphibian and reptile species (California red-legged frog, foothill yellow
legged frog, northern weste rn pond turtle, San Francisco gartersnake,
California tiger salamander).
Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical [PM treatments in an
area that is both federally designated critical habitat and suitable
aquatic habitat for California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged
frog, northern western pond turtle, San Francisco gartersnake, or
California tiger salamander, the District will consult with the USFWS
and CDFW as appropriate pursuant to ESAjCESA. Appropriate
measures wil[ be developed in consultation with USFWS and CDFW
to ensure there is no loss of critical habitat for these speCies, or that
unavoidable loss of critical habitat will be replaced through habitat
enhancement or restorati on. Such measu res may include avoidance
of breeding habitat, limiting activities to manual removal of
vegetation, conducting activities outside the breeding season, or
relocation and mitigation.
Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical [PM treatments within
15 feet of occupied habitat for California red-l egged frog, foothill
yel low-[egged frog, northern western pond turtle, San Francisco
gartersnake, or California tiger salamander, the District will consult
with USFWS and CDFW. Appropriate measures will be developed in
consulta tion with USFWS and CDFW to ensure there is no take of
these species, or that unavoidable take is fully compensated for
through hab itat enhancement or restoration activiti es, or pu rchase
of mitigation credits. Shooting, trapping, and gigging of aquatic
species wil[ be conducted only by a qualified biologist with
experience in the identification of frog and turtle species.
Inadvertently trapped California red-legged frogs, foothill yellow
[egged frogs or northern western pond turtles will be released
immediately upon discovery.
[f permanent loss of federally designated critical habitat cannot be
avoided, compensation will be provided through protection and
Resolutions/2014/14-37_IPM FEIR&MMRP_ExhB 3
District's Natura[
Resources
Department will
determine if [PM
treatm ents will affect
special-status
amphibian and reptile
species; wil[ conduct
consultation and
develop appropriate
measures as thereby
required; provide staff
or contractors as
qualified biologists;
and provide
compensation as
required.
Prior to conducting any I District's [PM
mechanical or Coordinator
chemical IPM
treatments in an area
that is both fe derally
designated critical
habitat and suitable
aquatic habitat for
Ca[ifo rnia red-legged
frog, foothill yellow-
[egged frog, northe rn
western pond turtle,
San Francisco
gartersnake, or
Ca[ifornia tiger
salamander; or within
15 feet of occupied
habitat of same
species.
Date:
Initials: __
myotis, long-legged myotis, and pallid
bat, San Francisco dusky-footed wood rat
and Santa Cruz kangaroo rat).
enhancement of habitat within the District open space, purchase of
off-site mitigation cred its, and/or contribution to regional
conservation and recovery efforts for the species as determined in
consulta tion with the USFWS and CDFW.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1b: Mitigation for impacts to special-status fish
(tidewater goby, central California coast coho salmon, central California
coast steelhead).
All mechanical or chemical lPM treatments will be avoided within
estuarine marshes, lagoons, or adjacent stream reaches that
provide suitable habitat for tid ewate r go by. If manual, mechanical or
chemical lPM treatments are required in areas where suitable
habitat for tidewater goby is present, the District will conduct
protocol level surveys for tidewater goby before implementation of
such IPM treatments. If tidewater goby is identified during these
surveys, only manual lPM treatments will be implemented. Manual
IPM treatments will not occur during the tid ewater goby spawning
period (spring through summer). Prior to conducting any mechanical
or chemical lPM treatments in an area that is federally designated
critical habitat for central California coast coho salmon or central
California coast steel head, the District will consult with the USFWS,
NMFS and CDFW as appropriate pursuant to ESAjCESA.
Prior to conducting any mechanical or chemical lPM treatments in
occupied habitat of central California coast coho salmon or central
California coast steelhead, the District will consult with USFWS,
NMFS, and CDFW.
If permanent loss of fed erally designated, critical habitat, or occupied
habitat outsi de of federally designated critical habitat, cannot be
avoided, com pensation will be provided through protecti on and
enhancement of habitat within the District open space, purchase of
offs ite mitigation cred its, and/or contribution to regional
conservati on and recovery efforts for the species as determined in
consultat ion with the USFWS, NMFS, and CDFW.
ResolutionsJ2014/14-37 _!PM FEIR & MMRP _Exh B 4
District's Natural
Resources
Department will
deSignate areas to
avoid for special-status
fish; will conduct or
provide qualified
contractors to conduct
protocol level surveys ;
and will conduct
consu ltati on, develop
appropriate measures
and provi de
compensation as
required.
Prior to conducting any I District's IPM
mechanical or Coordinator
chemical lPM
treatme nts within
estuarine marshes,
lagoo ns, or adjacent
stream reaches that
provide suitable
habitat for tidewater
goby; OR
an area that is
federally designated
critical habitat and/or
within occupied habitat
of central Cal ifo rnia
coast coho salmon or
central California coast
steelhead.
Date:
Initials: __
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1e: Mitigation for impacts to speeial-status District's IPM Training associated District IPM Date: __
invertebrates. Coordinator or with use of pyrethrin Coordinator
To avoid impacts to special -status invertebrates from pyrethrin spray, qualified con tractor will spray will be provided Initials: __
all District staff and contractors using pyrethrin spray will be trained provide training to during the annual
in the identifi cation of problem wasps and special-status staff. pesticide safe ly
invertebrates to ensure that proper species are being targeted. If training.
special-status inverteb rates are observed, pyreth rin treatm ent will
not be used in these areas.
Prior to conducting any manual, mechanical, or chemical lPM treatment District's Natural Prior to conducting any Date: --
in serpentine habitats , su rveys will be conducted for dwarf plantain Resources manual, mechanical,
(Plantago ereeta), purple owl's clover (Castilleja densiflora), and Department or or chemical lPM Initials: --exserted paintbrush (Castilleja exserta) during the appropriate qualified contractor will treatment in
blooming period and host pla nts containing eggs, larva, or pupa of conduct surveys. serpentine habitats; bay checkerspot butterfly will not be treated. surveys conducted
March to May, the
blooming period of
dwarf plantain
(Plantago ereeta),
purple owl's clover
(Gastilleja densiflora),
and exserted
paintbrush (Castilleja
exserta).
Prior to conducting any manual, mechanical, or chemical lPM treatment District's Natural Prior to conducting any District's IPM Date: --
in suitable dune habitats, surveys will be conducted for host Resources manual, mechanical, Coordinator.
buckwh eats (Eriogonum latifolium and Eriogonum parvifo!ium) Department or or chemical lPM Initials: __
during the appropriate blooming period, and host plants containing qualified contractor will trea tment in suitable
eggs, larva, or pupa of Smith's blue bu tterfly will not be treate d. conduct surveys. dune habitats; surveys
to be completed during
blooming period for
host buckwheats
(Eriogonum latifolium
and Eriogonum
parvifolium ).
Prior to conducting any manual, mechanical, or chemical lPM treatm ent District's Natural Prior to conducting any District's IPM Date: --
in Zaya nte sandhills, su rveys will be conducted for Zaya nte band-Resources manual, mechanical, Coordinator.
winged grassh opper and they will be avoided by treatments. Department or or chemical lPM Initials: --
Resolutionsl2014/14-37 _!PM FEIR & MMRP _Exh B 5
qualified contractor will treatm ent in Zaya nte
conduct surveys. sandhills.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1d: Mitigation for impacts to special-status bats. District's Natural Prior to removal of bats District's IPM Date: --
To mitigate for IPM activities to remove roosti ng bats in buildings: Resources in a human-occupied Coordinator.
If removal of bats is necessary in a human-occupied building or prior Department or building; prior to Initials: __
to demolition or major renovation of a building in which signs of qualified contractor will demolition or major
bats are evident, a qualified biologist will conduct su rveys for conduct surveys. renov?tion of a
roosti ng bats. Surveys will consist of daytime pedestrian su rveys building in which signs
to look for visual signs of bats (e.g., guano), and if determined of bats are evident
necessary, evening emergence surveys to note the presence or
absence of bats . If evidence of bat roosti ng is fo und, the number
and species of roosting bats will be determined. If no evidence of
bat roosts is found, then no further study will be required.
When bat roosti ng sites are located in buildings, exclusion of bats District's Natural Septe mber through District's IPM Date: --
from the building will occur outside of the April through August Resources March (Le. outside of Coordinator
nursery season. Department or nursery seaso n). Initials: __
qualified contractor will
design and oversee
installation of
exclusion devices.
If roosts of special-status bats are determined to be present and District's Natural Prior to removal of District's IPM Date: --
must be removed, a bat exclusion plan will be prepared and Resources special-status bats in Coordinator.
submitted to CDFW. The exclusion plan will describe the method Department or structures and after Initials: --of exclusion, which may include the use of one-way doors at roost qualified contractor will approval of plan by
entrances (bats may leave but not re-enter), or sealing roost prepare exclusion plan CDFW. entrances when the site can be confirmed by a bat expert to and gain CDFW contain no bats . No bats will be excluded until the plan is approval. approved by CDFW and alternative roosti ng habitat is available.
The bats will be excluded from the roosting site before the site is
closed.
To mitigate for removal of large trees during the April through August District's field staff in April through August District's IPM Date: --
nursery season to tree roosti ng bats: the Operations Coordinator
Avo id removal of trees greater than sixteen inches dbh during the Department or Natural Initials: __
April through August nursery season when possi ble. Resources
Department staff will
identify which trees to
avoid for removal.
Resolutions/2014114-37 _IPM FElR & MMRP _ Exh B 6
If removal of trees greate r than sixteen inches dbh during the April District's Natural Prior to removal of District's IPM Date: --
through August nursery season cannot be avoided, a qualified Resources trees greater than Coordinator.
biologist will conduct surveys for roosti ng bats where suitable Department or sixteen inches dbh Initials: --la rge trees are to be removed. Surveys will consist of daytime qualified contractor will during the April
pedestrian surveys to look fo r visual signs of bats (e.g., guano), conduct surveys. through August nursery and if determined necessary, even ing emergence su rveys to note season. the presence or absence of bats . If evidence of roosting bats is
fo und, the number and species of roosting bats will be
determined. If no evidence of bat roosts is fo und, then no further
study will be required.
If bat roosting sites are located in trees to be removed, such removal District's Natural Septe mber through District's IPM Date: --
will occur outside of the April through August nursery season if Resources March. Coordinator.
possible. Department will Initials: --
identify trees for which
removal will be
delayed.
If roosts of special -status bats are determined to be present and District's Natural Prior to removal of District's IPM Date: --
must be removed during the April through August nursery season, Resources trees greater than Coordinator.
a bat exclusion plan shall be prepared and submitted to CDFW. Department or sixteen inches dbh Initials: --The exclusion plan will describe the method of exclusion, which qualified contractor will during the April
may include the use of one-way doors at roost entran ces (bats prepare exclusion plan through August nursery may leave but not re-enter), or sealing roost entrances when the and gain CDFW season. site can be confirmed by a bat expert to contain no bats. No bats approval. will be excluded until the plan is approved by CDFW and
alternative roosting habitat is available. The bats will be excluded
from the roosti ng site befo re the site is closed.
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1e: Mitigation for Impacts to San Francisco dusky-District's Natural Prior to removal of San District's IPM Date: --
footed wood rat and Santa Cruz kangaroo rat Resources Francisco dusky-footed Coordinator
The District will consult with CDFW in areas where IPM treatments Department or wood rats or Santa Initials: __
require removal of San Francisco dusky-fo oted wood rats occupying qualified contractor will Cruz kangaroo rats
buildings or require removal of wood rat nests located within 100 conduct consu ltation, occupyi ng build ings or
feet of buildings. Consu ltation will occur prior to removal of wood rats develop management require removal of
or their nests. Management actions will be determined in actions, and oversee wood rat or kangaroo
consu ltation with CDFW and may include the live capture and dismantling of nest rat nests located within
relocation of wood rats to suitable adjacent habitats, and removal of middens. Real 100 feet of buildings.
nesting sites within build ings. Nest middens will be dismantled by Property Department
hand under the supervision of a biologist. If young are encountered and Operations during the dismantling process, the material will be placed back on
Reso1utionsl20 I 4/14-37 _!PM FEIR & MMRP _ Exh B 7
the nest, and the nest will remain undisturbed for two to three Department will
weeks in order to give the young enough time to mature and leave conduct annual
the nest on their own accord. After two to three weeks, the empty inspections of
nest can be dismantled. Nest material will be moved to suitable build ings.
adjacent areas within the mixed oak woodland that will not be
disturbed. As wood rats exhibit high site fidelity, buildings with
previous wood rat nests will be regularly inspected for potential
intrusion to prevent infestati on.
The District will consult with CDFW on management in areas where Santa
Cruz kangaroo rat is fo und occupying buildings, or nests located within
100 feet of buildings must be removed, prior to nest removal occurring.
Management actions will be determined in consultation with age ncies.
Impact 4.2-3: Impacts to Federally Mitigation Measure 4.2-3: Mitigation for impacts to federally protected District's Natural Prior to: 1) Application District's IPM Date: --
protected wetlands. wetlands. Resources of herbicides adjacent Coordinator
Application of herbicides adjacent to or When seeking a change in habitat type from stock pond to ephemeral Department or to or within wetla nds or Initials: --
with in wetla nds or other wate rs, the wetland to control bull frogs and non-native fishes, the District will qualified contractor will other wate rs, 2) the
discharge of dredge or fill during manual implement the fo llowing measures to compensate for the loss of wetl ands prepare wetland discharge of dredge or
and mechanical activities, and the and other waters of the United States: delineation; provide fill during manual and
conversion of wetland habitats from The District will prepare a wetl and delineation and will determ ine the wetland replacement mechanical activities,
stock ponds to ephemeral wetl ands may exact acreage of waters of the United States and waters of the state as required; and or 3) the conversion of
alter the chemical and biological integrity that would be affected as a result of project implementation. obtain permits. wetland habitats from
of wetla nd and other wate rs, and result The District will replace on a "no net loss" basis (minimum 1:1 rati o) (in stock ponds to
in a change to wetland type, function, accordance with USACE and/or RWQCB) the acreage and function of ephemeral wetlands.
and ove rall acreage resulting in a all wetlands and other waters that would be permanently removed,
potentially significant impact to wetla nds lost, or degraded as a result of project implementati on. Wetland
and other waters of the US. habitat will be replaced at an acreage and location agreea ble to
USACE and the RWQCB and as determined during the Section 401
and Section 404 permitting processes. Compensatory mitigation will
be approved by USACE and RWQCB.
The District will obtain a USACE Section 404 Permit and RWQCB
Section 401 certification before fill or dredge of wetlands or water of
the United States. The District will implement all permit conditions.
When conducting manual and mechanical treatments within waters, the
District will implement the fo llowing measures to compensate for the loss of
wetl ands and other waters of the United States:
The District will esti mate the quantity of dredge or fill material that may
be discharged incid ental to these activities and coordinate
permitting with the USACE, including appl ication for coverage under
Resolutionsl2014114-37 _!PM FEIR & MMRP_ExhB 8
EIR Section 4.3 -Cultural Resources
the Nationwide Permit program as appropriate.
If activities will result in permanent impacts to waters, the District will
replace or restore on a "no net loss" basis (minimum 1:1 rati o) (in
accordance with USACE and/or RWQCB) the acreage and function of
all wetl ands and other waters that would be removed, lost, or
degraded as a result of project implementati on. Wetland habitat will
be replaced at an acreage and location agreeable to USACE and the
RWQCB and as determined during the Section 401 and Secti on 404
permitting processes. Compensatory mitigation will be approved by
USACE and RWQCB.
When conducting chemical treatments with in or with pote ntial to affect
waters and with the potential to discharge directly or indirectly to waters of
the United States, the District will implement the following measures to
compensate for the loss of wetl ands and other waters of the United States:
The District must consult with the San Francisco Bay RWQCB which may
require the District to submit a Notice of Intent to Discharge,
develop an Aquatic Pesticide Application Plan. The permit includes
design and operational BMPs that must be implemented to reduce
the level of contaminated runoff, including monitoring and reporting
to document and minimize pollutant discharge and ensure
pollutants do not adversely affect waters. If pollutants are found to
be exceeding water quality sta ndards, applicati on must stop, or
additional BMPs must be developed to bring the activities into
compliance.
-
Impact 4.3-3: Disturb human remains. It I Mitigation Measure 4.3-3: Halt ground-disturbing activity. District's field staff in
is unlikely that unknown human remains
would be unearthed by earth-disturbing
activities associated with pest
management activities because oftheir
lim ited area and techniques which are
limited to shallow soil disturba nce.
Nevertheless, the potential exists for
previously undiscovered human remains
to be discovered when soils are
distu rbed.
If human remains are encountered , all work with in 100 feet of the remains
will cease immediately. The District will contact the appropriate county
coroner (San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, or Santa Cruz County) to
eva luate the remains, and fo llow the procedures and protocols set forth in
§15064.5(e) of the CEQA Guidelines. No fu rther disturbance of the site or
the Operations
Department or
construction project
manager will cease
work and contact
any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains will occur County coroner.
until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and Natural Resources
disposition, which will be made with in two working days from the time the staff will assist in
Coroner is notified of the discovery, pursuantto State Health and Safety commun ication with
Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the the Most Likely
remains are determined to be Native America n, the Coroner will notify NAHC Descendant and
Reso1utionsl2Q 14/14-37_!PM FEIR & MMRP _ Exh B 9
During construction
when any human
remains are
discovered.
District's IPM I Date:
Coordinator
Initials: __
within 24 hours, which will determine and notify the Most Likely Descendant I required responses.
(MLD). The MLD may recommend with in 48 hours of their notification by the
NAHC the means of treating or disposing of,with appropriate dignity, the
human remains and grave goods. In the event of difficulty locating a MLD or
failure of the MLD to make a timely recommendation, the human remains
and grave goods shall be reburied with appropriate dignity on the property in
a location not subject to further subsu rface disturba nce.
EIR Section 4.4 -Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 4.4-1: Violate water quality
standards or waste discharge
re quirements. Manual control methods
used for pests in buildi ngs, recreational
fa cilities, fuel management areas,
rangeland and agricultural fields, and
natural areas would not resu lt in
discharge of sediments into aquatic
areas. Eros ion control measures
required by BMP 28 would be
implemented on sites with loose or
unstab le soils, steep slopes (greater
than 30 percent), where a large
percentage of the groundcover would be
removed, or near aquatic features that
could be adversely affe cted by an influx
of sediment
Chemical treatments, when used, would
be implemented consistent with Pest
Contro l Recommendations prepared
annually by a licensed Pest Control
Advisor, would be conducted in
accordance with proposed BMPs. BMPs
would require that chemical control
operations be conducted under the
supervision of a person holding a
Qualified Appl icator License or Qualified
Applicator Certificate for pesti cides;
require all storage, loading and mixing of
Implement Mitigation Measure 4.2-3: Mitigation for impacts to federally
protected wetlands. (See above)
Resolutions!2 014/14-37 _!PM FEIR & MMRP_Exh B 10
herbicides be set back at least 300 feet
from any aquatic feature and all mixing
and transferring occur with in a contained
area; require that application cease
when weather parameters exceed label
specifications, when wind at site of
appl ication exceeds seven miles per
hour (MPH), or when precipitation (rain)
occurs or is forecasted with greater than
a 40 percent probability in the next 24-
hour period.
Because the District proposes to use
chemical treatments on rare occasions
in wetl ands (dry season) and along
stream banks; the IPMP would have the
potential to result in residual aquatic
pesti cide discharges to waters of the
United States. Therefore,
implementation ofthe IPMP would have
the pote ntial to result in violations of
water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements.
Reso1utionsl20 14/14-37_!PM FEIR & MMRP _Exh B 11