HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution - 21-14- 20210512 - Wildland Fire ResiliencyRESOLUTION NO. 21-14
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE M DPENINSULA
REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE WILDLAND FIRE RESILIENCY PROGRAM
(PROGRAM), MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT, ADOPTING A STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PLAN, AND ADOPTING THE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) is a lead agency
as provided for under Section 15367 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines
(CEQA), and
WHEREAS, the District desires to approve the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program
(Program), which is incorporated herein by reference and serves as a planning and
implementation document to manage vegetation and infrastructure on District lands as well as
planning, response, and monitoring to reduce wildland fire risks, and
WHEREAS, the District determined that the Program may have a significant effect on
the environment and thusly concluded an environmental impact report (EIR) would be needed to
satisfy the requirements of CEQA 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, mitigating measures, and alternatives to said Program, and
WHEREAS, the Program EIR (PEIR) was prepared in accordance with CEQA
guidelines for streamlining project -specific CEQA review to determine whether later activities
are consistent with the scope of the Program analyzed in the PEIR or if additional environmental
review is required, and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed with the California Office of
Planning and Research on April 27, 2020 and distributed to involved public agencies and
interested parties for an initial 30 -day public review period that was extended for an additional
22 days that concluded on June 18, 2020 to initiate the PEIR process and collect written
comments on the scope of issues to be addressed in the Draft PEIR, and
WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held on May 13, 2020 to gather public input
on the environmental issues to be addressed in the Draft PEIR, and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of a Draft PEIR was published on January 11,
2021, and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability of a Draft PEIR was published on January 15,
2021, and
WHEREAS, the Draft PEIR was circulated for a 45 -day period that concluded on March
1, 2021, and
Resolutions/2021/21-14_WildlandFireResiliencyProgramFEIR 1
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Draft PEIR was held on February 25, 2021 to gather
public comments on the Draft PEIR, and
WHEREAS, during the public review period, the District received written comments on
the Draft PEIR, and responses to these comments have been prepared and included in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Program ("Final PEIR"), as follows, and attached hereto
and incorporated herein as Exhibit A:
a) The Draft PEIR, including all of its appendices,
b) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft PEIR,
c) Copies of all letters received by the District during the Draft PEIR public review
period and responses to significant environmental points concerning the Draft PEIR
raised in the review process,
d) Revisions to the Draft PEIR
WHEREAS, the Program EIR identified certain impacts that have the potential for
significant impacts, but are mitigated to less -than -significant levels through implementation of
the mitigation measures proposed as part of the Program and included in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), and
WHEREAS, the Board's adoption of the MMRP, attached hereto as Exhibit B and
incorporated herein by reference, will ensure that all mitigation measures relied on in the
findings are fully implemented, and
WHEREAS, certain Program impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, and greenhouse
gases would remain significant and unavoidable, even after the application of all feasible
mitigation measures to lessen these impacts, due to the reduction in vegetation and associated
visual impacts, and generation of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases during Program
activities, and
WHEREAS, CEQA requires the District to determine whether specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations may outweigh any significant, unavoidable
environmental effects of the Project which cannot be fully mitigated, and
WHEREAS, staff analyzed the economic, legal, social, technological, and other
considerations that outweigh the significant, unavoidable environmental effects of the Program
that cannot be fully mitigated and summarized such benefits in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C, and
WHEREAS, the Final PEIR was published on April 30, 2021 and addressed all
comments raised on the environmental issues associated with the project, and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors, as lead agency under the California Environmental
Quality Act, now finds that:
1. Notice has been given in the time and in the manner required by state law, and
2. The Final PEIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program was presented to the Board of
Directors. The Board of Directors has independently reviewed and considered the
information contained in the Final PEIR, including comments received from the public,
before approving the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program or any elements thereof, and
3. The Program activities described are within the scope of the PEIR, and
Resolutions202121-I4_WildlandFireResiliencyPmgramFEIR 2
4. The Final PEIR was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act, and
5. The PEIR identifies all potentially significant environmental impacts of the Program,
specifically, potentially significant impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources,
cultural and tribal cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions,
hazards, hazardous materials and wildland fire, hydrology and water quality, noise,
recreation, and transportation, which will be avoided or mitigated to less -than -significant
levels through implementation of the mitigation measures included in the MMRP, which
is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference, and
6. The PEIR identifies Program impacts related to aesthetics, air quality, and greenhouse
gases that are determined to be significant and unavoidable, even after the application of
all Program mitigation measures to lessen those impacts, as discussed in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations, which is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein
by this reference, and
7. The Final PEIR reflects the Board of Directors' independent judgment and analysis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND CERTIFIED by the Board of
Directors as follows:
A. The Clerk of the Board and the District are collectively designated as the location and
custodian of the documents and other material constituting the record of proceedings
upon which the Board's decision is based.
B. The Program benefits described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts.
C. The MMRP for the Program is adopted.
D. The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -are adopted.
E. The Wildland Fire Resiliency Program is approved.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional
Open Space District on May 12, 2021, at a regular meeting thereof, by the following vote:
AYES: CYR, HASSETT, HOLMAN, KERSTEEN-TUCKER, KISHIMOTO, RIFFLE,
SIEMENS
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ATTEST:
Larry s - , Secretary
Bo. ' of Directors
APPROV\D:
Curt Riffle, President
Board of Directors
Resolutions/2021/21-I4_WildlandFireResiliencyProgramFEIR 3
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
14/
Hilary Steven n, General Counsel
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.
oodworth, District Clerk
EXHIBITS TO THIS RESOLUTION
Exhibit A: Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Environmental Impact Report (available at the
following hyperlink and not included as a standalone exhibit:
https://www.openspace.orgjour-work/projects/wfrp)
Exhibit B: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Exhibit C: Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Wildland Fire
Resiliency Program
Resolutions/2021/21-14 WildlandFireResiliencyProgramFEIR 4
717 Market Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94103
650-373-1200
www.panoramaenv.com
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Wildland Fire Resiliency Program
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH # 2020049059
April 2021
EXHIBIT A
www.panoramaenv.com
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Wildland Fire Resiliency Program
Final Environmental Impact Report
April 2021
Prepared for:
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA
650-691-1200
Coty Sifuentes-Winter, Senior Resource Management Specialist
csifuentes@openspace.org
Prepared by:
Panorama Environmental, Inc.
717 Market Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94103
650-373-1200
Tania Treis, Principal
tania.treis@panoramaenv.com
EXHIBIT A
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
TOC-i
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................... i
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Purpose of the Final EIR ................................................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Summary of the Proposed Program ........................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Environmental Review Process................................................................................................................... 1-3
1.4 Report Organization ....................................................................................................................................... 1-4
2 Responses to Comments .............................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Agency/Organization Comments and Responses ................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Individual Comments and Responses ...................................................................................................... 2-57
2.4 Public Meeting Comments and Responses ............................................................................................ 2-76
3 Revisions to Text of Draft EIR ...................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Draft EIR Revisions ........................................................................................................................................ 3-1
4 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program .................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Format............................................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Enforcement .................................................................................................................................................... 4-2
5 Document Preparation.................................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Report Preparation ........................................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.2 Agencies, Organizations, and Tribes Consulted ...................................................................................... 5-3
6 References ...................................................................................................................................................... 6-1
List of Tables
Table 2.1-1 Commenters on the Draft EIR and Corresponding Comment and Response Numbers. 2-1
Table 4.3-1 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program ..... 4-3
Table 5.1-1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Team .............................................................. 5-1
Table 5.1-2 Consultant Team .......................................................................................................................... 5-2
Table 5.1-3 Subconsultants ............................................................................................................................ 5-2
Table 5.2-1 Parties Consulted During Preparation of Program EIR ........................................................ 5-3
EXHIBIT A
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
TOC-ii
List of Appendices
Appendix A Project-Specific Review
EXHIBIT A
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
i
Acronyms and Abbreviations
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
C.E.G. California Engineering Geologist
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CalTrans California Department of Transportation
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CZU San Mateo–Santa Cruz Unit
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FRA fuel reduction area
GHG greenhouse gas
GIS geographic information system
IPMP Integrated Pest Management Program
LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging
MBARD Monterey Bay Air Resources District
Midpen Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
NOP Notice of Preparation
OSP open space preserves
P.G. Professional Geologist
EXHIBIT A
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
ii
PFP Prescribed Fire Plan
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric
PRC Public Resources Code
QSD qualified SWPPP developer
QSP qualified SWPPP practitioner
RM Policies Resource Management Policies
ROW right-of-way
RPF Registered Professional Forester
SRA state responsibility area
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
VMA vegetation management area
VMP Vegetation Management Plan
WFRP or Program Wildland Fire Resiliency Program
EXHIBIT A
1 INTRODUCTION
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
1-1
1 Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the Final EIR
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) proposes to implement a Wildland Fire
Resiliency Program (WFRP or Program), which would serve as a planning and implementation
document to manage vegetation and infrastructure on Midpen lands as well as guide the
planning, response, and monitoring efforts needed to reduce wildland fire risks. This Program
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000 et seq.) and the
amended Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines) (14 California Code
of Regulations [CCR] § 15000 et seq.) and provides an assessment of the potentially significant
environmental effects of the Program.
Midpen is the "lead agency" for the Program evaluated in this Final Program EIR and the Board
of Directors is responsible for the certification of this Final Program EIR as adequate and
complete. Midpen has prepared this Final Program EIR to:
• Inform the general public and decision makers about the:
o Nature of the WFRP,
o Potentially significant environmental effects,
o Feasible mitigation measures to avoid or mitigate those effects, and
o Reasonable and feasible alternatives to the proposed project;
• Enable Midpen to consider the environmental consequences of approving the
Program; and
• Satisfy CEQA requirements.
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, after completion of the Draft Program EIR, Midpen is
required to consult with and obtain comments from affected public agencies, and to provide the
public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft Program EIR. Midpen is then required to
respond to significant environmental issues raised in the review and consultation process
(CEQA Section 15132).
As described in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, public agencies are charged with the duty to
avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects of proposed projects, where
feasible. A public agency is obligated to balance a proposed project’s significant effects on the
environment with its benefits, including economic, social, technological, legal, and others. The
Program EIR is an informational document that, as required by CEQA, (1) assesses the
potentially significant environmental effects of the WFRP, including cumulative impacts, (2)
identifies feasible mitigation measures to avoid or substantially reduce significant impacts, (3)
EXHIBIT A
1 INTRODUCTION
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
1-2
identifies any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than
significant levels, and (4) evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives to the Program, including
the No Program Alternative, that would eliminate or substantially reduce any significant
adverse environmental effects of the Program.
The CEQA lead agency is required to consider the information in the Program EIR, along with
any other relevant information in the administrative record, in making its decision on a
proposed project. Although the Program EIR does not determine the ultimate decision that will
be made regarding implementation of the WFRP, CEQA requires Midpen to consider the
information in the EIR and make findings regarding each significant effect identified in the
Program EIR before it can approve the WFRP. The Board of Directors would need to certify this
Final Program EIR prior to adopting the WFRP. The Board of Directors is required to consider
the information in the Program EIR, along with any other relevant information in the
administrative record, in making its decision on the WFRP.
1.2 Summary of the Proposed Program
The Program is a comprehensive document that includes the following components:
• Introduction: Provides an overview of Midpen lands, management, and purpose
of the Program;
• Background and Environmental Setting: Describes the open space preserves
(OSPs) and managed land system, resources, landscape, and other current
environmental conditions;
• Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Policies: Identifies Midpen’s Resource
Management Policies (RM Policies) that would be updated to support the
Program;
• Vegetation Management Plan (VMP): Addresses creation and maintenance of
fuelbreaks, fuel management zones, and defensible space zones using ecologically
sensitive vegetation management techniques addressed in Midpen’s existing
Integrated Pest Management Program (IPMP);
• Prescribed Fire Plan (PFP): Addresses the methods and implementation of
prescribed fire to manage fuel and improve ecosystem health at the programmatic
level;
• Wildland Fire Pre-Plans/Resource Advisor Maps: Describes the creation of
Resource Advisor maps for each OSP and other managed land (or groups of
managed lands) that would include information on existing conditions,
infrastructure, and resources constraints to aid fire suppression activities and
locate sensitive resource areas that merit protection from potential damage due to
fire or fire suppression activities;
• Monitoring Plan: Provides a framework for recording pre-project conditions,
vegetation treatment response, and fuels inventories to inform future adaptive
management techniques; and
EXHIBIT A
1 INTRODUCTION
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
1-3
• Maximum Acreage of Annual Treatment: Describes the maximum treatment
acreages by activity per year.
The Program would guide a comprehensive approach to vegetation management, including
pre- and post- response activities to wildland fire on Midpen lands that integrates the four plans
summarized above. The VMP and the PFP are the primary plans within the Program that could
result in physical effects on the environment. In addition, the Wildland Fire Pre-Plan includes
potential new infrastructure to support wildland fire response that also could result in physical
effects on the environment. The Program EIR focuses on the elements of the Program that may
result in physical effects on the environment.
1.3 Environmental Review Process
1.3.1 Draft EIR Program Review
The Draft Program EIR was prepared to analyze the environmental impacts of the WFRP. The
Draft Program EIR considered the Program and alternatives that would reduce or avoid
significant environmental impacts. The Draft Program EIR was circulated to affected public
agencies and interested parties for a 45-day review period beginning January 15, 2021 and
ending March 1, 2021. Comments on the Draft Program EIR were to be submitted in writing by
no later than 5:00 pm on March 1, 2021. A public information meeting on the Draft Program EIR
was held during the review period via teleconference and videoconference on February 25, 2021
at 5:00pm (as allowable by Executive Order N-25-20).
1.3.2 Final EIR Program Review
The Final Program EIR will be available for review at the following locations:
• District’s main Administration Office (330 Distel Circle, Los Alto),
• Foothills Field Office (222500 Cristo Rey Dr, Cupertino), and
• Skyline Field Office (21150 Skyline Ranch Road, La Honda).
The District requests that the public call ahead of time to review the documents in person due to
the ongoing pandemic.
In accordance with the CEQA guidelines, the Final Program EIR will be made available to the
public and commenting agencies a minimum of 10 days prior to the Program EIR certification
hearing. A public hearing to consider the Final Program EIR has been scheduled for May 12,
2021. The meeting will be held via teleconference and videoconference. Notices of the upcoming
meeting will be sent to all interested parties. Information about the Final Program EIR public
hearing will be available online at openspace.org/board-meetings.
EXHIBIT A
1 INTRODUCTION
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
1-4
1.4 Report Organization
This document is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1: Introduction. This chapter includes a discussion of the purpose and
organization of the Final Program EIR.
• Chapter 2: Responses to Comments. This chapter contains copies of comments
received during the public review period and responses to those comments. Each
comment letter is coded. Each comment within each letter is bracketed in the
margin of the letter and assigned a secondary, comment-specific number. For
example, the first comment in the letter from the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife is A1-1. Each comment letter is followed by a response corresponding
to the bracketed comment.
• Chapter 3: Revisions to Text of Draft EIR. This chapter presents corrections or
clarifications to the Draft Program EIR based on comments received. The text
changes do not present any significant new information with respect to the
proposed project, including any new potentially significant environmental impacts
that cannot be mitigated to less than significant, or in any new mitigation
measures. Corrections to the text and tables of the Draft Program EIR are
contained in this chapter. Underlined text represents language that has been added
to the Draft Program EIR; text with strikethrough has been deleted from the Draft
Program EIR.
• Chapter 4: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program. This chapter
identifies each significant impact and mitigation measure. The implementation
responsibility, monitoring responsibility, and timing and performance standards
are detailed for each specific mitigation measure.
• Chapter 5: Document Preparation. Identifies the preparers of the Program EIR and
the public agencies, organizations, and tribes consulted during the preparation of
the Program EIR.
• Chapter 6: References. Provides the references for each chapter.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-1
2 Responses to Comments
2.1 Introduction
This section contains the comments received during the public review period on the Draft
Program EIR prepared for the WFRP and the responses to those comments. Written and verbal
comments on the Draft Program EIR were received from the agencies, organizations, and
private individuals identified in Table 2.1-1. A public meeting was held during the public
review period via teleconference and videoconference on February 25, 2021 at 5:00 pm (as
allowable by Executive Order N-25-20), to receive public comments. Five members of the public
submitted written questions and comments that were read into the record during the public
meeting.
The comments are organized into three categories (agency/organization, individual, public
meeting) and are listed with the name of the commenter and the date their letter was received
or verbal comment taken, in Table 2.1-1. Each comment letter has been assigned a code as
shown in the table. Each specific comment within a particular letter has been bracketed and
assigned a number. For example, the third comment in letter “A3” is identified as “Comment
A3-3.” The corresponding response uses the same coding system. In this fashion, the reader will
be able to identify the comment to which a response refers.
Any text edits to the EIR made in response to a comment are provided in Chapter 3: Revisions
to Text of Draft EIR.
Table 2.1-1 Commenters on the Draft EIR and Corresponding Comment and Response Numbers
Commenter Comment Code Date of Comment
Agency/Organization
Robynn Swan California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) A1 2/22/2021
Yunsheng Luo California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) A2 2/23/2021
Susan Lessin Sierra Club – Loma Prieta Chapter A3 2/25/2021
Susan Lessin Sierra Club – Loma Prieta Chapter A4 2/25/2021
Steve Padovan Town of Los Altos Hills A5 2/26/2021
Matthew Mosher
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CAL FIRE) A6 2/28/2021
Patrick Brand California Geological Survey A7 3/1/2021
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-2
Commenter Comment Code Date of Comment
Albert Salvador City of Cupertino A8 3/1/2021
Karen Maki
Sierra Club – Loma Prieta Chapter, Forest Protection
Committee A9 3/1/2021
Daniel Krug
County of San Mateo, Planning and Building
Department A10 3/2/2021a
Individuals
Von Tersch, Tom B1 1/20/2021
Pittsinger, Jane B2 1/22/2021
Chris, Chris B3 1/27/2021
Fisher, Glenn B4 2/11/2021
Vahtra, Karen B5 2/19/2021
Brandt, Adam B6 2/22/2021
Evans, Peter B7 2/25/2021
Liebes, Sid B8 2/27/2021
Epstein, Allan B9 3/1/2021
Public Meeting on February 25, 2021
DePeau, Norm C1 2/20/2021
Liston, Janssen C2 2/22/2021
Kelley, Peter C3 2/25/2021
Maki, Karen C4 2/25/2021
Morley, Matt C5 2/25/2021
Note:
a The letter from San Mateo County was received outside the comment period but was incorporated into the
record as this agency is a permitting agency.
2.2 Agency/Organization Comments and Responses
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-3
2.2.1 Letter A1: Robynn Swan, CDFW
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-4
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-5
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-6
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-7
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-8
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-9
Response to Comment A1-1
The commenter advises that if the program could result in “take” of plants or animals listed
under the California Endangered Species Act that an Incidental Take Permit is required.
Section 4.4.4: Regulatory Setting acknowledges that CDFW administers the Act and authorizes
take through §2081 agreements, §2080.1 consistency determinations (for species that are also
listed under the federal ESA), or Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP). The analysis
in Section 4.4: Biological Resources of the Draft Program EIR found that the Program had the
potential to significantly impact several special-status plants and animals but with the
mitigation measures identified (Mitigation Measure [MM] Biology-1 through MM Biology-20,
MM Geology-1 through MM Geology-3) all impacts were reduced to less than significant. As
mentioned in Section 4.4.4: Regulatory Setting, Midpen currently has a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with CDFW describing measures that when implemented will avoid
take of San Francisco garter snake and California tiger salamander for activities that are
performed on their lands. This agreement is currently being revisited as part of Midpen’s
programmatic permitting effort.
Response to Comment A1-2
The commenter provides information on the Lake and Streambed Alteration notification for
activities affecting lakes or streams and associated riparian habitat. The regulatory settings in
Section 4.4: Biological Resources and Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality discuss the
Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement that may be required for Program
activities. The analyses under Impact Biological Resources-2 addresses the program impacts on
riparian habitat and Impact Hydrology-1 addresses the program impacts on streams from
erosion and sedimentation. As discussed, Midpen currently holds a Routine Maintenance
Agreement under the California Fish and Game Code Section 1602, Lake or Streambed
Alteration Agreement, which is valid through 2024. Midpen is revisiting this permit to expand
the definitions of “routine” and to clearly address activities under the IPMP and WFRP. A new
permit may be required for some activities per MM Hydrology-1. No new permits can be issued
until CEQA compliance is completed. Midpen will complete the WFRP Program EIR in
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-10
May 2021. Separate CEQA efforts are underway to address the Routine Maintenance
Agreements.
Response to Comment A1-3
The commenter indicates that the specific special-status plant survey protocols and
methodology required for pre-project surveys are not identified in the Draft Program EIR. As
part of ongoing operations and implementation of other programs, Midpen conducts
pre-activity special-status plant surveys using appropriate protocols. Midpen currently uses the
Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and
Sensitive Natural Communities as well as California Native Plant Society survey protocols when
surveying a new area that has not been surveyed previously, or for cyclical reassessments in
areas where rare plants were found (CDFW, 2018). The same or newer, standard protocols
would be employed for surveys conducted prior to Program activities. A reference has been
added to MM Biology-2 that surveys must be conducted using a standard protocol such as the
one identified by the commenter.
Response to Comment A1-4
The commenter requested that the Program EIR specify the survey protocol used for
special-status plant species as the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status
Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW, 2018) and that surveys be
conducted during blooming periods. The Program will be implemented over the foreseeable
future and it is feasible that a new survey protocol will be released throughout the life of the
Program. The current CDFW protocol requires entities to “Conduct botanical field surveys in
the field at the times of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable. Usually this is
during flowering or fruiting.” This time period varies from species to species. MM Biology-2
has been revised to specify that surveys will be conducted at the time of year when plants will
be both evident and identifiable and utilize a standard protocol, relevant at the time of
implementation, which at this time is known as the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts
to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities(CDFW, 2018).
Response to Comment A1-5
The commenter noted that MM Biology-12 references the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) 2006 document and recommends use of the updated guidance Revised
Transmittal of Guidance: Estimating the Effects of Auditory and Visual Disturbance to Northern Spotted
Owls and Marbled Murrelets in Northwestern California (USFWS, 2020) even for projects outside
the Russian River watershed. MM Biology-12 has been revised to reflect the recommended 2020
guidance document, or the appropriate document at the time of activity implementation,
should it change.
Response to Comment A1-6
The commenter recommended that the Program EIR be revised to reflect the federal candidate
status of the monarch butterfly under which the species receives the same protections as a
federally listed species. Appendix 4.4 has been revised to reflect the change in federal status.
Federal candidate species, however, do not receive “take” protection under the federal
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-11
Endangered Species Act conversely to species listed as a candidate under the California
Endangered Species Act, which are given full protection (CDFW, 2021).
Response to Comment A1-7
The commenter described that widespread use of herbicides is a significant factor affecting
health of migratory monarchs and recommended incorporation of the BMPs from the Monarch
Pesticide Supplemental Materials (Danaus plexippus plexippus) Species Status Assessment Report into
the Program EIR (USFWS, Revised 2020). As analyzed, herbicide application under the Program
would be by spot treatment or cut stump, not broadcast spray. The Draft Program EIR
acknowledges that herbicide overspray or drift could remove host milkweed plants and may
kill individual monarchs if present. MM Biology-13 requires surveys for host plant species,
including milkweeds, to determine if special-status butterflies or moths, including monarchs,
are present. Any occupied milkweed species will be avoided and protected with an
appropriately sized buffer as determined by a qualified biologist1. The methods employed by
Midpen to apply herbicides, with adherence to MM Biology-13, would ensure that monarch
individuals on milkweed are not harmed by herbicide activities.
MM Biology-15 requires surveys for monarchs prior to any Program activities in tree groves
comprised primarily or entirely of pine, cypress, fir, or eucalyptus that are within 2 miles of the
Pacific Coast. Additional language has been added to the mitigation measure requiring a
desktop record review to determine if the grove was historically occupied by monarchs. Groves
with historical occupation would not be altered without further consultation with USFWS
and/or CDFW.
Response to Comment A1-8
The commenter requested that any special-status species and natural communities detected
during surveys be reported to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Midpen
conducts reporting as part of ongoing operations and implementation of other programs. MM
Biology-1 specifically requires that all information on new localities or sightings for special-
status species shall be reported to the Sacramento USFWS Office and the CNDDB annually.
1 As defined in MM Biology-1 of the Program EIR, a qualified biologist/botanist is an individual who
has a minimum of a 4-year academic degree in biological sciences or related resource management
activities, with a minimum of two survey seasons years (e.g., two seasons during the blooming season
of sensitive plants) conducting surveys for each species that may be present within the work area.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-12
2.2.2 Letter A2: Yunsheng Luo, CalTrans
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-13
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-14
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-15
Response to Comment A2-1
The commenter noted that eligible and officially designated State scenic highways are within
and adjacent to the Program area and significant and unavoidable impacts on scenic views and
resources may result. The commenter requested consideration of visual impacts on highway
users. Scenic highways, corridors, and trails are discussed and shown in Figure 4.2-2 in
Section 4.2.2: Existing Setting of the Draft Program EIR. Officially designated State Scenic
Highways bisecting or adjacent to Midpen lands include SR-1, SR-9, SR-35, and I-280. Impact
Aesthetics-2 analyzes impacts on scenic resources within a State scenic highway. The visibility
from scenic roads, including State scenic highways, and a summary of impacts associated with
proposed activities in each OSP is detailed in Table 4.2.2 of the Draft Program EIR. For example,
a potential fuelbreak around Highway (SR-) 35 may be visible from a scenic viewpoint resulting
in a potentially significant impact. MM Aesthetics-1 requires planning of treatments and
avoiding changes within scenic views while ensuring that the intended wildland fire risk
reduction can still be achieved. MM Aesthetics-2 requires new roads, helicopter landing areas,
and staging areas to be located in areas that minimize visibility from scenic trails or viewpoints,
and to minimize recontouring and cuts into hillsides. Impacts on scenic resources and
viewpoints from Program activities conducted within State scenic highways were found to be
significant and unavoidable even after implementation of mitigation, although the intent of the
mitigation is to consider and reduce impacts to scenic resources as viewed from scenic
highways, where possible, as recommended by the commenter.
Response to Comment A2-2
The commenter noted that tree removal within the State right-of-way (ROW) requires approval
through an encroachment permit and trees damaged or removed within the State ROW must be
replaced per CalTrans Replacement Highway Planting Policy. The potential need for CalTrans
encroachment permits is acknowledged in Table 3.8-1 of the Draft Program EIR. While
encroachment permits cover tree trimming and removal, greater specificity has been added to
the table to address this nuance. Where needed, Midpen will seek the appropriate permit, and
for the removal of healthy trees, such as eucalyptus, will coordinate with CalTrans (and their
District Landscape Architect). As noted in the CalTrans Encroachment Permits Manual,
planting of new trees may be required as mitigation on a case-by-case basis (CalTrans, 2018).
Response to Comment A2-3
The commenter requested the Program mapsets show the State ROW symbol. The mapsets in
Appendix B of the WFRP have been updated to use the State symbol for roads under State
jurisdiction. The comment does not raise environmental issues or issues related to the adequacy
of the Draft Program EIR. No further response is needed.
Response to Comment A2-4
The commenter noted that movement of oversized and excessive load vehicles on State
roadways requires a transportation permit. The potential need for CalTrans transportation
permits is acknowledged in Table 3.8-1 of the Draft Program EIR. The comment does not raise
environmental issues or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is
needed.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-16
Response to Comment A2-5
The commenter stated that Midpen may need to coordinate with CalTrans to develop a
Transportation Management Plan to reduce construction traffic impacts to the State
Transportation Network, which may involve mitigation and improvements to the network. All
transportation impacts from the program implementation are expected to be temporary and
short in duration, and thus, improvements to the State Transportation Network are not
anticipated.
It is acknowledged that lane or road closures along State roads will require CalTrans
coordination through which Midpen must adhere to any regulatory requirements and acquire
appropriate transportation permits. Impacts Transportation-1 and Transportation-3 analyze
effects from short-term lane or full public road closures from Program activities on the public
and emergency responders. Appropriate Midpen BMPs and adherence to regulatory
requirements would ensure that impacts to workers along or near roadways and motorists or
bicyclists on public roads would be less than significant. Effects from a prescribed fire (e.g.,
staging of equipment, smoke) could significantly impact traffic or pose a traffic hazard on
public and private roads. As analyzed in Section 4.12: Transportation, a Traffic Control Plan
would be developed and implemented to ensure the safety of drivers on public roads during a
prescribed burn, in accordance with MM Hazards-3.
Response to Comment A2-6
The commenter noted that activities within the State ROW require approval through an
encroachment permit. The potential need for CalTrans encroachment permits is acknowledged
in Table 3.8-1 of the Draft Program EIR. The comment does not raise environmental issues or
issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is needed.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-17
2.2.3 Letter A3: Susan Lessin, Sierra Club – Loma Prieta Chapter
Response to Comment A3-1
The commenter questioned whether Midpen has plans to harden existing buildings. Midpen
conducts ongoing hardening, as appropriate, during maintenance of Midpen-owned occupied
residences. This work, while on-going, is not part of the WFRP addressed in the Program EIR.
The comment does not raise environmental issues or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft
EIR. No further response is needed.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-18
2.2.4 Letter A4: Susan Lessin, Sierra Club – Loma Prieta Chapter
Response to Comment A4-1
The commenter questioned whether Midpen could encourage Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)
to inspect the power lines within Midpen lands and repair deficiencies. Midpen does not have
jurisdiction to mandate PG&E to perform vegetation management within their ROW, as this is
PG&E responsibility in accordance with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
General Order 95, Rule 35. Midpen regularly coordinates with PG&E regarding vegetation
management activities in PG&E’s right-of-way on Midpen lands but does not have authority to
oversee or enforce vegetation management by PG&E. That authority lies with the CPUC. The
comment does not raise environmental issues or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
No further response is needed.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-19
2.2.5 Letter A5: Steve Padovan, Town of Los Altos Hills
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-20
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-21
Response to Comment A5-1
The commenter requested that Figure 3.2-1 of the Draft Program EIR, as well as any other
relevant figures, identify Los Altos Hills. The requested figure as well as Figure 3.3-3 and Figure
3.5-4 have been revised to label Los Altos Hills. The comment does not raise environmental
issues or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft Program EIR. No further response is
needed.
Response to Comment A5-2
The comment noted that the primary purpose of the Program is to reduce wildland fire risk to
lives and private property. The commenter has requested that the Program prioritize fuel
reduction within 2,500 feet of adjacent residential areas. The overall purpose of the Program is
to allow for increased and environmentally sensitive vegetation management to reduce the
potential for severe wildland fire, as stated in Section 1.2 of the WFRP. The Program’s objectives
include managing vegetation and infrastructure on Midpen lands to reduce wildland fire risks,
improving wildland fire fighting capabilities and coordination, and improving overall safety to
reduce the harmful effects of wildland fire on people, property, and natural resources. The
methods for prioritizing treatments are identified in Section 4.4.3 of the WFRP and consider
more than just proximity to residential areas. The activities proposed as part of the Program are
intended to achieve the outlined results, which includes reducing wildland fire risk, thereby
also benefiting neighboring residences. While not part of the Program, Midpen encourages
neighboring private property owners to apply for a free Neighbor Defensible Space Permit to
conduct defensible space treatments on Midpen lands within 100 feet of occupied structures.
Response to Comment A5-3
The commenter requested that mitigation require Midpen to notify all local jurisdictions at least
48 hours in advance of a prescribed burn. MM Air Quality-2 has been revised to require public
notification at least 48 hours prior to a prescribed burn less than 50 acres in size to not only
individuals within 1 mile, but to the overlying jurisdictions as well and for larger burns,
noticing would extend to a larger region as determined appropriate by Midpen.
Response to Comment A5-4
The commenter requested that mitigation require a buffer of 1 mile between prescribed burns
and residential land uses. Use of such a wide buffer would preclude the use of prescribed fire in
most OSPs. Prescribed fire is included in the Program to achieve the objectives and would be
implemented to help restore ecosystems closer to pre-fire suppression conditions through the
removal of dead and accumulated vegetation and treatment of forest disease and invasive
species. As discussed under Section 3.4.1: Program Purpose and Need in the Draft Program EIR,
one of the challenges that Midpen and other surrounding jurisdictions are facing is high
wildland fire risk in conjunction with extensive development in the wildland-urban interface
(WUI) that leads to increased wildfire risks to communities as well as increased potential for
anthropogenic (human-caused) ignition sources. Prescribed fire is one of the tools proposed by
Midpen to reduce fuel loads and consequently wildland fire risk in the WUI and other portions
of Midpen lands.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-22
Compared to wildland fires, prescribed burns are planned for and conducted under optimal
weather conditions (e.g., cool temperatures, high humidity, low wind) to limit air quality and
smoke impacts on neighboring communities and to ensure fire fighters can maintain control,
which means prescribed fire can be safely implemented within 1 mile of residences. The Burn
Plan prepared for each individual prescribed fire under the guidance of the approving entity,
including CAL FIRE, local fire department, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), and/or Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD), identifies these
considerations and optimal conditions under which to burn. A Smoke Management Plan must
also be prepared and implemented for prescribed burns. Per regulations and MM Air Quality-2,
Midpen would conduct noticing and outreach prior to burning. Implementation of a prescribed
burn may be the best method to reduce fuel loads in the WUI. Midpen will be refining and
conducting more prescribed fire planning under the PFP in the coming year. While the Program
EIR analyzed prescribed fire programmatically, additional environmental documentation will
be prepared. Implementation of the PFP will not commence until additional environmental
review is completed (expected in spring of 2022).
Response to Comment A5-5
The commenter indicated that the text stating 75 acres of residential land abuts the OSPs
appears to drastically understate the quantity of residential properties adjacent to Midpen
lands. The language specified by the commenter has been updated according to the latest
geographic information system (GIS) data that residential areas comprise 11 percent of the land
uses adjacent to OSP preserve boundaries. The reference to 75 acres has been removed.
Response to Comment A5-6
The commenter requested inclusion of the Los Altos Hills residences adjacent to Rancho San
Antonio OSP in Table 4.3-4. The table has been updated as requested. The comment does not
raise environmental issues or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further
response is needed.
Response to Comment A5-7
The commenter stated that prescribed burns shall only be performed when winds are minimal
or blowing in a direction away from residential areas. Prescribed burns are typically conducted
in low winds, as higher winds can increase fire behavior and fuel consumption. Preferred wind
speeds vary depending on topography, vegetation type, and other factors but the minimum
20-foot 2 windspeed for burning is about 6 mph with a maximum of 20 mph (USDA, 1989).
Midpen is required to adhere to all appropriate regulations including BAAQMD Regulation 5
regarding open burning. Section 5-111.3 (of Regulation 5) requires that, “No material or fuel
shall be ignited, nor shall any material or fuel be added to any fire when the wind velocity is
2 Is defined as sustained winds averaged over a 10-minute period and measured 20 feet above the average
height of nearby vegetation.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-23
less than five (5) miles per hour except for crossfiring3, or when the wind direction at the site
shall be such that the direction of smoke drift is toward a populated area in order to minimize
local nuisances caused by smoke and particulate fallouts.” Midpen would adhere to this
stipulation, which is generally consistent with the recommendations of the commenter.
Response to Comment A5-8
The commenter questioned how vegetation with higher moisture content produces less smoke
than dry fuels. The reference to burning when fuels have higher moisture content in MM Air
Quality-2 is due to studies that have found smoke exposure levels appeared to be higher during
burns conducted at the high and low ends of the fuel moisture range (less than 9 percent or
greater than 16 percent moisture content) (Reinhardt, Ottmar, & Hanneman, 2000). To minimize
further potential for confusion, MM Air Quality-2 has been revised to schedule burning when
fuels have appropriate moisture content to minimize smoke, as determined by an appropriate
expert preparing the Smoke Management Plan.
Response to Comment A5-9
The commenter expressed confusion regarding the intermixing of mitigation measures across
different sections in the Executive Summary. Table 2.1-1 in Chapter 2: Executive Summary
provides a summary of the impact analysis and mitigation measures detailed throughout the
Draft Program EIR. The mitigation measures include all those that are described in the analysis
text to reduce or avoid impacts. For example, in addition to biological-specific mitigation
measures, MM Geology-1 through MM Geology-3 are required to minimize impacts on
candidate, sensitive, or special-status species as analyzed under Impact Biological Resources-1.
Chapter 4: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program of the Final Program EIR provides a
table of mitigation measures by resource topic, which may be easier to follow.
Response to Comment A5-10
The commenter requested that Section 4.6: Geology and Soils include more analysis related to
prescribed burns on steep slopes and above residential land uses. Impact Geology and Soils-3
addresses the potential for slope failure as a result of landslide or other ground failure to impact
or damage infrastructure throughout or directly adjacent to Midpen lands. The term
“infrastructure” is used to describe a variety of features including residential structures. This
term has been clarified in the analysis and MM Geology-2 to include structures potentially
occupied by people.
3 A burn ignition technique where the fire is ignited in two semi-circle arch patterns that almost intersect
in the middle of the burn area (often used for field crop burning). The first fire is lit by walking into the
wind from the downwind side. The second fire is lit by walking with the wind from the headwind side of
the field. This technique is used during light (less than five miles per hour) and variable winds only.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-24
The analysis of prescribed burning indicates that potentially significant impacts would occur
were landslides to affect infrastructure. As analyzed in the Draft Program EIR, landslides could
occur from burns on steep slopes. The impact analysis has since been clarified to indicate that
other factors may result in landsliding from Program activities, including prescribed burning.
Other indicators of landslide potential include considering areas of historic landsliding. The
Santa Cruz Mountain region geology also has a well-documented naturally-occurring high
background rate of erosion and landslide activity not triggered by human activity, as discussed
in Section 4.6: Geology and Soils, which would be taken into account during implementation of
Program activities.
MM Geology-2 provides a suite of erosion and slope stability measures to reduce the potential
for erosion, loss of topsoil, or slope instability in areas where vegetation management work
could expose bare soils or create loss of root-soil matrix strength. The intent of the mitigation is
to have qualified personnel make the decision regarding which measures should be applied,
based on site conditions and the project/activities proposed to be implemented, including
prescribed burning projects. More clarity has also been added to MM Geology-2 regarding
when and what types of qualified personnel must conduct a site assessment and identify the
appropriate control measures to be applied from the BMPs and mitigation for Program
activities, including burning.
Note that Midpen will be refining and conducting additional prescribed fire planning under the
PFP in the coming year. While the Program EIR analyzed prescribed fire programmatically,
additional environmental documentation will be forthcoming. Implementation of the PFP will
not commence until this additional environmental review is completed (expected in spring
of 2022).
Response to Comment A5-11
The commenter recommended that MM Geology-2 require no prescribed burns be performed
on slopes over 35 percent that are above residential or other sensitive land uses. Prescribed
burns are low severity and are intended to reduce surface fuels, leaving trees and shrubs alive.
Burning in an area with steeper slopes does not necessarily increase landslide risk as stabilizing
vegetation remains in the burn unit. Many factors contribute to the potential for destabilization,
including evidence of historic landsliding and presence of weaker or very active geologic
formations. Section 4.6: Geology and Soils provides information on the naturally occurring
landsliding and susceptibility on Midpen lands.
As analyzed in the Draft Program EIR, a burned area on a slope may be subject to increased
landslide potential, depending upon site conditions. As discussed in Response to Comment
A5-10, MM Geology-2 includes a variety of erosion and slope stability measures for qualified
personnel to evaluate and implement case-by-case, based on site conditions and the
project/activities proposed to minimize slope destabilization.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-25
Burn units are developed by qualified personnel with knowledge of prescribed burning and fire
behavior. These personnel consider adjacent sensitive land uses and slopes. Refinement of burn
units and prioritization within the PFP will be conducted in the coming year.
Response to Comment A5-12
The commenter recommended the addition of a hazards mitigation that requires no prescribed
burns be performed on slopes over 35 percent that are above residential or other sensitive land
uses. As analyzed in Impact Hazards-8 of the Draft Program EIR: “…Prescribed burns have the
potential to change the soil profile, resulting in the top layer eroding in the short-term before
new growth comes back, which could help increase slope instability. MM Geology-2 requires
installation of erosion-control measures to stabilize the soils and reduce potential for landslides,
which would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.” Refer to Response to Comment
A5-11 for a discussion on why a strict requirement to avoid prescribed burning on slopes over
35 percent has not been added. Additional definition of the PFP is underway, which will
provide more information on when and where prescribed burns can be implemented.
Additional environmental review may be required for the PFP adoption.
Response to Comment A5-13
The commenter requested that the hazards analysis be revised and a new mitigation added that
requires no new overhead powerlines and undergrounding of existing powerlines in high fire
hazard areas. The Program would not involve installation of new overhead powerlines.
Alteration of existing powerlines is not within the scope of the Program. Midpen does not have
jurisdiction to alter existing powerlines that cross Midpen lands or to require PG&E to conduct
vegetation management within the PG&E ROW, as this is PG&E’s responsibility in accordance
with the CPUC General Order 95, Rule 35. The comment does not raise environmental issues or
issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is needed.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-26
2.2.6 Letter A6: Matthew Mosher, CAL FIRE
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-27
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-28
Response to Comment A6-1
The commenter suggested acknowledgement of the impact of development in the WUI as a
factor for fire suppression in the state responsibility area (SRA) under Section 3.3.1: Overview
on page 3-7 of the Draft Program EIR. This concept is acknowledged under Section 3.4.1:
Program Purpose and Need of the Draft Program EIR. The section specified by the commenter
pertains to the reasoning for high fuel loads and what actions Midpen is currently
implementing.
Response to Comment A6-2
The commenter requested that the need for the VMP be expanded to include a statement that
vegetation management allows for quick and effective suppression of ignitions and reduction in
the rate of fire spread. This sentiment is noted in the WFRP, which is incorporated by reference
into the Program EIR. Additional text from the WFRP has been added to Section 3.5.2:
Vegetation Management Plan, in line with the commenter’s request.
Response to Comment A6-3
The commenter requested that the shaded fuelbreak treatment size be expanded to 300 feet, as
Table 3.5-1 indicates that shaded fuelbreaks would be under 100 feet. Fuelbreaks of varying
types proposed under the Program range in size from 15 feet to up to 300 feet, depending upon
several factors including habitat type and type of resource (e.g., target hazard, evacuation
route). The two broad categories of fuelbreak are shaded fuelbreaks and non-shaded fuelbreaks;
however, for the purposes of the Program, these terms are applied to fuelbreaks that are not
proposed around a specific resource such as an evacuation route or target hazard. The method
of fuelbreak treatment around specific resources, such as a target hazard, would include shaded
and non-shaded fuelbreak treatments. Potential fuelbreaks up to 300 feet wide are proposed
around target hazards (school, hospital, nursing home) and up to 200 feet wide around
evacuation routes, critical infrastructure, and fire management logistics areas, as noted in Table
3.5-1 of the Draft Program EIR. The 100-foot fuelbreak is specific to a shaded fuelbreak around
roads or trails and structures (not including evacuation routes, emergency egress routes, etc.).
Note that the Program is intended to be a “living document”. The VMP treatments proposed
are based on the methodology for locating potential vegetation management areas (VMAs) and
fuel reduction areas (FRAs), as outlined under Section 4.4.3 of the WFRP. Midpen, in
conjunction with forestry and ecology specialists, identified treatments based on current risks,
priorities, and ability to implement treatments. As described under Section 8.4 of the WFRP,
Midpen will identify and implement recommended changes based on monitoring and changing
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-29
conditions. The Program may be updated accordingly, and as necessary, supplemental CEQA
or other environmental analysis prepared.
Response to Comment A6-4
The commenter suggested that the allowable number of hazard trees removed under the
Program is too low considering the size of Midpen lands. To clarify, per the commenter’s
request, the 50 additional trees allowed to be removed are individual hazard trees, regardless of
size, and do not include the eucalyptus and acacia tree removal or tree removal to support other
VMA treatments, such as fuelbreak creation. Minor revisions have been made to the text to
clarify, including language specifying that a hazard tree is a tree that has a structural defect that
makes it likely to fail in whole or in part within an area of higher human residence time (e.g.,
parking lots, trailheads) and are generally over 10 inches diameter at breast height. As
discussed under Response to Comment A6-3, the treatments proposed are based on current
risks, priorities, and ability to implement treatments. The Program may be updated as needed
in the future.
Response to Comment A6-5
The commenter recommended consideration for locations of homes and infrastructure for burn
prioritization. The list of considerations is in Section 3.5.3 of the Draft Program EIR but has not
been solidified as of preparation of the Draft Program EIR. Midpen will be refining and
conducting more prescribed fire planning under the PFP in the coming year. While the Program
EIR analyzed prescribed fire programmatically, additional environmental documentation will
be conducted at that time as well, where this concern will be addressed. Implementation of the
PFP will not commence until additional environmental review is completed (expected in spring
of 2022).
Response to Comment A6-6
The commenter noted that Midpen will need to confirm that a CAL FIRE Unit Burn Ban is not
in effect and will need to acquire a burn permit from CAL FIRE for burns in the SRA that are
conducted without CAL FIRE involvement. The specified language has been clarified and
broadened to include seeking burn permits and verifying a permissive burn day according to
the appropriate agency, including CAL FIRE. The requirement for a Burn Permit from CAL
FIRE for prescribed burns is listed in Table 3.8-1 and it has been clarified that this permit is
needed for prescribed burns in the SRA.
Response to Comment A6-7
The commenter recommended that the discussion of control lines be clarified that width may
exceed 6 feet in certain circumstances. The text notes that typical widths are 1 to 6 feet, but has
been revised to note control lines may be wider. Refinement of the PFP will be conducted in the
coming year.
Response to Comment A6-8
The commenter recommended increasing the annual acreage limits of VMP treatments
significantly. The comment is acknowledged. As discussed under Response to Comment A6-3,
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-30
the treatments proposed are based on current risks, priorities, and ability to implement
treatments. The Program may be updated as needed in the future.
Response to Comment A6-9
The commenter requested that Section 4.8: Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildland Fire be
updated to include and show the 2020 San Mateo–Santa Cruz Unit (CZU) Lightning Complex.
The CZU Lightning Complex was ignited and burned after the Notice of Preparation for the
Draft Program EIR was circulated. The physical environmental conditions at the time the Notice
of Preparation was published is used by an agency to determine whether an impact of a project
is significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). While some deviation may be permissible to
more accurately allow assessment of a project’s impacts, the impact analysis contained within
the Draft Program EIR would not be altered by inclusion of the CZU Lightning Complex.
As noted in other responses, Midpen will be refining and conducting more prescribed fire
planning under the PFP in the coming year. While the Program EIR analyzed prescribed fire
programmatically, additional environmental documentation will be prepared at that time as
well, which will include the CZU Lightning Complex as part of the baseline conditions (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15125(a)). Implementation of the PFP will not commence until additional
environmental review is completed (expected in spring of 2022).
Response to Comment A6-10
The commenter provided information regarding the regulatory requirements for pile and
prescribed burning including ensuring a CAL FIRE Unit Burn Ban is not in effect and a permit
has been acquired. Midpen must adhere to any regulatory requirements and acquire
appropriate permits. The requirement for a Burn Permit from CAL FIRE for pile and prescribed
burns has been clarified in Table 3.8-1. The regulatory requirements identified in the analysis
under Impact Hazards-5 are those regulations that reduce the potential for escape or ignition of
a wildland fire. Mention of the requirement to burn on a permissive burn day has been added
as days with a burn ban in place are typically red flag days with high fire danger.
Response to Comment A6-11
The commenter requested that MM Hazards-2 specify that no burning will be conducted during
a CAL FIRE Unit Burn Ban unless CAL FIRE issues a burn permit allowing for burning during a
Burn Ban. Midpen is required to adhere to all pertinent regulations including any relevant CAL
FIRE requirements noted by the commenter. Mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR
identify additional requirements above and beyond regulatory requirements. MM Hazards-2
has been updated to specify CAL FIRE requirements must be met in addition to BAAQMD and
MBARD.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-31
2.2.7 Letter A7: Patrick Brand, California Geological Survey
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-32
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-33
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-34
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-35
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-36
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-37
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-38
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-39
Response to Comment A7-1
The commenter indicated that the analysis in Section 4.6: Geology and Soils does not provide
enough site-specific information at a level to be able to evaluate projects that will be performed
under the WFRP. The specific work areas for each year of Program implementation over the life
of the Program will be identified on an annual basis by Midpen staff. The intent of the Program
EIR is to broadly cover the extent of the impacts that could occur from the Program activities to
allow Midpen to implement projects under the Program with minimal to no additional
environmental review, through application of appropriate mitigation from the EIR. Appendix A
provides a Project-Specific Review document to determine if specific projects proposed by
Midpen fall within the scope of the Program EIR and which mitigation measures identified in
the Program EIR apply. The Program’s overall assessment of potential impacts is adequate.
Mitigation is used to specify the actions that must be taken before a project is implemented to
more specifically characterize the impacts covered generally in the Program EIR and to apply
the appropriate protection measures identified in the Program EIR to reduce effects.
Response to Comment A7-2
The commenter mentioned that the references for Section 4.6: Geology and Soils are not
complete. The identified references have been updated to refer to the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) Open-File Report as requested by the commenter.
Response to Comment A7-3
The commenter noted that Figure 4.6-3 is labeled differently than the source material, for
example the figure uses the term “many” while the source uses the term “mostly.” Figure 4.6-3
has been revised to distinguish between “mostly”, “many”, and “few” landslides. The data is
intended to be used to depict where future landslides could occur based on evidence of historic
slides and earth flows. The title has been revised, as well as the description of the figure in the
Existing Environment of Section 4.6: Geology and Soils, to clarify that the map only shows
historic landslide activity, but this information is indicative of where problem landslide areas
are more likely to occur in the future.
Response to Comment A7-4
The commenter provided some examples of literature regarding landslides in the Program area
to review and reference. The intent of the Existing Environment section is to provide an
overview of the conditions present on Midpen lands at the time of the analysis. A literature
review of all landslide data is not necessarily required to present an understanding of the
geologic conditions and hazards on Midpen lands. As described in the Existing Environment
section as well as the analysis, landslides and debris flows are hazards that are present on
Midpen lands. These hazards include seismically induced landslides and those triggered by
intense rainfall events.
The suggested documents were reviewed and the section has been revised to briefly mention
the sources in the Existing Environment section and to incorporate them into the references
cited. As a note, several jurisdictions use the data prepared by USGS (Wentworth et al., 1997)
for planning, as cited in the Draft Program EIR, such as the County of San Mateo. As such,
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-40
adding references to the local jurisdiction’s planning documents showing landslide hazard
would not necessarily add value to the discussion. It is likely the references come from the same
sources cited. Local hazard mapping and safety plans have been added to the list of documents
that may be considered during a desktop review, as required by MM Geology-2.
Response to Comment A7-5
The commenter indicated that other factors contribute to slope instability aside from steepness.
A study referenced (McClelland, et al. 1998) by the commentor was conducted in an
environment with different conditions compared to the San Francisco Bay Area. The commenter
also referred to another study by Keefer and Johnson (1983) that indicates earth flows can occur
on more gentle slopes (25 to 30 percent) in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Landslide risk is associated with a variety of factors as described on page 4.6-3 of the Draft
Program EIR. Slope is one factor with increases in slope generally correlated with an increased
risk of landslide. The Program EIR used slope as a metric for providing the reader with the
general magnitude of potential landslide risk across Midpen lands. Slopes under 35 percent
were a proxy for the lowest potential for landslides and slopes over 50 percent as the highest
potential for landslides based on the McClelland, et al. 1998 study. While it is acknowledged
that the area studied is not identical to conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area and some
landslide types are less correlated with slope, slopes are generally considered unstable by
general industry practice and landslide studies when the slopes are anywhere between 30 to 35
percent or greater. Santa Clara County considers slopes greater than 33 percent to be a
characteristic of a landslide hazard area (County of Santa Clara, 2017). A slope of 30 percent was
used in association with a metric accounting for terrain hardness in Marin County to categorize
the level of landslides (Wentworth, 1997). To provide the reader more data and understanding
of the factors that contribute to instability and landslide risk on Midpen lands, the Wills, et al.
2011 study and modeling was consulted and a figure and table added to show areas that are
susceptible to deep-seated landslides. The model accounts for rock strength and slopes. The
description of factors that contribute to landslides in addition to slope has been revised and
expanded for clarity.
Slopes and landslide susceptibility can be some of many factors that Midpen evaluates during a
review of site conditions when determining risk of instability and when deciding which
measures from the Program EIR to implement. MM Geology-2 has been expanded to specify the
types of data that can be consulted during a desktop site review.
Response to Comment A7-6
The commenter indicated that the statement in Table 4.6-2 regarding instability of alluvium was
overly simplified. The description has been expanded to also discuss the potential instability in
upland areas, particularly where thick colluvium is present. Additional information has been
added to describe that alluvium in areas of flat slopes are less susceptible to land instability.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-41
Response to Comment A7-7
The commenter indicated that the Franciscan Complex is susceptible to land instability due to
the highly sheared and inherently weak bedrock. The statements by the commenter are
consistent with the information presented in Table 4.6-2. Additional information has been
added to further indicate that this formation is susceptible to land instability. The sentence
regarding high stability is accurate as written because the characterization specifically refers to
other minor components of the formation, such as massive sandstones, versus the highly
sheared mélange.
Response to Comment A7-8
The commenter indicated that MM Geology-2 provides erosion control and slope stability
measures, but, in their opinion, does not adequately address slope stability impacts. MM
Geology-2 provides a suite of erosion and slope stability measures that can be applied to ensure
vegetation management does not result in erosion, loss of topsoil, or slope instability in areas
where work could expose bare soils or create loss of root-soil matrix strength. The intent of the
measure is to have qualified personnel make the decision regarding which measures should be
applied, based on site conditions and the project proposed to be implemented. Revisions have
been made to the measure to clearly indicate that the qualified personnel may apply these
measures for any site, even if the site is on slopes less than 35 percent or the project could result
in exposure of soils on slopes that are less than 70 percent. The qualified personnel may identify
other control measures not specifically listed, particularly for sites and projects that require a
licensed geologist/engineer.
Response to Comment A7-9
The commenter noted that the analyses oversimplified residual root strength after tree removal.
The analysis in the Draft Program EIR indicates that the level of root strength retention is
dependent upon soil type, slope, climate, health of the tree, and tree species. As such, it is
acknowledged that root strength after death would vary depending upon many factors.
The commenter also described that the analysis under Impact Geology and Soils-3 does not
account for decreased evapotranspiration after vegetation removal that could result in increased
ground saturation and decreased slope stability. The analysis has been enhanced to clearly
describe this other mechanism by which vegetation and trees affect slope stability.
Response to Comment A7-10
The commenter noted that MM Geology-4 does not identify the specific GIS data that can be
used to determine if expansive soil is present. The measure has been revised to indicate that
appropriate GIS data will be used, such as soil data prepared by USDA. A specific reference is
not provided as the Program could span a decade or longer, during which time, any cited data
in the measure could become outdated.
Response to Comment A7-11
The commenter indicated that the Program EIR does not address potential erosion and
destabilization impacts associated with use of new roads and associated water crossings,
potential improvements to roads, or potential use of old (unused) skid trails. The commenter
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-42
indicated that a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) should conduct evaluations of new or
reopened roads.
Vehicles and equipment can access most types of VMAs entirely on existing roads and trails
with existing waterway crossings (i.e., bridges or culverts) as discussed in the Program EIR.
Impacts Hydrology-1, Hydrology-3, and Hydrology-5 analyze the rare potential for vehicles to
need to access project sites across streams or other waterways where an existing crossing does
not occur. The Draft Program EIR adequately identifies potential impacts that could occur,
including erosion and sedimentation of waterways. Appropriate Midpen BMPs and MM
Hydrology-1 are identified to address these impacts.
Existing roads are currently in use, and erosion or other impacts from that use are part of the
baseline condition. Should increased usage of existing roads and water crossing associated with
the Program be substantial enough to increase erosion and sedimentation, mitigation can
include upgrading and/or re-engineering the road or water crossing structure, per revisions to
MM Hydrology-1. Other upgrades to existing roads and water crossings to address existing
erosion and sedimentation concerns is, generally, not part of this Program.
The analysis in Section 4.6: Geology and Soils assessed the potential for erosion control from the
clearing of former skid trails as well as installation of spur roads. Additional specificity in MM
Geology-2 has been added to more clearly address substantial vegetation removal and grading
that may be necessary when clearing former trails or installing firefighting infrastructure. More
clarity has also been added to MM Geology-2 regarding when and what types of qualified
personnel must conduct a site assessment and must identify the appropriate control measures
to be applied from the BMPs and mitigation. An RPF has been identified as one of the
appropriate types of qualified personnel. References to MM Geology-2 have been added to the
analysis.
Response to Comment A7-12
The commenter expressed concern that the analysis did not completely evaluate the potential
erosion, sedimentation, and destabilization impacts of constructing roads. The potential for
sedimentation impacts is analyzed in Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality. Installation of
new spur roads is identified as an erosion and landsliding risk in Section 4.6: Geology and Soils.
The analysis has been enhanced to clearly indicate that sedimentation could occur in areas of
not just steep slopes but also landsliding or weak geologic units. MM Geology-2 has been
expanded to also refer to the Handbook for Forest, Ranch, and Rural Roads (Weaver, 2015) and the
latest California Forest Practice Rules, as the commenter recommended these other guidance
documents in addition to the Low-Volume Roads Engineering (Keller & Sherar, 2003). As
discussed in Response to Comment A7-11, additional specificity has been added to MM
Geology-2 regarding when and what types of qualified personnel, which can include RPFs,
must conduct a site assessment and must identify control measures.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-43
Response to Comment A7-13
The commenter questioned the types of specialized equipment that would not affect slope
stability and which personnel would make this determination. Specialized, self-leveling
motorized equipment is available to be used on slopes up to 50 percent. The description of
specialists that can serve as “qualified personnel” has been clarified and expanded in MM
Geology-2 to include a licensed geologist (Professional Geologist [P.G.] or California
Engineering Geologist [C.E.G.]), licensed engineer, and an RPF in addition to the qualified
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) developer (QSD) or a qualified SWPPP
practitioner (QSP) already mentioned. For some types of projects and locations, a licensed
geologist/engineer or RPF are the required qualifications. Qualified personnel will make the
determination regarding the equipment that could be used and would not affect slope stability,
which may include small mulching machines.
Response to Comment A7-14
The commenter requested that the Program EIR address road construction techniques on steep
slopes over 50 percent as these roads are commonly prone to instability. The commenter also
notes that CAL FIRE should be consulted prior to operations.
MM Geology-2 has been expanded to require licensed geologist/engineer or RPF to conduct site
inspections for areas of substantial grading in specified areas as well as for extension of roads
by 600 feet or more. The existing requirement to implement design and control measures is not
narrowly focused only on clearing of areas on slopes over 50 percent, but also includes more
moderate slopes and on slopes where it is determined to be needed by qualified personnel. MM
Geology-2 has been expanded to refer to the latest California Forest Practice Rules, as the
commenter recommended, in addition to the Low-Volume Roads Engineering (Keller & Sherar,
2003). New firefighting infrastructure, such as a spur road or landing zone, would be proposed
under the Wildland Fire Pre-Plan/Resource Advisor Maps, which are intended to aid CAL FIRE
and other firefighting agencies in their efforts. Midpen would consult CAL FIRE during this
process. No additional revisions have been made.
Response to Comment A7-15
The commenter discussed that Impact Geology and Soils-1 does not acknowledge the potential
for direct or indirect substantial adverse effects from seismic-induced landslides. The analysis
analyzes the potential for direct seismic impacts on human life from the Program, which could
only occur if the Program increases the presence of persons in a seismic hazard zone, whether
workers or residences. The Program would not involve creating new permanent housing or
places of work. The analysis adequately discusses the increase in workers in the Program area.
As the commenter notes, the Program has the potential to increase landsliding and
destabilization under some conditions, as analyzed in Impact Geology and Soils-3. As such,
there is a potential for the Program to indirectly increase substantial adverse effects due to
increasing the risk of landsliding during a seismic event. This analysis is addressed in Impact
Geology and Soils-3. Some minor edits to the impact statements and text of the analyses have
been made to clearly encompass this concern.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-44
Midpen is required to adhere to all pertinent regulations including any relevant requirements in
the Geologist and Geophysicist Act noted by the commenter. The referenced California
Geologist and Geophysicist Act (Business and Professions Code §§ 7800 – 7887) provides the
legal qualifications for a licensed geologist/engineer and that protection of the public shall be
the highest priority for the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists in
exercising its licensing, regulatory, and disciplinary functions. Mitigation measures identified in
the Program EIR are additional requirements above and beyond regulatory requirements.
Response to Comment A7-16
The commenter asked for the specific qualifications of personnel that would conduct site
inspections and the commenter noted that the mitigation does not indicate what the review of
site conditions would entail. The description of specialists that can serve as “qualified
personnel” has been clarified and expanded in MM Geology-2 to include a licensed
geologist/engineer and RPF in addition to the QSD or QSP already mentioned. For some types
of projects and locations, a licensed geologist/engineer or RPF are required. MM Geology-2 has
also been enhanced to stipulate that a review of site conditions may include but is not limited to
a desktop review of slope, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR), historic evidence of landslides
(e.g., Wentworth et al. 1997), and modeling of landslide susceptibility GIS data (e.g., Wills et al.
2011) as well as a site visit.
Refer to Response to Comment A7-15 for a discussion on regulatory compliance.
Response to Comment A7-17
The commenter indicates that a QSD or QSP are not qualified to evaluate landslides and
potential impacts to slope stability or recommend control measures. MM Geology-2 has been
expanded to clarify the specialists that can serve as “qualified personnel” and under what
conditions specific qualifications are required.
Refer to Response to Comment A7-15 for a discussion on regulatory compliance.
Response to Comment A7-18
The commenter notes that a licensed geologist/engineer should evaluate potential slope stability
where public safety is a concern and that instability may occur on slopes less than 35 percent.
The comment asked for the criteria that would be used to determine intensive tree removal.
MM Geology-2 has been expanded to clarify the specialists that can serve as “qualified
personnel” and under what conditions specific specialists are required. The conditions under
which a licensed geologist/engineer or RPF are specifically required include projects that would
involve substantial grading or vegetation removal on active slide areas, unstable areas, or
unstable soils in previously undisturbed soils and above or below infrastructure including
structures potentially occupied by people. Substantial vegetation removal is defined in MM
Geology-2. This definition as well as further descriptions in the measure clarify what constitutes
“intensive tree removal”.
Refer to Response to Comment A7-15 for a discussion on regulatory compliance.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-45
Response to Comment A7-19
The commenter recommends that a focused, site-specific evaluation of geology and slope
stability by a licensed geologist may be needed for some projects. The commenter provides
some resources for geologic reports and factors affecting landslides. MM Geology-2 has been
expanded to identify the conditions under which a licensed geologist/engineer or RPF are
specifically required, including projects that would involve substantial grading or vegetation
removal on active slide areas, unstable areas, or unstable soils in previously undisturbed soils
and above or below infrastructure or other structures potentially occupied by people.
Additional language regarding factors contributing to landsliding according to Note 50,
referenced by the commenter, has been added to the Existing Environment section of
Section 4.6: Geology and Soils.
Response to Comment A7-20
The commenter notes that (1) the California Forest Practices Rules present forestry guidance
and requirements, (2) an RPF should be used for certain evaluations, and (3) CAL FIRE should
be consulted prior to operations. Refer to Responses to Comments A7-11 and A7-12 for the
changes to MM Geology-2 and the planned, continued CAL FIRE consultation.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-46
2.2.8 Letter A8: Albert Salvador, City of Cupertino
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-47
Response to Comment A8-1
The commenter noted that additional outreach and notification would occur for prescribed
burning but not for noise generating activities. The commenter recommended that 7-day
advance notice be given to property owners within 300 feet of any Program activity, including
noise generating activities and herbicide application.
As the commenter noted, Midpen will be refining and conducting more prescribed fire planning
under the PFP in the coming year. While the Program EIR analyzed prescribed fire
programmatically, additional outreach and environmental documentation will be prepared.
Implementation of the PFP will not commence until additional environmental review is
completed (expected in spring of 2022).
Under CEQA, generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the Program in excess of standards established by local jurisdictions
would constitute a significant impact. As discussed under Section 4.10.5, the noise analysis
focuses on local county policies and regulations as most of Midpen land (90 percent) falls within
the counties rather than cities, but Midpen is required to adhere to all local regulations. Impact
Noise-1 analyzes the noise levels generated by Program implementation and associated
impacts. Table 4.10-4 provides an indication of the noise levels at 50 feet that could be generated
by each Program activity. Herbicide application would be conducted according to the existing
IPMP. As shown in Table 4.10-4, the loudest piece of equipment associated with herbicide
application could be a chainsaw. The chipper is the loudest piece of equipment proposed for
use under the Program as identified in the analysis. As noted, Midpen is required to adhere to
local noise standards, including the City of Cupertino Municipal Code Section 10.48.053.
MM Noise-1 has been revised to explicitly state this requirement. Through the planning process
as individual projects and activities are implemented under the Program, Midpen will be
required to identify the appropriate noise standard and, as needed, identify buffers between
noise-generating activities and the land uses with a noise standard. Even the loudest piece of
equipment, the chipper, would not exceed 87 dBA at 25 feet and would not exceed the noise
standard identified in the Municipal Code (Section 10.48.053 A.). MM Noise-1 requires notifying
residents within one week of an activity if noise restrictions are not implementable. The
measure also requires that a disturbance coordinator be designated to address noise complaints.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-48
2.2.9 Letter A9: Karen Maki, Sierra Club – Loma Prieta Chapter, Forest Protection
Committee
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-49
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-50
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-51
Response to Comment A9-1
The commenter requested that further quantification of and mitigation for carbon loss and
release of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by fuel reduction be conducted. Many
California vegetation communities that are found on Midpen lands are fire adapted. Fire
suppression has altered the composition of California vegetation communities. Grasslands and
oak woodlands are decreasing in extent due to invading brush and forest species. Stands of
coastal scrub and chaparral have aged and are not renewing. Dense brush and young trees have
largely replaced the historically sparse understory beneath redwood and Douglas fir forests and
mature oak woodlands. Competition in dense forests can lead to stunted tree growth rates and
associated reduced sequestration in some forest types (CAL FIRE, 2018). These changes have led
to and continue to lead to a loss of biodiversity as well as an increase in carbon stocks that
historically were not present and are not ecologically beneficial in these communities. One of
the factors leading to intense, catastrophic wildland fires in California and in the San Francisco
Bay Area is the presence of higher fuel loads than pre-fire suppression conditions in the dense
undergrowth and small trees that historically would have burned in cyclical, natural wildland
fires. It is true that carbon stocks are affected by resiliency activities that remove vegetation, but
maintaining the high carbon stock in its current form is not necessarily a benefit due to the risks
it poses for intense and large wildfires, where all that carbon is lost at once. Climate change is
expected to lead to increased frequency and intensity of large wildland fires and greater fire risk
if fuel management activities are not expanded across the state (CNRA, 2018).
The fuel reduction treatments proposed under the Program are intended to both reduce
wildland fire risk, thus enhancing public safety, and to restore ecological function and resiliency
in communities on Midpen lands. The relationship and tradeoffs between fuel management
activities and wildland fires in regard to carbon stocks are complex. California forests store
some of the highest densities of carbon in the world. Type conversion due to fire suppression
and the increased risk of catastrophic wildland fire are increasing the probability that California
forests will become a net emitter of carbon (Moghaddas, et al., 2018). Fuel treatments have been
shown to reduce fire intensity and severity and the associated intense loss of carbon stocks in
catastrophic wildfires (Moghaddas, et al., 2018). One of the primary methods to reduce
wildland fire risk is to transfer carbon stocks from many small, fire-vulnerable shrubs and trees
into resilient large trees. Thinning can result in greater sequestration rates by reducing
competition for the larger, more resilient trees (CAL FIRE, 2018). Another consideration is that
fuel treatments reduce the risk of type conversion from forest to lower carbon density
vegetation types such as grassland or shrubland that has a potential to occur after high severity
wildland fire (Hurteau & Brooks, 2011). In the event of a wildland fire, vegetation thinning has
been studied and found to reduce the quantity of carbon released and increase live tree carbon
compared to unmanaged stands (Hurteau, Koch, & Hungate, 2008).
As quantified in the Draft Program EIR, the proposed fuel treatments would generate and
release carbon emissions from equipment use and burning activities. Quantifying the ebb and
flow of carbon stocks associated with fuel reductions is extremely variable depending upon
type of vegetation and method of biomass removal (e.g., chipping vs. burning). Quantification
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-52
of changes in carbon stock would need to factor in reduced carbon stock uptake from vegetation
removal, carbon intake from increased sequestration of mature vegetation, and the slow carbon
release from decomposition of removed vegetation (and/or immediate carbon release from
burning, which was quantified in the Draft Program EIR). Conducting these additional
calculations is technically feasible but extremely variable and uncertain as the calculation
depends upon many factors as noted in Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Quantifying the
full scope of the changes in carbon directly associated with Program activities would not
contribute to a greater understanding of the types of Program effects on global GHG emissions
in the context of CEQA. As analyzed, the Program would generate and emit GHG emissions
many magnitudes greater than existing conditions due to prescribed burning and could
significantly impact the environment. Emissions from a wildfire, however, could be much
greater than those from implementation of the Program, but comparing the Program emissions
to that of a wildfire is not appropriate under CEQA.
A direct carbon calculation, which would involve extensive assumptions of vegetation types
and quantities per acre to the point of speculation, would also not provide the public an
understanding of the unnaturally high fuel loads present under baseline conditions, nor that a
wildland fire would release far greater carbon per acre than the proposed fuel reduction
treatments. As such, the analysis qualitatively discusses studies and data available regarding
effects on fuel treatments on carbon stock in relation to immediate effects as well as to wildland
fires. The potential benefits of the proposed activities in the context of wildland fire risk
reduction outweigh the impacts on carbon stock, as discussed further the Draft Program EIR,
Section 4.7.
The fundamental goals of the Program are to reduce wildland fire risk and restore ecological
function. As such, identifying mitigation that substantially alters the core activities proposed
under the Program, such as reducing fuel treatments or eliminated prescribed burning, would
not allow achievement of Program objectives. Refer to Chapter 6: Alternatives to the Program,
in the Draft Program EIR, for an analysis of alternatives that involve a reduced level of
vegetation management and no prescribed fire. These alternatives were developed to reduce air
quality and GHG emissions. As summarized in Section 6.6 of the Draft Program EIR, the No
Prescribed Fire Plan Alternative is environmentally superior to the Program as proposed by
eliminating the significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality and GHG emissions,
although the significant and unavoidable impact on scenic resources would remain. The
emissions and carbon released from prescribed burning in natural areas under controlled
conditions would be considerably less than the emissions released if the area were subject to a
wildland fire. The benefits of prescribed burning outweigh the drawback of unavoidable
emissions during the burn.
Some minor additions to the methodology and analysis in Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Chapter 6: Alternatives to the Program have been made to clarify the various
changes in carbon stock associated with the Program and alternatives.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-53
Response to Comment A9-2
The commenter referenced that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommended
GHG emission targets and indicated the Program must follow these recommendations and
comply with California reduction goals. The analysis under Impact GHG-2 addresses
conformance with California’s GHG reduction goals as identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan. As
analyzed, the 2017 Scoping Plan’s GHG reduction goal (40 percent below 1990 levels in 2030)
and objectives will be achieved through several methods depending upon sector. The relevant
sector to the Program is natural and working lands. The broad methods to achieve the State’s
goal for this sector are to maintain lands as a net carbon sink through increased carbon
sequestration and a reduction in wildland fires. The State acknowledges that currently, natural
and working lands are a net source of GHG emissions primarily due to wildfire (CARB, 2018).
Land management, which can include forest fuel reduction treatments and use of prescribed
burning to reduce wildland-fire risks and increase forest resilience, are recommended in the
2017 Scoping Plan to establish the forests as reliable carbon sinks instead of emission sources
due to ongoing fires. The Program objectives and activities include managing vegetation and
infrastructure on Midpen lands to reduce wildland fire risks and improve wildland fire-fighting
capabilities and coordination, which supports the 2017 Scoping Plan’s goals and objectives of
minimizing wildland fire and associated emissions. The Program supports the target goal and
objectives identified for natural and working lands in the 2017 Scoping Plan for the State.
Quantification of carbon sequestration would be variable and uncertain for the reasons
provided in Response to Comment A9-1 and is not necessary given Midpen’s Program supports
the State’s objectives by focusing on forest health and ecosystem resiliency. Response to
Comment A9-1 provides further justification for the types of methods through which land
management can increase forest resiliency, including increasing sequestration in larger, mature
trees as well as reducing the risk of vegetation type conversion from those that store more
carbon to communities that store less as can occur after catastrophic fires. The 2017 Scoping
Plan, as well as the Final California Forest Carbon Plan (CALFIRE, 2018) recognize that some
actions taken to address ecosystem health may result in temporary, short-term reductions in
carbon sequestration but are necessary to maintain forest health and reduce massive carbon
storage losses due to wildfire. One of the stated goals of the California Forest Carbon Plan is
also to increase the rate of forest reforestation and fuel reduction treatments on non-federally
managed lands with a target of achieving 60,000 acres a year by 2030 with an intent to align
with the State’s 2030 GHG reduction goal. The Forest Carbon Plan clearly states that transfer of
carbon stocks from numerous small, fire-vulnerable trees to a smaller number of larger and
more resilient trees is key to achieving the goals. Treatment methods to achieve this transfer of
carbon include prescribed fire and mechanical thinning, which are proposed in the Program.
The Program supports these goals by increasing forest resiliency and fuel treatments on Midpen
lands with the intent of decreasing wildland fire risk and increasing ecosystem health.
Response to Comment A9-3
The commenter requested quantification of carbon loss associated with fuel treatments to
determine conformance with California’s GHG reduction goal and to include appropriate
mitigation. Refer to Response to Comment A9-1 for a detailed justification for the validity of the
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-54
analysis and why providing further quantification of emission sources would be extremely
variable and uncertain, why current carbon loads are not necessarily purely a benefit, and why
quantification of carbon does not contribute to a greater understanding of the Program’s GHG
emissions impact. Per Response to Comment A9-2, quantification to determine consistency with
the State’s GHG reduction goals is not merited because the objectives and treatments proposed
under the Program conforms with those identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan and the California
Forest Carbon Plan to achieve a net carbon sink in natural and working lands. Treatments
designed to meet the Program objectives of a resilient forest and reduced forest fire would not
result in excessive forest carbon removal in the long term.
The Monitoring Plan is a part of the WFRP, which identifies various monitoring parameters to
assess Program effectiveness and overall ecosystem management and health. Monitoring
requirements will vary depending on the activity undertaken and the conditions in the area
where the activity is to occur. One of the parameters to monitor is fuel loads (refer to Section
7.3.8). As part of the Program, Midpen would review activities undertaken the previous year
and the associated monitoring parameters to make recommended modifications to the Program,
as needed, using adaptive management strategies.
Response to Comment A9-4
The commenter provided information indicating that different fuel reduction protocols can
increase or decrease carbon storage. The commenter requested that Midpen monitor and assess
carbon stocks before and after treatments as part of the proposed monitoring. Refer to Response
to Comment A9-1 for a discussion regarding the complex relationship and tradeoffs between
fuel management activities and wildland fires in regards to carbon stocks. Long-term
monitoring (likely decades) for carbon sequestration and storage is required to demonstrate
lasting changes in carbon stocks. Carbon sequestration and storage must be monitored over the
long-term for meaningful results, as short-term fluctuations often occur independent of fuel
treatment or fire. The timescale for monitoring may also depend on the ecosystem type,
vegetation growth rates, and amount of biomass removed during treatment. Refer to Response
to Comment A9-3 for a discussion of the proposed monitoring and adaptive management
Midpen would conduct as part of the Program.
Response to Comment A9-5
The commenter stated that communities will be safer by prioritizing home and infrastructure
hardening, refraining from building in the wild areas, improving ignition detection and public
communication, and providing evacuation routes. As the commenter mentions and as further
discussed in Response to Comment A9-1, higher fuel loads and climate change are leading to
wildland fires at greater frequency and of higher intensity. The overall purpose of the Program
is to allow for increased and environmentally sensitive vegetation management, including
reinstating fire in a controlled manner to reduce excessive fuel loads and thus reduce the
potential for severe wildland fire. Many of the fuel treatments proposed under the VMP are
around evacuation routes that traverse through or adjacent to Midpen lands.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-55
The Program does not involve any new facilities except potential new firefighting infrastructure
under the Wildland Pre-Plan (e.g., landing area, water tank). Midpen conducts ongoing
hardening, as appropriate, during maintenance of Midpen-owned occupied residences. Midpen
in conjunction with other agencies, has conducted outreach, including during the public
outreach meetings conducted for the Program, to educate property owners regarding home
hardening and defensible space. While not part of the Program, Midpen encourages
neighboring private property owners to apply for a free Neighbor Defensible Space Permit to
conduct defensible space treatments within 100 feet of occupied structures.
Response to Comment A9-6
The commenter requested that Midpen prioritize partnerships with PG&E and surrounding
communities to reduce the risks of wildland fires. As noted in Response to Comment A9-5,
Midpen in conjunction with other agencies, has conducted outreach, including during the
public outreach meetings conducted for the Program, to educate property owners regarding
home hardening and defensible space. Midpen does not have jurisdiction to regulate vegetation
management within the PG&E ROW, as this is PG&E responsibility in accordance with the
CPUC General Order 95, Rule 35. Midpen nonetheless regularly coordinates with PG&E.
Response to Comment A9-7
The commenter emphasized that public education regarding home and infrastructure
hardening is a priority as wildland fires will ignite regardless of vegetation management
implemented under the Program. Refer to Response to Comment A9-5 for a discussion of non-
Program related outreach and education Midpen conducts.
Response to Comment A9-8
The commenter requested that an additional Program goal be added regarding not contributing
to anthropogenic climate change. This goal is acknowledged but has not been added since the
Program is focused on vegetation management for ecosystem resiliency and fire safety. By itself,
the goal would be too broad and out of context since some of the Program activities result in
some GHG emissions. The stated goals of the Program, however, all support actions aimed at
reducing wildland fire risks, which implicitly are climate driven.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-56
2.2.10 Letter A10: Daniel Krug, County of San Mateo, Planning and Building
Department
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-57
Response to Comment A10-1
The commenter described that the Program and Draft Program EIR conforms with the San
Mateo County General Plan policies and would benefit public health and safety as well as the
ecosystem. The support for the Program is noted. The comment does not raise environmental
issues or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is needed.
Response to Comment A10-2
The commenter noted that Midpen must obtain use permits and comply with County policies.
Table 3.8-1 in the Draft Program EIR acknowledges the types of permits Midpen may need to
acquire from local jurisdictions. The Draft Program EIR describes and analyzes conformance
with local regulations, including the County of San Mateo’s.
2.3 Individual Comments and Responses
2.3.1 Letter B1: von Tersch, Tom
Response to Comment B1-1
The comment regarding the priority of eucalyptus grove removal has been noted. The
methodology for prioritization of treatment areas is detailed under Section 4.4.3 of the WFRP.
Note that annual priorities may change depending upon changing environmental factors.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-58
2.3.2 Letter B2: Pittsinger, Jane
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-59
Response to Comment B2-1
The comment regarding advocating for public education to minimize fire ignition has been
noted. Midpen has a trash policy of “pack it in, pack it out” and smoking is prohibited within
OSPs. Midpen staff work cooperatively with neighbors, fire agencies, and regional fire safe
councils on fire prevention and preparedness efforts. Midpen has a protocol for closing OSPs on
the coastside during periods of high wildfire danger as well as when a fire agency requests
closure. Midpen also performs regular community outreach during times of high wildfire
danger and Red Flag Warnings. The comment does not raise environmental issues or issues
related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is needed.
Response to Comment B2-2
The support for the prescribed burning activities proposed within the WFRP is noted. The
comment does not raise environmental issues or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
No further response is needed.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-60
2.3.3 Letter B3: Chris, Chris
Response to Comment B3-1
The support for eucalyptus and acacia removal has been noted. As described under Section 4.3.2
of the WFRP, these trees would be removed under the VMP using manual and mechanical
methods, as well as limited herbicide use to control re-sprouting from cut stumps. Prescribed
burning would be conducted under the PFP. The comment does not raise environmental issues
or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is needed.
Response to Comment B3-2
The comment regarding creation of walkable evacuation routes through Miramontes Ridge OSP
in 2021 has been noted. The general purpose of the WFRP is to reduce wildland fire risks. While
vegetation management is proposed along evacuation routes, the Program is not an emergency
evacuation plan. The comment does not raise environmental issues or issues related to the
adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is needed.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-61
Response to Comment B3-3
The comment regarding removing eucalyptus and acacia trees from Miramontes Ridge in 2021
has been noted. The methodology for prioritization of treatment areas is detailed under
Section 4.4.3 of the WFRP. Note that annual priorities may change year to year depending upon
changing conditions and ability to complete more treatment.
Response to Comment B3-4
The comment calls out maintenance of 200 feet of defensible space around adjacent property
owners to Midpen. While not part of the Program, Midpen encourages neighboring private
property owners to apply for a free Neighbor Defensible Space Permit to conduct defensible
space treatments on Midpen lands within 100 feet of occupied structures to allow private
property owners to achieve their defensible space requirements for their adjacent private
property. A prioritization criterion under Section 4.4.3 of the WFRP is to locate VMAs within
300 feet of specific target hazards 4 (school, hospital, nursing home).
Response to Comment B3-5
The comment requesting the Neighbor Defensible Space Permit apply to a 200-foot buffer zone
has been noted. Defensible space according to California Public Resource Code 4921 shall be
maintained “100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the structure, but not beyond
the property line”. As noted in Response to Comment B3-4, Midpen provides adjacent private
property owners the opportunity to maintain defensible space extending beyond private
property lines up to 100 feet on Midpen lands.
Response to Comment B3-6
The comment requesting outreach to neighboring properties about tree species and fire risk has
been noted. The comment does not raise environmental issues or issues related to the adequacy
of the Draft EIR. No further response is needed.
4 According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, target hazards are ”facilities in either the
public or private sector that provide essential products and services to the general public, are otherwise
necessary to preserve the welfare and quality of life in the community, or fulfill important public safety,
emergency response, and/or disaster recovery functions.”
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-62
2.3.4 Letter B4: Fisher, Glenn
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-63
Response to Comment B4-1
The commenter requested a greater use of prescribed burning for fuel reduction. The WFRP
does include prescribed fire in the PFP to restore the ecosystem by removing dead and
accumulative vegetation. Midpen will be refining and conducting more prescribed fire planning
under the PFP in the coming year. While the Program EIR analyzed prescribed fire
programmatically, additional environmental documentation will be conducted at that time as
well. Implementation of the PFP will not commence until additional environmental review is
completed (expected in spring of 2022). The annual treatment areas were developed with
consideration for realistic attainment given resources. The WFRP is a living document and
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-64
Midpen can revisit the annual treatment sizes based on changing conditions and ability to
complete more treatments.
Response to Comment B4-2
The commenter questioned why fuel reduction has not been a higher priority due to climate
change. Refer to Section 1.2.1 of the WFRP for a description of the purpose, need, and objectives
of the Program. The objectives include management of vegetation for ecosystem resiliency as
well as to reduce wildland fire risks. The treatments proposed under the Program are intended
to reduce and restore fuel loads closer to pre-fire suppression conditions while also preserving
biodiversity and minimizing the environmental effects. The purpose of the WFRP is to increase
the pace and scale of fuel treatments and make it a higher priority.
Response to Comment B4-3
The commenter questioned what environmental impacts would be associated with a major fire
on the east side of the coastal ridge in the absence of fuel reduction, and requested modeling.
Modeling of existing fuel risks was not conducted because any work conducted under the
Program would serve to reduce and not increase risks. CEQA requires an analysis of project
impacts as compared with the baseline conditions. The baseline conditions on Midpen lands
pose a high wildland fire risk due to the presence of vegetation structures that could lead to
spread of wildland fire. The Program would reduce, not increase risks and thus, wildfire
modeling of existing conditions was not deemed necessary for compliance with CEQA.
Where appropriate, information regarding the potential effects of a wildland fire is provided in
the Program EIR to give the public an understanding of what could occur under the baseline
conditions of high wildland fire risk. Refer to the discussion of the No Program Alternative
under Section 6.4.1 of the Draft Program EIR for impacts from the comparatively larger
potential for more severe wildland fire activity should the Program not be adopted. Sections
4.3.5, 4.7.5, and 4.8.5 of the Draft Program EIR provide a discussion of effects associated with
wildfires. It should be noted that even with implementation of the Program, future wildland
fire location, timing, extent, and impacts are unknown. Well-performed management of excess
fuels on the landscape, however, should lessen the severity of a wildland fire, if it were to occur
in a treated area.
Response to Comment B4-4
The commenter noted that the alternatives do not mention the risk of major fire and associated
impacts. Refer to Chapter 6: Alternatives to the Program in the Program EIR for an in depth
discussion of each alternative. No alternative would increase risk of wildland fire in excess of
baseline conditions. Refer to Response to Comment B4-3 for references to where potential
effects of a wildland fire are discussed in the Program EIR, in the event a fire is ignited.
Response to Comment B4-5
The commenter questioned whether the analysis in Section 4.8: Geology and Soils indicates that
prescribed burning will not occur in areas with steep slopes and adjacent to waterways. MM
Geology-2 would prevent use of prescribed burns and pile burns upslope and within a 50-foot
buffer to perennial and intermittent streams where slopes are greater than 35 percent. This
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-65
measure is designed to minimize the potential to denude soils, which could result in erosion
and sedimentation of streams. The commenters concern for streams choked with dead and
downed wood has been noted. Woody debris can be beneficial. Species that live in streams may
benefit from large woody debris, which can form pools that serve as refugia. Treatments
conducted within riparian habitat would be conducted primarily by hand at the scale of
intensity described under FRAs, as discussed under Section 4.3.2 of the WFRP.
Response to Comment B4-6
The commenter questioned whether the language is indicating that one to two burns would
occur annually or one to two burns total during the first 5 years. The text in the WFRP and
Chapter 3: Project Description of the Program EIR has been revised to clearly indicate one to
two prescribed burns annually during the first three to five years.
Response to Comment B4-7
The commenter requested specific information regarding the prescribed burning areas,
treatment time, and frequency. Refer to Response to Comment B4-1 for a discussion of the
refinement of the PFP and prescribed burning on Midpen lands in the coming year. Prescribed
burning is not intended as a treatment for the entirety of Midpen lands. Treatments proposed
under the VMP would be implemented in isolation or in tandem with prescribed burning.
Section 5.2.2 of the WFRP and the analysis in the Program EIR describe the potential benefits
and impacts on resources associated with prescribed burning (e.g., fire adapted special-status
plants versus species that do not readily transmit fire to other plants). Burn units will be
identified and prioritized as described under Section 5.4 of the WFRP. Considerations for (but
not limited to) the vegetation communities, wildlife species, fuels reduction value, potential for
successful implementation, will be reviewed during burn unit prioritization. Prescribed fire
intervals vary and are dependent upon many factors.
Response to Comment B4-8
The commenter questioned the specified timing for burning shown in Table 3.6-5 of the Draft
Program EIR. BAAQMD allows prescribed burning throughout the year on any permissive
burn day (Regulation 5; Section 401.15), whereas pile burning is only allowed from November 1
to April 30 (Regulation 5; Section 401.12). The Program does not prohibit prescribed burns
outside of June to November, and indicates that other times of the year may also be considered.
Prescribed burning is typically conducted during late spring when the ground is still wet, or
during the fall or winter when precipitation is imminent, and vegetation has ceased growing
with the appropriate moisture content.
Response to Comment B4-9
The commenter noted that the analysis of the No Prescribed Fire Plan Alternatives does not
discuss that if a wildland fire occurred, the impacts would be much greater and exceed any
impacts of a prescribed burn. The No Program Alternative analysis in Section 6.4.1 of the Draft
Program EIR provides an understanding of the types of effects associated with increased
potential for more severe wildland fire activity. Implementation of the Program may result in
potentially significant and unavoidable aesthetic, air quality, and GHG impacts; however,
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-66
impacts from a large and intense wildland fire ignited in untreated areas under the No Program
Alternative could potentially be far greater than any Program impacts. Various analyses
throughout the Draft Program EIR also discuss the effects of wildland fires in the context of the
reduced risk associated with Program implementation, including Section 4.3: Air Quality and
Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Response to Comment B4-10
The commenter questioned why prescribed burning would focus on grasslands initially and
noted that the emissions calculations included a mix of other vegetation communities. Refer to
Response to Comment B4-1 for a discussion of the refinement of the PFP and prescribed
burning on Midpen lands in the coming year. Burn units will be identified and prioritized as
described under Section 5.4 of the WFRP. Initial burns may focus on re-establishing prescribed
fire training areas, such as by burning in grasslands.
The Program EIR analyzed a mixture of vegetation types to provide a more realistic expectation
of prescribed burning, particularly emissions generated during a maximum year of WFRP
implementation as emissions per acre associated with grasslands are the lowest of the general
vegetation types.
2.3.5 Letter B5: Vahtra, Karen
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-67
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-68
Response to Comment B5-1
The commenter requested creation of fuelbreaks around adjacent private properties, including a
senior facility at Windy Hill OSP. One of the prioritization criteria under Section 4.4.3 of the
WFRP is to locate VMAs within 300 feet of critical structures (school, hospital, nursing home). A
300-foot fuelbreak has been identified as a potential, higher priority treatment on Midpen lands
around the assisted living facility adjacent to Windy Hill OSP, the Sequoias-Portola Valley
(Refer to Appendix B of the WFRP). As noted, a 300-foot-wide fuelbreak around this target is
identified as a potential treatment at Windy Hill OSP. The implementation of the identified
fuelbreak would be conducted in an ecologically sensitive manner, which would involve
leaving a vegetated buffer around Sausal Pond. The majority of the work to protect the Sequoias
has been completed and the vegetative buffer around the pond would not be removed under
the Program. Treatment in the future would largely be focused on maintaining the fuel
reduction work that has already been completed. There may be some additional work to
enhance the fuel reduction zone while protecting ecological resources, and this work would
appear very similar to the work Midpen has already conducted within the Windy Hill OSP near
the Sequoias-Portola Valley.
While not part of the Program, Midpen encourages neighboring private property owners to
apply for a free Neighbor Defensible Space Permit to conduct defensible space treatments on
Midpen lands within 100 feet of their private property structures.
Response to Comment B5-2
The commenter requested designation of the western part of Windy Hill OSP as highest
priority. The methodology for prioritization of treatment areas is detailed under Section 4.4.3 of
the WFRP. Note that annual priorities may change depending upon changing environmental
factors. Refer to Appendix B of the WFRP for the mapsets of the current prioritized treatment
areas.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-69
2.3.6 Letter B6: Brandt, Adam
Response to Comment B6-1
The support for the WFRP as proposed is noted. The comment does not raise environmental
issues or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is needed.
Response to Comment B6-2
The support for the prescribed burning activities proposed within the WFRP is noted. The
comment does not raise environmental issues or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR.
No further response is needed.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-70
2.3.7 Letter B7: Evans, Peter
Response to Comment B7-1
The commenter provided information on the San Jose State Wildfire Interdisciplinary Research
Center. Midpen collaborates with many partners in the San Francisco Bay Area to conduct
research and stays apprised of the latest science and technology. The comment does not raise
environmental issues or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is
needed.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-71
2.3.8 Letter B8: Liebes, Sidney
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-72
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-73
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-74
Response to Comment B8-1
The comment regarding the lower intensity vegetation treatments implemented to create and
maintain a “modified” fuelbreak compared to a traditional firebreak has been noted. Refer to
Section 4.3.2 of the WFRP for further details on how a fuelbreak is created and maintained.
Response to Comment B8-2
The support for the WFRP as proposed and the identification of the Sequoias-Portola Valley as a
target is noted. As noted, a 300-foot-wide fuelbreak around this target is identified as a potential
treatment at Windy Hill OSP. Refer to Response to Comment B5-1 for information on the
fuelbreak treatment around the Sequoias. The comment does not raise environmental issues or
issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is needed.
Response to Comment B8-3
The comment providing firebreak and fuelbreak recommendations has been noted.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-75
2.3.9 Letter B9: Epstein, Allan
Response to Comment B9-1
The commenter requested further information on prioritization and locations of FRAs. The
potential FRA treatment areas shown in Appendix B are meant to represent the “envelope”
within which the FRAs can be created. Refer to Section 4.4.3 of the WFRP for the methodology
of prioritization creation of FRAs, which will be determined each year during annual planning.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-76
Response to Comment B9-2
The commenter requested whether fire districts and agencies participated in treatment
decisions. Fire Agency Recommended Fuelbreaks are identified as potential treatment areas in
Table 4-5 and Appendix B of the WFRP. The methodology for locating potential VMAs includes
those identified by State or local fire management agency professional staff (refer to Section
4.4.3 of the WFRP).
Response to Comment B9-3
The commenter requested treatment along the border of OSPs adjacent to private lands. While
not part of the Program, Midpen encourages neighboring private property owners to apply for
a free Neighbor Defensible Space Permit to conduct defensible space treatments on Midpen
lands within 100 feet of occupied structures to allow private property owners to achieve their
defensible space requirements for their adjacent private property.
Response to Comment B9-4
The commenter suggests that better access roads, water storage tanks, and hydrants are needed
to keep perimeters of wildlands fire safe, with a focus on the Open Space areas near Los Altos
Hills. The Wildland Type 3 routes and water tanks shown in Appendix B of the WFRP are
based on existing infrastructure and include a major fire road that parallels the preserve
boundary adjacent to Los Altos Hills. There are also numerous hydrants within the preserve
and two major water tanks maintained by water districts. The commenter mentions available
funds and resources from local fire agencies. Midpen continues to actively seek grants and
partnerships with fire agencies, fire safe councils, and local neighborhoods.
Response to Comment B9-5
The commenter requests annual timing of the vegetation treatments and information on
prioritization. As described under Section 4.6 of the WFRP, Midpen employees, with input from
surrounding fire agencies, will annually prioritize areas for treatment and prepare an Annual
Work Plan. The annual timing for each treatment type and method is outlined in Table 4-9 of
the WFRP. Refer to Section 4.4.3 of the WFRP for the methodology of prioritization for creation
of VMAs and FRAs.
Response to Comment B9-6
The commenter requested identification of more local roads on the Appendix B mapsets. The
mapsets have been revised to incorporate key local road names.
2.4 Public Meeting Comments and Responses
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-77
2.4.1 Letter C1: DePeau, Norm
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-78
Response to Comment C1-1
The commenter stated that Midpen is responsible for maintaining private roads that cross
through Midpen lands for public safety and emergency egress. The Program will not increase
existing hazards or otherwise impact residences that live along Blackberry Hill Road. Generally,
property owners who hold access rights to a private road are the party responsible for
maintenance and repair of the road. Potential fuelbreaks are proposed around State or local fire
agency-designated Midpen evacuation routes as well as primary Midpen-designated
emergency access roads that are accessible by a Wildland Type 3 fire engine according to the
methodology for locating potential VMAs defined in Section 4.4.3 of the WFRP.
Note that the Program is intended to be a “living document”. Midpen, in conjunction with
forestry and ecology specialists, identified treatments based on current risks, priorities, and
ability to implement treatments. As described under Section 8.4 of the WFRP, Midpen will
identify and implement recommended changes based on monitoring and changing conditions.
The Program may be updated accordingly, and as necessary, supplemental CEQA or other
environmental analysis would be prepared.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-79
2.4.2 Letter C2: Liston, Janssen
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-80
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-81
Response to Comment C2-1
The commenter expressed concern regarding fire hazards in El Sereno OSP, particularly due to
adjacency to residences and ingress/egress along Overlook Road. The Draft Program EIR
acknowledges the high fire hazard at El Sereno OSP, as shown in Figure 4.8-4. The overall
purpose of the Program is to allow for increased environmentally sensitive vegetation
management to reduce the potential for severe wildland fire, as stated in Section 1.2 of the
WFRP.
Response to Comment C2-2
The commenter noted that El Sereno OSP has the largest contiguous area with most financial
risk and very few activities appear to be planned at El Sereno OSP. The comment regarding
financial risk is noted and is outside the scope of CEQA. The comment does not raise
environmental issues or issues related to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. No further response is
needed.
The areas of potential treatment in El Sereno OSP are shown in Appendix B. Midpen, in
conjunction with forestry and ecology specialists, identified treatments based on current risks,
priorities, and ability to implement treatments. Section 4.1.3 of the WFRP identifies
approximately 120 acres within El Sereno OSP where new VMAs could be established. These
VMAs include evacuation routes, defensible space around critical infrastructure, and logistical
fire management fuelbreaks. Refer to Section 4.4.3 of the WFRP for the methodology for locating
potential VMAs and FRAs.
Response to Comment C2-3
The commenter expressed concern that the newly purchased land in El Sereno OSP has not
been shown on maps nor have site visits been conducted. New land purchased or acquired after
the NOP for the Draft Program EIR is not part of the baseline conditions, per CEQA. The Draft
Program EIR mapsets and data is based on Midpen lands as of the NOP. The physical
environmental conditions at the time the NOP was published is used by an agency to determine
whether an impact of a project is significant (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). While some
deviation may be permissible to more accurately allow assessment of a project’s impacts, the
impact analysis contained within the Draft Program EIR would not be altered by inclusion of
the specified properties.
The Draft Program EIR was prepared programmatically with the understanding that Midpen
will continue to actively acquire new lands to preserve as open space in perpetuity, as detailed
under Section 3.2.2 of the Draft Program EIR (refer to Section 2.1.1 of the WFRP). As discussed
under Section 4.1.3 of the Draft Program EIR, “when specific activities are proposed… on lands
purchased or gifted after preparation of this Program EIR, Midpen would perform project-level
environmental review. Prior to approving site-specific activities under these plans or on newly
acquired lands, Midpen would evaluate the selected site against the analysis provided in this
Program EIR to determine whether additional environmental review is needed.” The Final
Program EIR includes a Project Environmental Review Checklist in Appendix A to aid Midpen
in this process. Note that the WFRP tables and mapsets have been updated to incorporate newly
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-82
acquired lands and revised data. The properties identified by the commenter have not been
included as they are not officially Midpen lands as of preparing the Final WFRP; these lands are
planned to be transferred to Midpen at a later date.
Response to Comment C2-4
The commenter noted that the mapset shows Farvue Road as an exit, which it is not, and that
Lucky Road is not passable. The maps and mapsets included in the Draft Program EIR and
WFRP are for reference only. As noted on the Appendix B mapsets, although every effort has
been made to ensure the accuracy of information, errors and conditions originating from
physical sources used to develop the data may be reflected on the maps.
Farvue Road is not shown as contiguous or an evacuation route on the Appendix B mapsets.
The evacuation routes shown to the northeast of El Sereno OSP that connects with Highway 9,
are along Overlook Road and Matilija Drive. Maintenance of these roads for safe passage is
outside of Midpen’s jurisdiction. As shown on the potential treatment mapsets, a potential
200-foot fuelbreak on Midpen lands is proposed around evacuation routes in the area identified
by the commenter according to the methodology for locating potential VMAs and FRAs defined
in Section 4.4.3 of the WFRP. Vegetation management, such as for creation of fuelbreaks, is
intended to decrease the risk of extreme wildland fire behavior, slow the spread of a wildland
fire, aid in the suppression and control of a wildland fire, and/or reduce the impacts of wildland
fire should it occur.
Response to Comment C2-5
The commenter requested the WFRP include the recently acquired 182 acres, commit to
surveying the new land, and fund the activities on the OSPs. Refer to Response to Comment
C2-3 for further information on the environmental process for newly acquired lands and the
continual updates Midpen will be conducting as conditions change. The WFRP tables and
mapsets have been updated to incorporate newly acquired lands. The properties identified by
the commenter have not been included as they are not officially Midpen lands as of preparing
the Final WFRP.
Refer to Section 4.6 and Chapter 8 of the WFRP for information on annual planning and
maximum acres of treatments. Acreages of fuel treatment projects that are included as part of
Midpen’s annual capital improvement and action plan will depend on annual staffing capacity,
funding availability, partnerships, and other resources and must also consider other priorities
and projects that further the mission and the Board’s strategic goals and objectives.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-83
2.4.3 Letter C3: Kelley, Peter
Response to Comment C3-1
The commenter recommended that Midpen address the parking and traffic congestion at
Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP as part of the Program due to the effect on emergency access
and evacuation. The overall purpose of the Program is to allow for increased and
environmentally sensitive vegetation management to reduce the potential for severe wildland
fire as stated in Section 1.2 of the WFRP. Addressing existing parking and congestion issues is
outside the scope of the WFRP and Program EIR. Midpen is working to address the
commenter’s concerns separate from this Program and EIR.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-84
Parking is not a CEQA topic, but increases in traffic hazards, such as road or lane closures,
associated with Program implementation are analyzed under Impact Transportation-1 of the
Draft Program EIR. Program impacts related to inadequate emergency access are analyzed
under Impact Transportation-3 and impairment of emergency response or emergency
evacuation plans are analyzed under Impact Hazards-4.
2.4.4 Letter C4: Maki, Karen
Response to Comment C4-1
The commenter questioned how Midpen is meeting the priority to increase carbon
sequestration, if they are accounting for carbon loss from vegetation treatments. Refer to
Response to Comment A9-1 for a discussion regarding the complex relationship and tradeoffs
between fuel management activities and wildland fires in regards to carbon stocks. Refer to
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-85
Response to Comment A9-2 for information regarding how the Program supports the 2017
Scoping Plan’s and the 2018 California Forest Carbon Plan’s GHG emissions goals and
objectives of minimizing wildland fire and associated emissions through forest treatments to
improve resiliency.
Midpen currently works to reduce emissions and enhance carbon sequestration and storage
where feasible. Under the 2018 Climate Action Plan, Midpen aims to reduce operational
emissions (e.g., from fleet, commutes, facilities, etc.) by 20 percent by 2022, 40 percent by 2030,
and 80 percent by 2040, as compared to a 2016 emissions baseline. By 2018, operational
emissions had been reduced by 14 percent from the baseline and these reductions continue to be
on track for the 2022 goal.
To increase carbon sequestration and storage, outside of Program-related actions, Midpen is
assessing carbon farming opportunities on rangelands and enhanced forest management
strategies. Midpen also continually acquires new land, protecting standing carbon stocks from
loss through development, and creating the opportunity to restore compromised habitats with
potential for high rates of carbon sequestration such as wetlands, ponds, floodplains, and other
aquatic systems. These ecosystems support high rates of carbon production and burial,
sequestering carbon and promoting positive vegetation-soil feedbacks that improve water
retention, and ultimately increase carbon storage relative to pre-restoration conditions. By 2021
estimations, the carbon stored in Midpen lands is almost 20,000 times greater than the Midpen’s
annual operational emissions and annual sequestration approaches 200 times annual
operational emissions.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-86
2.4.5 Letter C5: Morley, Matt
Response to Comment C5-1
The commenter recommended prioritization of vegetation management along roadways to
reduce risk of ignitions as well as to provide a buffer for ingress and egress. The overall purpose
of the Program is to allow for increased environmentally sensitive vegetation management to
reduce the potential for severe wildland fire as stated in Section 1.2 of the WFRP. In line with
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-87
the commenter’s suggestions or assertions, many of the potential fuelbreaks are proposed
around State or local fire agency-designated Midpen evacuation routes as well as primary
Midpen-designated emergency access roads that are accessible by a Wildland Type 3 fire engine
according to the methodology for locating potential VMAs under Section 4.4.3 of the WFRP.
Vegetation management, such as for the creation of fuelbreaks, is intended to decrease the risk
of extreme wildland fire behavior, slow the spread of a wildland fire, aid in the suppression and
control of a wildland fire, and/or reduce the impacts of wildland fire should it occur.
EXHIBIT A
2 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
2-88
This page is intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-1
3 Revisions to Text of Draft EIR
3.1 Introduction
This chapter presents revisions that have been made to the Draft Program EIR text. These
revisions provide corrections, additions, or clarifications. The text revisions are organized by
resource topics. Underlined text represents language that has been added to the Draft Program
EIR; text with strikethrough has been deleted from the Draft Program EIR. Note that the page
numbers align with the Draft EIR version available online at: https://www.openspace.org/our-
work/projects/wfrp.
3.2 Draft EIR Revisions
3.2.1 Chapter 2: Executive Summary
Select mitigation measures in Table 2.1-1 are revised as follows:
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-2
This page is intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-3
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
Impact Air Quality-2: Net increase of a criteria pollutant for which the program region is in non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Use of manual and mechanical methods, prescribed
burning, prescribed herbivory, and vehicles and equipment during vegetation management activities would
generate exhaust emissions. Fugitive dust would be generated from equipment and vehicle use on paved and
unpaved roads, and from ground disturbing activities. Prescribed burning would emit particulate matter emissions
from combustion of vegetation. Estimated emissions during implementation of the Program would exceed the
numerical significance thresholds for particulate matter (PM 10 and PM 2.5 ) and ozone precursors (NOx and ROG) set
by BAAQMD, and exceed the numerical significance thresholds for ozone precursors (NOx and ROG) identified by
MBARD (Table 4.3-7). The Program’s impacts on criteria pollutants would be potentially significant. MM Air Quality-
2 requires consideration and implementation of measures to minimize prescribed burn and pile burn emissions,
when and where appropriate. The impact would remain potentially significant and unavoidable.
Potentially
significant
MM Air Quality-2: Burn Emission Reduction Techniques
For activities within a small portion of Long Ridge OSP and a very small portion of Sierra Azul OSP that falls within the
NCCAB, Midpen shall limit pile burning to 8.8 tons (i.e., not more than nine 10-foot-wide by six-foot-high parabolic
piles of shrub/hardwood vegetation or equivalent) in any one day.
Midpen shall incorporate the following measures during planning and implementation of a prescribed burn, where
feasible:
• When considering a prescribed burn, weigh the habitat benefits of burning in a particular vegetation type against
the emissions.
• Reduce the total area burned through mosaic burning if the objectives of the burn can still be met.
• Burn when fuels have a higher appropriate fuel moisture content, as determined by the expert preparing the
Smoke Management Plan.
• Reduce fuel loading by decreasing the density of vegetation and other fuels before ignition using mechanical
treatments, manual treatments, prescribed herbivory, and pile burning when logistically appropriate.
• Schedule burns before new vegetation growth, increases increasing fuel loads, when logistically appropriate.
• Delay planned burns when a Spare the Air Burn Ban has been declared.
• Provide public notification at least 48 hours in advance of a burn less than 50 acres to individuals and jurisdictions
within one mile, and at trailheads and access roads leading to an area with piles proposed for burning. For burns in
excess of 50 acres, noticing shall extend to a larger region as determined appropriate by Midpen. The public
notification shall include current contact numbers to the appropriate burn coordinator.
Potentially
significant
and
unavoidable
due to
prescribed
burn
emission
exceedances
Impact Biological Resources-1: Substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. Vegetation management activities implemented under the Program could
result in direct or indirect adverse effects to special-status plant and special-status wildlife species, and their
habitats. Pre-treatment surveys would be required to identify the presence of special-status plants and their
habitats under existing best management practices (BMPs) and conditions. MM Biology-1 identifies training,
monitoring, and reporting requirements. MM Biology-2 addresses impacts to special-status plants through pre-
activity surveys, avoidance, or implementation of minimization measures for any plants found. MM Biology-3
requires compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts on special-status plants, if impacts cannot be avoided or
minimized under MM Biology-2. MM Biology-4 and MM Biology-5 require Midpen to implement techniques to
minimize the spread of invasive species and forest diseases, including expansion of IPMP’s Early Detection and
Rapid Response (EDRR) program to VMAs. MMs Biology-6 through 15 require specific species protection
avoidance and minimization measures, and, for certain species, compensatory mitigation requirements for habitat
conversion. Implementation of these measures would reduce impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and
their habitats to less than significant.
Potentially
significant
MM Biology-1: Training, Monitoring, and Reporting
Monitoring
• The biological monitor(s) or qualified biologist(s) shall have the authority to stop Program activities to avoid take or
impacts to special-status species or protected biological resources; in the event of unforeseen circumstances
(e.g., unanticipated impacts are occurring); or if Program personnel are not complying with regulatory permit
conditions and the BMPs listed herein. The biological monitor or qualified biologist shall possess the necessary
agency approvals or permits required for involvement in Program activities.
• A biological monitor is an individual who has a minimum of 2 years academic and 1 year professional experience
in biological sciences and related resource management activities, is able to identify species that may be present
within the work area, and is familiar with the habits and behavior of those species.
• A qualified biologist/botanist is an individual who has a minimum of a 4-year academic degree in biological
sciences or related resource management activities, with a minimum of two survey seasons years (e.g., two
seasons during the blooming season of sensitive plants) conducting surveys for each species that may be present
within the work area.
• A professional biologist/botanist is an individual who has a minimum of 5 years of academic training in biological
sciences or related studies and 3 or more years of professional experience conducting protocol-level wildlife
and/or florist field surveys.
• A Midpen-approved biologist/botanist is an outside consultant who has been approved by Midpen either by a
professional biologist/botanist, Resource Advisor, or other appropriate individual, to conduct biological monitoring
and surveying activities. This individual can be any one of the three categories of biologist/botanist described
above.
• A Resource Advisor is an individual who provides professional knowledge and expertise for the protection of
resources (e.g., biological and cultural resources), within an emergency incident environment.
Less than
significant
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-4
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
• The qualified biologist or biological monitor shall conduct on-site monitoring of Program activities that have the
potential to impact sensitive biological resources. The monitoring requirements (e.g., frequency and duration) shall
depend on the specific activity(ies) being performed and the ecological sensitivity of the site (e.g., the potential for
soil erosion or occurrence of special-status wildlife). Some activities shall warrant full-time monitoring by one or
more biologists and/or biological monitors; whereas weekly site inspections may be sufficient for other activities.
At a minimum, monitoring shall be conducted frequently enough to ensure compliance with permit conditions and
BMPs. The monitor shall maintain a log that documents: (a) the monitoring dates, (b) areas and activities
monitored, (c) compliance with permit conditions and BMPs, (d) any remedial actions that were taken (or are
needed).
• Post-activity monitoring shall also occur, with the scope and timing dependent on the potential for risks to
biological resources. The purpose of monitoring is to ensure that special-status plant species and sensitive
communities were avoided and are not experiencing negative indirect impacts from activities. If negative impacts
are observed or are potentially occurring, restoration measures shall be implemented, and modifications made to
future activities to avoid similar impacts.
Pre-Activity General Survey and Flagging
A qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist shall survey all selected work areas
shortly before work to assess general conditions and determine environmental considerations as required by IPMP
BMPs 21 and 25. Prior to Program activities, the biologist or biological monitor shall use flagging (or other methods)
to clearly delineate the work area and any areas that shall be avoided (e.g., sensitive communities, habitat for
special-status species).
Reporting
Information on new localities or sightings for special-status species shall be reported to the Sacramento USFWS
Office and the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) annually. Information on any incidental capture, injury,
or mortality of special-status species shall be immediately reported within 3 working days of their discovery or in
accordance with the federal and State permit conditions. The data shall also be logged in Midpen’s electronic
inventory system identified in IPMP BMP 25.
Training
• Prior to commencing a Program activity, all personnel shall attend a worker environmental awareness training
program conducted or prepared by the qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a Midpen-approved
biologist as required by IPMP BMP 21.
• The worker environmental awareness training will include a brief review of the life history, field identification, and
habitat requirements of each special-status species that could potentially be present on-site, their known or
probable habitat types and locations, potential fines for violations, avoidance measures, and necessary actions if
special-status species or sensitive natural communities are encountered, as required by IPMP BMP 21. In addition,
the training shall include information on:
- All BMPs, regulatory permit conditions, exclusion areas, and other work restrictions.
- Color coding for flagging used to demarcate work areas, staging areas, skid trails, watercourses, and exclusion
zones (e.g., around special-status plants and other sensitive biological resources).
- The identification and reproductive biology of invasive plants and animals.
- Phytopthora ramorum and other plant pathogens avoidance.
General Wildlife Protection Measures
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-5
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
• Vehicles traveling to and from the work areas off of established roads and trails, in sensitive plant or wildlife
habitat, must travel slowly (5 mph) and be preceded by a monitor to ensure that wildlife shall not be run over by the
passing vehicle. Vehicle monitors do not need to be trained biologists.
• Qualified biologists/biological Vehicle monitors shall check for any reptiles, amphibians, or other animals under
vehicles and equipment parked for more than 30 minutes.
• Some individual live, dead, or dying trees shall be retained as snags where recommended by the qualified biologist
and biological monitor and where leaving the tree would not increase fire hazards or be a safety concern.
• Vehicles traveling to and from the work areas off of established roads and trails, in sensitive plant or wildlife
habitat, must travel slowly (5 mph) and be preceded by a monitor to ensure that wildlife shall not be run over by the
passing vehicle. Vehicle monitors do not need to be trained biologists.
• Qualified biologists/biological monitors are required to temporarily stop any work that they believe may harm
special-status species. Work shall not resume until a satisfactory method is agreed upon to minimize or avoid take
of the species.
• Qualified biologists/biological monitors may require staging areas or stockpiled equipment/materials to be fenced
with USFWS and/or CDFW-approved exclusion fencing if there is potential for special-status species to enter the
areas and become entrapped, and routine inspection of the area is not adequate to ensure that species are not
present. Fencing shall be inspected by a qualified biologist/biological monitor and maintained daily as needed to
ensure its proper function in excluding wildlife. Large-scale fencing around entire vegetation management areas is
discouraged due to the habitat disruption associated with fence installation and removal.
MM Biology-2: Special-Status Plants
Pre-Activity Special-Status Plant Survey
As required by IPMP BMP 25, a biological monitor or qualified biologist shall survey the work site to determine the
potential presence of special-status plants (as defined under Section 4.4.2 in the Program EIR) and document any
observations. Surveys shall be conducted at the time of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable and
using a standard protocol relevant at the time of the survey, such as the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating
Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW, 2018). The abundance
and spatial distribution of all special-status plants and sensitive natural communities detected during the surveys
shall be recorded with a GPS unit and entered online into the CalFlora and Midpen’s GIS databases. This information
shall also be submitted to the CNDDB, per MM Biology-1. If any special-status plants are found to occur in the
activity footprint, the biologist/botanist shall evaluate the potential level of impacts the activity could have on the
plant species, either an individual or population, based on its biology and the nature of the activity (no impact, low
impact, or moderate/high impact). Activities with no or low impact can proceed. If an activity could have a moderate
or high impact (e.g., anticipated mortality) Midpen shall consult with CDFW and the appropriate avoidance or
minimization measures would be implemented, depending on the species’ rank, physiology, and habitat
requirements, as described below.
Species to Avoid (Unless Population Could Benefit from Program Activity, such as Prescribed Burning)
Program activities shall avoid impacts to State or federally listed plants that are known to occur or have the potential
to occur on Midpen lands:
• Ben Lomond spineflower • San Francisco popcornflower
• Butano Ridge cypress • San Mateo thorn-mint
• California seablite • San Mateo woolly sunflower
• Coyote ceanothus • Santa Clara Valley dudleya
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-6
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
• Crystal Springs fountain thistle • Santa Cruz cypress
• Dudley’s lousewort • Santa Cruz tarplant
• Marin western flax • Santa Cruz wallflower
• Metcalf Canyon jewelflower • Scotts Valley polygonum
• Monterey spineflower • Scotts Valley spineflower
• Pacific Grove clover • Two-fork clover
• Robust spineflower • White-rayed pentachaeta
• Rock sanicle
In addition, Program activities shall avoid impacts to the following species that (a) have very specific habitat
requirements that are hard to replicate at a mitigation site; (b) are difficult to transplant or propagate; or (c) have
insufficient data on the ability to successfully transplant, relocate, or reintroduce the taxa:
• Anderson’s manzanita • Loma Prieta hoita
• Kings Mountain manzanita • Arcuate bush-mallow
• Clustered lady’s-slipper • Most beautiful jewelflower
• Mountain lady’s-slipper
Activities that could have a moderate or high impact on these species shall not occur within an appropriate buffer
(as determined by a qualified biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist) of any
individuals or populations identified. Disclines or firefighting infrastructure shall be relocated to avoid any
populations of these species.
Prescribed herbivory and prescribed burning shall be allowed in the habitats for these species if, in the professional
opinion of a qualified biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist, the activity shall
provide a long-term benefit to the plant (e.g., by eliminating non-native plants).
Minimization of Impacts for All Other Special-Status Species
Midpen shall implement the following approach for all other special-status plant species that have been detected, or
that are detected in the Program area during the pre-activity surveys conducted per MM Biology-1 (adding
specificity to IPMP BMP 21, which requires developing site-specific measures):
• A qualified biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist shall recommend spatial
buffers or other management actions. The buffer size needed to protect a special-status plant from adverse edge
effects (indirect impacts) is dependent on the specific species, threats to the species, existing disturbances, and
the habitat’s permeability to those threats (CBI 2000). Midpen shall implement the botanist’s recommendations.
Impacts to a special-status plant shall only occur if it is the botanist’s professional opinion that the impact shall
provide a long-term benefit to the plant (e.g., by eliminating non-native plants or another threat to the species). If
Midpen is unable to implement the botanist’s recommendations, or if there is uncertainty regarding the effects of a
Program activity on the special-status plant population, Midpen shall assess subsequent effects on the plant
population through post-activity monitoring. If the monitoring indicates the Program activity has negatively
impacted the plant population, the compensatory mitigation terms of MM Biology-3 shall apply. If the monitoring
indicates the effects were positive or neutral, no additional mitigation is required.
• If Program activities are proposed to be conducted in habitat for a special-status plant, the activities shall be
conducted during the phenological stage least sensitive to disturbance, based on guidance from the botanist.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-7
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
• If Program activities are proposed to be conducted in habitat for a special-status plant, and the work must be
conducted when the plant is sensitive to disturbance (e.g., during the growing season), Midpen shall assume the
plant could be permanently impacted and shall either:
- 1a. Monitor the response of the plant post-construction. If the study indicates the Program activity has
negatively impacted the plant population, the terms of MM Biology-3 shall apply.
- 1b. Attempt to salvage any special-status plants that are permanently impacted by a Program activity (e.g.,
plants within a proposed discline). Salvaged plants (and seeds) shall be used for the compensatory mitigation
required under MM Biology-3, and comply with best management measures intended to exclude
Phytophthora and other plant pathogens to the extent possible. Any supplemental plants (or seeds) needed for a
mitigation project, site rehabilitation, or other application shall be derived from locally appropriate genetic
material and nurseries that comply with best management measures intended to exclude Phytophthora and
other plant pathogens to the extent possible; or
- 2. Provide compensatory mitigation in accordance with the terms of MM Biology-3.
General Minimization and Avoidance Measures
Burn piles shall not be located within 50 feet of a special-status plant except those species that a qualified
biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist determines shall benefit from burning (e.g.,
Kings Mountain manzanita). Propane flaming shall not be conducted within the vicinity of special-status plants that
could be accidentally damaged by the flaming activities. Vegetative debris shall not be placed on top of special-
status plants, unless the biologist/botanist determines this is acceptable.
MM Biology-7: California Red-Legged Frog Protection Measures
Handling of California Red-legged Frog
Handling of California red-legged frog will be done by permitted and qualified biologists or biological monitor working
under a qualified biologist in an expedient manner with minimal harm to the individuals being handled. Handling of
California red-legged frog will be done with wet hands. The hands and arms of all workers handling California red-
legged frog will be free of lotions, creams, sunscreen, oils, ointment, insect repellent, or any other material that may
harm California red-legged frog. Larval California red-legged frog will not be handled out of the water for longer than
30 seconds unless rewetted and will not be retained for longer than 5 minutes for processing. If captured California
red-legged frog exhibit signs of distress (e.g., lack of response to stimuli or erratic behavior), they will be immediately
released at the point of capture. All captured California red-legged frog will be released at the point of capture
unless that location puts them in imminent danger, in which case they will be placed in a nearby refugium sufficient
to protect them. The number of California red-legged frog to be captured is no more than 30 adults per habitat
location (defined as the area that specific work is conducted such as a pond site or OSP) per year. In the course of
monitoring associated with the activities, if California red-legged frog egg masses are observed in ponds or wetted
areas that are going to dry naturally before tadpoles develop (as determined by a qualified biologist or biological
monitor working under a qualified biologist), emergency salvage of egg masses by the qualified biologist or biological
monitor working under a qualified biologist is permitted to relocate egg masses into deeper waters that will not be
affected by the proposed activities. USFWS shall be notified of the emergency salvage per the terms of the recovery
permit. Amplexing pairs of California red-legged frog will not be captured, handled, or disturbed. The permittee will
disinfect sampling and field gear to minimize the spread of pathogens as follows:
1. Sampling and field gear will be disinfected after exiting one aquatic habitat and before entering the next
aquatic habitat, unless the waters are hydrologically connected to one another.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-8
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
2. All organic matter will be removed from nets, traps, boots, vehicle tires and all other surfaces that have
come into contact with water or potentially contaminated sediments. These items will then be rinsed with
clean water before leaving each study site.
3. Boots, nets, traps, hands, etc., will be scrubbed with a bleach solution (0.5 to 1.0 cup per 1.0 gallon of
water), Quat-128™ (1:60), or a 3 to 6 percent sodium hypochlorite solution and thoroughly rinsed clean with
water between study sites. Equipment will be rinsed clean with water between study sites. Cleaning
equipment in the immediate vicinity of aquatic habitats will be avoided (e.g., clean in an area at least 100
feet from aquatic features). Care will be taken so that all traces of the disinfectant are removed before
entering the next aquatic habitat.
4. Used cleaning materials (liquids, etc.) will be disposed of safely, and if necessary, taken back to the lab for
proper disposal. Used disposable gloves will be retained for safe disposal in sealed bags.
California red-legged frog will not be removed from the wild and held in captivity for any reason unless prior written
approval is acquired by the appropriate USFWS Office or unless the severity of an injury to the California red-legged
frog obviates immediate care. Animals will be transported according to accepted methods, in moist cloth bags or in
terrarium with moisture gel or non-cellulose sponge to minimize desiccation.
Protocols for California Red-legged Frog Depending Upon Location of Activity
For activities conducted within riparian habitat or Waters of the State and/or U.S. and 1 mile of a known California
red-legged frog occurrence:
• Prior to and within 48 hours of the planned start of Program activities, a focused survey for California red-legged
frog using an agency approved protocol will be conducted by a qualified biologist or biological monitor working
under a qualified biologist to determine if they are in the area. If California red-legged frog are found, Midpen will
coordinate with CDFW and USFWS immediately to determine the correct course of action and Program activities at
that location will not commence until after May 30 or authorized by CDFW and USFWS.
• If California red-legged frog are found, biological monitor(s) and/or qualified biologists will be on site while
Program activities are being conducted. Midpen will implement the following measures:
a. Inspection of Parked Vehicles: Any vehicle parked on-site for more than 15 minutes will be inspected by the
biological monitor or qualified biologist before it is moved to ensure that California red-legged frog has not
moved under the vehicle. Any parking areas must be checked in advance by the biological monitor or qualified
biologist.
b. Vegetation Removal by Mechanized Equipment at California Red-legged Frog Sensitive Sites (areas within or
adjacent to wetted aquatic sites): For vegetation removal on berms or other wetted sites with known
California red-legged frog observations, vegetation will be cut down to 3 inches by hand tools (weedwhacker,
etc.). Once the ground is visible, a visual survey for California red-legged frog will be conducted. If no sensitive
species are found in the area, removal of vegetation may continue by mowing or mechanized equipment very
slowly with a biological monitor walking in front of the equipment to observe. If a California red-legged frog is
observed that is in harm’s way, all activities shall cease and Midpen will notify CDFW and USFWS immediately
or the California red-legged frog can be relocated by a person permitted by the USFWS and approved by
CDFW for this project to handle California red-legged frog.
c. Vegetation Disposal: Vegetation removed shall be placed directly into a disposal vehicle and removed from
the site. Vegetation shall not be piled on the ground unless it is later transferred, piece by piece, under the
direct supervision of the biological monitor or qualified biologist or is going to remain on-site for erosion
control or slash and not be moved or disturbed.
d. No Stockpiled Soil: Soil shall not be stockpiled on the ground unless it is on a paved surface or staging area
where there are not burrows. Soils stockpiled for more than a single day near potential habitat should be
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-9
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
covered or surrounded by exclusion fencing as directed by a qualified biologist to prevent burrowing animals
from entering the stockpile.
e. California Red-legged Frog Exclusion for Sediment Removal with Large Equipment: California red-legged frog
will be excluded from the project site prior to Program activities at sites involving the use of large equipment
for sediment removal. USFWS and CDFW-approved exclusion fencing will be installed around the sediment
removal site, staging areas, and any areas where fill may be dumped. After installation of the fence barrier, a
biological monitor or qualified biologist will inspect the project work area, staging and stockpiling areas daily
prior to the commencement of activities. If the biological monitor or qualified biologist determines that
sensitive species are not within the work area, equipment or materials may be moved into the project site and
Program activities may commence under the observation of the biological monitor.
For activities conducted in ponds:
• Focused Surveys Prior to Work Activities. Prior to and within 48 hours of the planned start of Program activities, a
focused survey for California red-legged frog using agency approved protocol will be conducted by a qualified
biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist to determine if California red-legged frog is in the
area. The pond will be sampled by a qualified biologist to ensure that all California red-legged frog from that pond
are in the post metamorphic stage and will be minimally affected by draining the pond. If a California red-legged
frog is located during the pre-treatment surveys but escapes capture, the area where the frog was lost will be
marked by flag and a 50-foot (15 meter) radius will be actively patrolled during the work. If California red-legged
frog are found, Midpen will coordinate with CDFW and USFWS immediately to determine the correct course of
action and Program activities at that location will not commence until after May 30 or as authorized by CDFW and
USFWS. After the pre-project survey, an avoidance strategy will be devised and presented to all individuals
involved in the pond enhancement prior to starting any activities. The number of California red-legged frog
encountered and transferred to safe areas or held in captivity by a permitted and qualified biologist during
treatment will be reported to the Sacramento USFWS Office and CDFW.
• Number of On-Site Biologists. The minimum number of qualified biological monitors required at each pond site will
be determined in advance by the qualified project biologist either the ranch manager or a permitted biological
consultant based on pond size, the amount and complexity of work to be performed, and the equipment to be used.
This number of monitors will be approved by USFWS prior to the start of any work.
• Travel Corridors. Corridors for travel of vehicles and heavy machinery to the pond site will be established at least
24 hours in advance of the proposed work. Corridors that are not established, marked, and improved roads (paved
or unpaved) require special consideration for use by any vehicle. During the use of these off-road corridors by
vehicles and machinery, a monitor shall proceed directly before the vehicle or machinery to ensure all California
red-legged frog and observable wildlife is cleared from the pathway of the oncoming vehicle. Monitors shall signal
vehicles to stop if a California red-legged frog is on the pathway, and shall allow the animal to clear the pathway by
its own direction. Any handling of the red-legged frog must only be done by a qualified permitted individual.
Measures shall be taken to minimize the number of vehicles allowed on the property. All vehicles involved with the
site-specific work that are not transported to the work site will be retained in a prearranged, marked parking area
in a clearing as close to the main road as possible. At least one monitor will ensure wildlife is clear from the
parking area while vehicles are arriving and leaving. All vehicles must stay on designated roads.
• Seasonal Work Period in Ponds. If California red-legged frog are found in the pond and water is present in the
pond, sediment removal and berm or outfall repair activities shall be performed from August 15 to November 1.
Midpen will coordinate with CDFW and USFWS prior to dredging or de-watering activities. Sediment will be
removed from ponds by hand to the extent feasible. Sediment removal from ponds will occur as soon as the ponds
are dry (if prior to August 15).
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-10
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
• Vegetation Removal at Ponds. If California red-legged frog is found, tule and emergent vegetation will be removed
by hand when feasible. If mechanized equipment is used, one or more biological monitors or qualified biologists
will be onsite monitoring the scoop bucket while scooping and watching each load unload. Midpen will coordinate
with CDFW and USFWS during the annual project notification process regarding anticipated mechanized
equipment use for vegetation removal at ponds. In areas where egg masses are known, Midpen and contractor
personnel will not enter the channel/pond to avoid dislodging egg masses. Trimming activities shall be performed
from the banks, if possible.
• Inspection for Egg Masses. In work areas containing emergent vegetation (e.g., tules, cattails), vegetation will be
inspected for California red-legged frog eggs masses prior to Program activities. If work cannot be postponed, a
buffer of vegetation at least 10 feet in diameter shall be left around any egg masses found. Midpen will keep a
record of sites where egg masses are found and conduct vegetation removal at these sites prior to November 1 in
subsequent years.
If California red-legged frog is not found during the focused survey, or for activities conducted in suitable habitat
where California red-legged frog has not been documented:
• The biological monitor shall remain on-site if sensitive areas are identified during the presurvey. A biological
awareness training shall be provided to all persons prior to beginning work. If at any time a California red-legged
frog is observed, work shall stop immediately until a biological monitor is contacted. Biological monitor(s) and/or
qualified biologists shall then remain be on the project site while Program activities are being conducted. If
California red-legged frog is observed, the applicable California red-legged frog measures procedures described
above will be followed.
General California Red-legged Frog Avoidance Measures
• If California red-legged frog enters the project area, all work shall stop until the animal leaves on its own. If a
person is permitted by the USFWS and approved by CDFW for this specific project to handle California red-legged
frog, they can handle and relocate California red-legged frog. Midpen will coordinate with CDFW and USFWS to
develop site appropriate avoidance measures utilized for relocation. Prior to the start of work, areas will be
identified by the biological monitor-in-charge and approved by the USFWS and CDFW as acceptable locations to
which California red-legged frog may be relocated if these species are encountered within a work area. Relocation
areas will be a minimum of 500 feet from the boundary of any work area and will not include staging areas or roads.
No California red-legged frog will be removed from the site or maintained in captivity overnight without prior
notification and written approval by the USFWS and CDFW unless the animal is in need of emergency medical
assistance. Medical assistance will be provided to injured animals by a certified wildlife veterinarian familiar with
amphibian and reptile care. When transporting individual California red-legged frog, safe handling precautions will
be taken to ensure that the animals are not over-stressed. Safe handling measures include: keeping animals in a
cool, dark, and safe location (terrarium for California red-legged frog), providing adequate hydration, maintaining a
stable cool temperature to avoid over-heating, keeping animals isolated to prevent them from harming one another,
and ensuring holding tanks or bags are kept clean to prevent the spread of any diseases.
• All practicable measures shall be taken to avoid killing or injuring any life stage of California red-legged frog during
habitat enhancement activities.
• The biological monitor and/or qualified biologist shall have the authority to halt work activities that may affect
California red-legged frog adults, tadpoles or egg masses until they can be moved out of harm’s way.
• Any project-related, human caused injuries to California red-legged frog will be immediately reported to CDFW and
USFWS.
MM Biology-12: Marbled Murrelet Nest Protection Measures
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-11
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
a. Implement IPMP BMP 22 with the additional provisions listed here.
b. In areas within the range of marbled murrelet habitat as identified in the latest maps (e.g., Midpen 2007 maps),
Midpen shall conduct a survey of habitats within 0.25-mile of the work area for trees that meet the Pacific
Seabird Group definition of potential marbled murrelet nesting trees. If such trees are present within 300 feet
of the work area or if a marbled murrelet nest is detected, Midpen shall coordinate with CDFW and USFWS
before proceeding. If habitat trees are present within 0.25-mile of the work area but are greater than 300 feet
from the work area, Midpen shall implement the following conditions:
c. Work within the work area shall be confined to the period of September 15 to November 1 when possible.
d. If activities cannot be conducted outside the breeding season, and must occur during the marbled murrelet
breeding season (March 24 to September 15) Midpen shall:
i. Coordinate with CDFW and USFWS.
ii. Implement seasonal disturbance minimization buffers as listed in the table below and in the July 26, 2006
document, Estimation of the Effects of Auditory and Visual Disturbance to Northern Spotted Owls and
Marbled Murrelets in Northwestern California October 2020 document Revised Transmittal of Guidance:
Estimating the Effects of Auditory and Visual Disturbance to Northern Spotted Owls and Marbled
Murrelets in Northwestern California (table below) (or the appropriate, CDFW-recommended or approved
guidance at the time of implementation). The thresholds shown apply to noise-generating activities
occurring during the midday period, when the risk of disturbance is lower and do not apply to activities
within 2 hours of sunrise or sunset. Activities conducted during the dawn and dusk periods have special
considerations for ambient sound level. If proposed activities will occur within 2 hours of sunrise or
sunset, and if the ambient sound environment during the dawn and dusk period can reasonably be
expected to be 5 dB or more quieter than the midday sound environment, then the estimated disturbance
distance threshold should be calculated based on an ambient level 10 dB lower (i.e., one row up in the
table) compared to the normal ambient rating in the table below.
Existing Pre-Program (Ambient)
Sound Levela
Anticipated Action Generated Sound Levelb
Moderate (71-
80 dB)
High (81-90
dB)
Very High (91-
100 dB)
Extreme (101-110
dB)
Natural Ambient
(<=50 dB)c
165 feet 500 feet 1,320 feet 1,320 feet
Very Low
(51-60 dB)
40 0 feet 330 feet 825 feet 1,320 feet
Low
(61-70 dB)
40 0 feet 165 feet 825 feet 1,320 feet
Moderate
(71-80 dB)
40 0 feet 165 feet 330 feet 1,320 feet
High
(81-90 dB)
40 0 feet 165 feet 165 feet 500 feet
Notes:
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-12
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
a Existing (ambient) sound level includes all natural and human-induced sounds occurring at the work area prior
to the proposed action, and are not causally related to the proposed action.
b Action-generated sound levels are given in decibels (dB) experienced by a receiver, when measured at 15.2 m
from the sound source.
c "Natural Ambient" refers to sound levels generally experienced in habitats not substantially influenced by
human activities.
iii. Conduct a sound level monitoring study to determine the level of ambient and construction activity noise
anticipated during construction activities to calculate seasonal disturbance minimization buffer widths.
Midpen shall provide a description of methods and results of the study to USFWS and CDFW to coordinate
site-specific avoidance measures 30 days prior to commencement of Program activities at the applicable
location(s). In order to alert work crews to their presence, marbled murrelet seasonal disturbance buffers,
as determined by the sound study and table above, shall be flagged in the field where they enter the work
area. If Midpen chooses not to conduct the sound study, no Program activities shall occur within 0.25-mile
of potential nest trees during the marbled murrelet breeding season (March 24 to September 15).
iv. If noise generating construction activity takes place during the breeding season (March 24 to September
15) within suitable Redwood and Redwood/Douglas-fir forests, construction activities shall be restricted to
2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before sunset to minimize disturbance of potential nesting marbled
murrelet using forest habitat as a travel corridor between inland nesting and coastal habitat.
v. Midpen or its contractor shall not conduct Program activities within a visual line-of-sight distance of 40
100 meters or less from a suitable nest tree as designated by a qualified biologist or biological monitor, or
the appropriate distance per the latest, appropriate, CDFW-recommended guidance at the time of
implementation.
e. If marbled murrelet protocol level surveys are conducted and do not indicate that the habitat is occupied by
marbled murrelet, the seasonal and distance work restrictions may be lifted with approval from CDFW and
USFWS. Protocol level survey procedures and information can be found at:
http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org/publications/PSG_TechPub2_MAMU_ISP.pdf or the appropriate, CDFW-
recommended or approved guidance at the time of implementation may be used. If Midpen chooses to
conduct marbled murrelet protocol level surveys, Midpen shall coordinate with CDFW and USFWS regarding
the survey stations to ensure all contiguous suitable habitat is covered and good visuals of the sky and nearby
flyways, if present, are provided. If marbled murrelet protocol level surveys are conducted, Midpen shall
submit the report consistent with Methods for Surveying Marbled Murrelets in Forests: A Revised Protocol for
Land Management and Research or the appropriate, CDFW-recommended or approved guidance at the time
of implementation may be used.
MM Biology-15: Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Aggregation Protection
Prior to any Program activities in tree groves comprised primarily or entirely of pine, cypress, fir, or eucalyptus that
are within 2 miles of the Pacific Coast, a desktop record review shall be conducted to determine if the grove
historically was occupied by monarchs. For all other tree groves comprised primarily or entirely of pine, cypress, fir,
or eucalyptus that are within 2 miles of the Pacific Coast, a qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a
qualified biologist shall survey the grove for aggregations of monarch butterflies during the overwintering season
according to the Xerces Society’s Western Monarch Count Protocol (Xerces Society 2019), available at
https://www.westernmonarchcount.org or the latest protocol available at the time of implementation may be used.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-13
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
Two surveys shall be conducted during the overwintering season, one during the Western Monarch Thanksgiving
Count period (the three-week period centered on the Thanksgiving holiday), and a second during the New Year’s
Count period (the two-week period beginning the weekend prior to New Year’s Day).
• Each survey shall be conducted by two surveyors to provide multiple independent estimates of monarch numbers.
• Surveys shall be conducted in the morning while temperatures are below 55˚ F (13˚ C) and monarchs are more
likely to be clustered.
• Surveys shall not be conducted during rain or strong winds due to poor visibility and the chance that individual
monarchs shall be scattered on the ground.
• If no monarch overwintering aggregations are observed, Program activities may proceed pursuant as long as they
occur prior to November 1. If Program activities are delayed beyond November 1, then the grove shall be re-
surveyed.
• If a monarch overwintering aggregation of any size is detected or a historical occupation is identified according to
record reviews, then no Program activities may take place inside the tree canopy within 200 feet of the
aggregation, when present. Activities outside of the canopy line but within 200 feet may proceed (i.e., treatment of
low-growing vegetation outside of the tree grove) if a qualified biologist or monitor determines that the activity
does not pose a threat to the monarch aggregation.
• Groves with historical occupation shall not be altered without further consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW.
• Once the aggregation disperses (typically by March), treatment of vegetation within 200 feet of tree(s) where
monarch aggregations were observed may proceed if, as determined by a qualified biologist or monitor, it shall not
result in significant alteration to wind and sunlight patterns within the grove.
• If monarch overwintering aggregations are detected in eucalyptus removal areas, then a long-term tree planting
strategy is necessary (see Protecting California’s Butterfly Groves [Xerces Society 2017]).
• Native tree species suitable for monarchs must be planted many years prior to eucalyptus removal with the
understanding that they may not reach functional heights to provide wind protection and suitable dappled lighting
for 15-30 years. Transplanting saplings from a local source may speed this process. Planting of eucalyptus shall be
prohibited. Removal of eucalyptus may proceed once native replacement trees have reached sufficient size to
provide wind protection within the grove.
• Standing dead trees generally do not contribute to monarch overwintering habitat (Xerces Society 2017) and may
be removed within the grove between April 1 and August 31, outside of the overwintering period, as determined
appropriate by a qualified biologist or monitor. Sites where invasive dead trees have been removed may create
opportunities for native tree planting within the interior of the grove.
• If a eucalyptus grove where a monarch overwintering aggregation was previously detected is re-surveyed using
the Western Monarch Count Protocol (Xerces Society 2019) and found to be unoccupied for 5 consecutive years,
then the grove may be removed before native replacement trees have reached full size.
Impact Biological Resources-4: Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, or adopted HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or
other approved local, regional, or State HCP. The proposed Program activities have the potential to adversely
impact several species, including those covered by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. Implementation of MM
Biology-1 through MM Biology-17 would ensure that impacts on special-status wildlife and plants as well as
nesting birds are reduced to less than significant. The proposed Program activities could conflict with local tree
ordinances if trees were removed in violation of those ordinances. MM Biology-20 would be implemented to
require a survey of trees in removal areas to identify if any trees meet the requirements of the local jurisdiction’s
significant or heritage tree ordinances. With implementation of the mitigation, impacts would be less than
significant.
Potentially
significant
MM Biology-20: Significant and Heritage Tree Ordinances
Prior to conducting any work that involves tree removal, biologist or other personnel qualified in tree identification
shall identify if any County or local protected and heritage tree ordinances are relevant to the area of work. If an
ordinance would apply to the area of work, the area of work shall be investigated by the biologist or personnel
qualified in tree identification to identify if any trees subject to the ordinance are found in the project area. If a tree
subject to the ordinance is in the area of work, the tree shall be clearly marked as a “Leave Tree” so that it is not
accidentally damaged or removed during work. If a tree that qualifies as a protected or heritage tree must be
removed, the appropriate steps shall be implemented to obtain the appropriate permits for tree removal. If trees
within the CalTrans right-of-way must be removed, the tree removal must be part of the Encroachment Permit, to be
reviewed by CalTrans, which may require tree replacement in its permit terms.
Less than
significant
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-14
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
Impact Geology and Soils-2: Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Manual and mechanical methods,
prescribed herbivory, and prescribed burning could result in erosion and loss of topsoil. BMP IPMP 28 requires that
erosion-control measures be implemented before or after vegetation treatment near sites with loose or unstable
soils, on 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. MM Geology-1 requires
implementation of design features to minimize creation of livestock trails and congregation of livestock in any one
location. MM Geology-2 requires that prescribed burns are performed outside of perennial streams and
intermittent streams, riparian forest, and woodlands and requires a 50-foot buffer be maintained around perennial
and intermittent streams when the prescribed burn is proposed upslope on slopes greater than 35 percent to
reduce impacts from erosion contaminating nearby riparian areas or waterbodies. MM Geology-3 requires use of
existing facilities for fire lines where they occur, implementation of erosion-control measures during and after
prescribed burns, follow-up inspections, and restoration actions for new fire lines. Implementation of these
measures would minimize the potential adverse impacts to less than significant.
Potentially
significant
MM Geology-2: Erosion Control and Slope Stability Measures
In addition to Midpen’s erosion-control measures (IPMP BMP 28), control measures shall be implemented to ensure
vegetation management does not result in erosion, loss of topsoil, or slope instability in areas where work could
expose bare soils or create loss of root-soil matrix strength. General erosion-control measures are identified that
apply to all projects.
If Generally, if groundcover or native mulch/organic matter is determined to be less than 70 percent following work
or if work is proposed to occur on steep slopes (over 35 percent slope), then specific control measures, as identified
here, shall be implemented as determined appropriate by the qualified personnel. Other site conditions, such as
unconsolidated soils or evidence of landslides, or the scale of project proposed may trigger the need for the qualified
personnel to determine that the control measures shall apply.
Prior to conducting work in any given area under any management action that could result in erosion or slope
instability (e.g., prescribed burns, tree removal, weed removal, or forest treatments that could reduce the
groundcover and expose soil, or for infrastructure creation such as new roads, pipelines, or water storage tanks) a
review of site conditions shall be conducted the area shall be inspected for existing signs of erosion or slope
instability (e.g., rills, slumped soil). The review of site conditions may include but is not limited to a desktop review of
slope, LiDAR, historic evidence of landslides (e.g., Wentworth et al. 1997), local hazard mapping and safety plans,
proximity to infrastructure, and modeling of landslide susceptibility GIS data (e.g., Wills et al. 2011) as well as a site
visit for existing signs of erosion or slope instability (e.g., rills, slumped soil). Depending on the slope and the
downslope resources that could be impacted by slope failure (e.g., roads that could be impacted if a slope failed,
waterbodies, or habitat that could be impacted from erosion, important habitat, etc.), erosion-control and
slope-stabilization measures shall be determined prior to implementation of work, based on the list below. Generally,
if an action would expose soils (leaving groundcover or native mulch/organic matter less than 70 percent), then
measures to protect soils, minimize erosion, and prevent slope instability shall be implemented. In addition,
management actions may be adjusted to achieve similar results.
The measures to be implemented shall depend on the site’s specific characteristics and the type and extent of
vegetation management work to be performed. The inspection and determination of appropriate measures shall be
made by qualified personnel with knowledge and experience (a person with a qualified SWPPP developer [QSD] or a
qualified SWPPP practitioner [QSP]; licensed geologist [P.G. or C.E.G.]; licensed engineer; Registered Professional
Forester [RPF]; etc.) in the application of erosion-control and slope-stabilization control measures through training or
field experience with control- measure installation. The qualified personnel shall memorialize in writing their field
observations and corresponding recommendations regarding installation of control measures.
A licensed geologist or RPF shall conduct the site inspection for projects that would involve substantial grading or
vegetation removala on active slide areas, unstable areas, or unstable soils (as defined in the California Forest
Practice Rules) if the following applies:
• in previously undisturbed soils; or
• up to 0.5-mile above or 0.25-mile below infrastructure, including potentially occupied structures.
A licensed geologist or RPF shall conduct site inspections for new road additions that are greater than 600 feet,
regardless of the proximity to active slide areas, unstable areas, or unstable soils. The licensed geologist shall
identify specific control measures that must be implemented, which may include but are not limited to the control
measures identified in this mitigation measure. In areas that were previously analyzed by an RPF or qualified
geologist, the District shall review the prior recommendations for consistency with the proposed activity and
determine if a new review is warranted.
General Control Measures
Less than
significant
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-15
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
The following measures shall be considered for implementation and required as determined appropriate by the
qualified personnel during work as applicable:
• Minimize areas to be disturbed to the greatest extent feasible.
• Shut down use of heavy equipment, skidding, and truck traffic when soils become saturated and unable to support
the machines.
• No substantial ground disturbing work (e.g., use of heavy equipment, pulling large vegetation) shall occur during
rain events and 48 hours after a rain event, defined as 0.5 inch of rain within a 48-hour or greater period, using the
NOAA website as the official record for rain events.
Reduced Groundcover Control Measures
The following measures shall be considered for implementation and required as determined appropriate by the
qualified personnel during work if the activity may leave less than 70 percent of groundcover or native mulch/organic
material and as determined to be applicable by qualified personnel:
• Sow native grasses and other herbs on denuded areas where natural colonization or other replanting will not
occur rapidly; use slash or chips to prevent erosion on such areas.
• Use surface mounds, depressions, logs, rocks, trees and stumps, slash and brush, the litter layer, and native
herbaceous vegetation downslope of denuded areas to reduce sedimentation and erosion, as necessary to
prevent erosion or slope destabilization.
• Install approved, biodegradable erosion-control measures and non-filament-based geotextiles (e.g., coir, jute)
when:
- Conducting substantial ground-disturbing work (e.g., use of heavy equipment, pulling large vegetation) within 100
feet and upslope of currently flowing or wet wetlands, streams, lakes, and riparian areas;
- Causing soil disturbance on moderate to steep (10 percent slope and greater) slopes; and
- Following the removal of Removing invasive plants from stream banks to prevent sediment movement into
watercourses and to protect bank stability.
• Sediment- control devices, if installed, shall be certified weed-free, as appropriate. Sediment- control devices shall
be inspected daily during active construction to ensure that they are in good repaired and working as needed to
prevent sediment transport into the waterbodies (and repaired as needed).
Once work is completed, the areas shall be inspected at least annually if as needed and as accessible, but at least
annually until groundcover exceeds 70 percent and slopes have stabilized it is clear that significant erosion and
slope instability are not occurring. At that time, erosion- control and slope- stability devices may be removed at the
discretion of District staff.
Steep Slopes Control Measures
The following measures, in addition to the ones described above, shall be considered for implementation and
required as determined appropriate by the qualified personnel during work conducted on steep slopes (greater than
35 percent) and as determined to be applicable by qualified personnel:
• Avoid use of heavy equipment on slopes greater than 35 percent unless qualified personnel determine that the
specialized equipment is used that does not impact slope stability.
• Prescribed and pile burns shall be performed outside of perennial and intermittent streams and of riparian forest/
woodland. A 50-foot buffer around perennial and intermittent streams shall be maintained when the burn is
proposed upslope of the stream on slopes greater than 35 percent.
• Avoid installation of cleared areas, including spur roads or staging areas, on steep slopes, particularly over 50-
percent slope, where feasible. Where not feasible, a licensed geologist/engineer or RPF shall be consulted, as
required above. The licensed geologist/engineer shall identify and require implementation of implement
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-16
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
appropriate design and control measures including but not limited to those identified in Low-Volume Roads
Engineering (Keller & Sherar, 2003); Handbook for Forest, Ranch, and Rural Roads (Weaver, 2015); latest California
Forest Practice Rules; or other suitable engineering guidance, such as:
- Locate roads on well-drained soils and slopes where drainage moves away from the road
- Provide adequate surface drainage
- Avoid wet and unstable areas (seeps, springs, etc.)
- Use the natural topography to control or dictate the ideal location of road or cleared area (e.g., staging area);
use saddles, follow ridges, use bench areas, etc.
Recommendations provided in the assessment shall be implemented as needed to ensure that slope instability does
not occur. When a desktop review or site visit reveals that In areas of steep slopes (greater than 35 percent), active
slides, unstable areas, or unstable soils (as defined in the California Forest Practice Rules) that are located above
infrastructure, or sensitive habitat, or structures potentially occupied by people, a licensed geologist/engineer shall
perform an assessment to evaluate whether the proposed if intensive tree removal (e.g., removal of eucalyptus
grove/cluster rather than isolated trees), removal is proposed to evaluate whether could cause erosion, and/or
further slope instability or a public safety concern could occur from tree removal. Recommendations provided in the
assessment shall be implemented as needed to ensure that slope instability does not occur. R Other
recommendations could include measures such as stabilizing slopes with mats or natural materials after tree
removal and replanting to bind soils.
Note:
a Substantial grading is defined as cuts above 3 feet and fill above 1.5 feet with lengths greater than 20 feet or
removal of greater than 20 linear feet of shrubs and trees on an abandoned/little-used road on cross slopes
greater than 55 percent. Substantial vegetation removal is defined as removal of all vegetative cover (both
aboveground and belowground root structure for shrubs; aboveground for trees) for an area with a cross
slope greater than 55 percent and in excess of 20 linear feet in any direction.
Impact Geology and Soils-4: Impacts from expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), or corrosive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Expansive soils may be
present in Ravenswood OSP and Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area where saturated bay mud occurs is found.
New infrastructure may be constructed in these areas, which could create put at risk to infrastructure or property
if located on an expansive soil. Implementation of MM Geology-4 would reduce the impact to a less than significant
level through conducting soils assessments prior to construction of new infrastructure and incorporating design
standards to reduce the potential risk associated with soil expansion. Implementation of mitigation would minimize
the impacts to less than significant.
Potentially
significant
MM Geology-4: Soil Assessment for Construction of New Water-Supply Pipelines
The following soil-assessment measures shall be implemented to ensure significant risks to life or property do not
occur as a result of water-supply pipeline construction in an expansive soil in Ravenswood OSP or Stevens Creek
Shoreline Nature Area:
1. Consult appropriate GIS data (e.g., USDA, 1991; USDA, 2015) to determine if expansive soils may be present
within the proposed construction site.
2. Conduct a field assessment using a proven scientific test or method, such as a soil expansion index test, to
verify presence of expansive soils on the site.
3. If verified to be present, determine if the expansive soils can be avoided through design specifications. If
appropriate design measures cannot be utilized to avoid expansive soils, no excavated soil shall be used for
fill during construction; instead, clean fill soils with a low expansion potential shall be used.
Less than
significant
Impacts Hazards-5: Exposure of people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires. Some vegetation management activities could increase some risks of
wildland fire ignition and spread during the actual performance of work, which requires the use of vehicles and
equipment that could ignite a fire through generation of sparks or heat. Certain parts of Midpen lands could be
more susceptible to fire ignition and spread, such as areas on steep slopes, south-facing slopes, and areas where
significant fuel is found (e.g., dead trees and thick understories of weeds). Pile and prescribed burns also have a
higher potential for starting a wildland fire, if the burns were to become uncontrolled, although this risk is very low
and happens extremely rarely in practice. Midpen would implement several fuel spill prevention BMPs
Potentially
significant
MM Hazards-2: Fire Risk Reduction for Stockpiling and Pile Burning
The following measures shall be implemented to reduce hazards associated with pile burning:
• Pile burning shall only be allowed on days when fire is less likely to spread (e.g., wind speeds are less than 15
mph).
• Piles shall not be constructed in areas where burning cannot be safely controlled, such as bottoms of steep,
vegetated hills.
Less than
significant
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-17
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
(Maintenance Operations Manual Sections 14.005 and 13.010; Safety Manual Sections 1.6.5 and 1.6.6). Workers
would not be permitted to smoke on Midpen lands, except in certain designated areas (LU Regulations 404.2).
Midpen implements strict practices for operation of equipment and ensures that staff and contractors are trained
in fire prevention and suppression techniques in the event operation of equipment ignites a fire (MO Manual
Section 13.005; Safety Manual Chapter 1.7.0.0). Activities that could cause sparks within Midpen lands are required
to cease during extreme fire weather (RM Policy WF-1). MM Hazards-2 and MM Hazards-3 require implementation
of several measures to reduce risk of wildland fires associated with pile burning and prescribed burning. Impacts
of exposing people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be less
than significant with implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures.
• Piles shall be set back from roads and trails at a distance specified by Midpen to minimize risk to recreationalists
and other users.
• All requirements of CAL FIRE or the BAAQMD or MBARD shall be met, including any permit, notification, burn bans,
and reporting requirements.
• Public notification shall be provided at least 24 hours in advance of a less than 10 pile burns (defined as 10-foot-
wide by six-foot-high) to immediately adjacent residents (within 1,000 feet) individuals within one mile, and at
trailheads and access roads leading to the area with piles proposed for burning. For 10 or more piles (defined
as 10-foot-wide by six-foot-high), noticing shall extend to residents within 1 mile. The public notification shall
include current contact numbers to the appropriate burn coordinator.
Impact Hydrology-1: Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality, or substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site. Vegetation management activities
would result in some minor modification to the hydrologic conditions in the Program area. Water quality impacts
from sedimentation and siltation of waterbodies or waterways would occur primarily from the actions associated
with vegetation treatments and non-native shrub and understory removal. Sedimentation can increase downstream
turbidity, which is considered a water quality impact. Sediment runoff can carry heavy metals (e.g., mercury,
arsenic and copper) and nutrients (e.g., phosphorus and nitrogen), and biological pathogens (e.g., coliform,
cryptosporidium, and giardia). Several waterways and waterbodies that currently do not meet water quality
objectives under Section 303(d) are located within and surrounding Midpen lands. The impaired waterbodies and
waterways are included in Table 4.8-3. MM Geology-1 requires that prescribed herbivory not be located within 100
feet of a waterbody or waterway. MM Geology-2 and MM Geology-3 require implementation of additional erosion
control measures to avoid or minimize erosion associated with sedimentation of waterways or waterbodies
specifically where groundcover would be reduced to less than 70 percent. MM Hydrology-1 includes measures that
pertain to stream or other waterway crossings that could be needed on a rare occasion when working on FRAs.
Implementation of these measures would reduce impacts on water quality to less than significant.
Potentially
significant
MM Geology-1: Prescribed Herbivory Land and Trail Control (see Section 4.6: Geology and Soils above)
MM Geology-2: Erosion Control and Slope Stability Measures (see Section 4.6: Geology and Soils above)
MM Geology-3: Fire Lines During Prescribed Burns (see Section 4.6: Geology and Soils above)
MM Hydrology-1: Water Quality Protection During Waterway Crossing or Work Near Waterbodies
Vehicles and heavy equipment shall avoid new instream crossings. On rare occasions, such as to perform work to
create or maintain FRAs, equipment may need to access off an existing road into a treatment area through a
waterbody. If instream (waterway) crossings must occur because no other options for access are reasonably
available, the crossing shall be performed when the stream is dry and soils are not saturated. The crossing shall be
performed in a way that does not result in any permanent alteration of the stream bank or bed (e.g., choosing areas
with stable soils and the least slope or with vegetation to protect the bed and bank). If water is flowing or the stream
has flow or saturation, temporary plates or the equivalent shall be installed from bank to bank for equipment access
across the waterway. Increased use of existing stream crossings may require upgrades and/or re-engineering of the
existing road or water crossing structure. If a new an instream crossing or refurbishment of an existing crossing that
could impact the bank or bed or riparian vegetation is needed, the crossing shall only be performed after and in
accordance with the appropriate 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW and Section 404 and 401 Clean
Water Act permits. All soils shall be restored after the instream crossing and banks revegetated, as needed, after the
work is completed, in accordance with permits.
Less than
significant
Impact Noise-1: Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the program in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies. Use of mechanical tools, chemical application and prescribed burning equipment,
generators, and other heavy equipment could generate daytime noise that exceeds general acceptable noise
levels established by the counties where Midpen lands are located. If unnecessarily excessive noise is generated
near sensitive receptors, it has the potential to conflict with local noise standards. MM Air Quality-3, MM Air
Quality-4, MM Hazards-3, and MM Noise-1 require that the appropriate buffer distances are established when
implementing prescribed burning and operating certain types of equipment near sensitive receptors. Noise can
also have impacts on biological resources. Refer to Section 4.4 for a discussion of noise impacts on sensitive
species, particularly marbled murrelet and nesting birds. These impacts are mitigated through MM Biology-11 and -
12. Noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of these measures.
Potentially
significant
MM Air Quality-3: Asbestos Management (see Section 4.3: Air Quality above)
MM Air Quality-4: Midpen Employee Protection from Prescribed and Pile Burn Air Pollutants (see Section 4.3: Air
Quality above)
MM Biology-11: Nesting Bird Protection Measures (With the Exception of Marbled Murrelet) (see Section 4.4:
Biological Resources above)
MM Biology-12: Marbled Murrelet Nest Protection Measures (see Section 4.4: Biological Resources above)
MM Hazards-3: Safety Around Prescribed Burns (see Section 4.8: Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildland Fire
above)
MM Noise-1: Noise Restrictions
Construction Noise Standards
Midpen shall determine the jurisdiction(s) within which an activity is proposed and identify the applicable noise
standards. For activities in unincorporated areas, the specific buffers identified in this measure shall apply. For
Less than
significant
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-18
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
activities in incorporated areas, Midpen shall determine if the standards have a numeric limit and calculate adequate
buffers between noise-generating activities and specified land uses (e.g., residential) as appropriate.
Construction Hours
All construction hours identified in the local noise ordinances shall be followed.
Buffer Zones (Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties)
Buffer zones shall be established to reduce noise at sensitive receptors to the maximum extent feasible to reduce
noise to the conditional limits identified by Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties’ noise ordinances.
The buffer zone distances are shown below that identify the distances needed for noise levels to remain below 75
dBA L eq for work occurring less than 10 days, and below 60 dBA L eq for work occurring for 10 days or longer in Santa
Clara County and below 75 dBA Leq for Santa Cruz County. These distances do not need to be implemented where it
is not technically feasible to implement them per the applicable noise ordinances that requires that noise must only
be reduced where it is possible to do so (i.e., Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance, or considering the necessity of
the work in Santa Cruz County).
A violation of the noise ordinances would only occur where the noise exceeded the conditional limits set by the
jurisdiction, but there is a feasible way to reduce that noise (e.g., placing a chipper within 50 feet of a receptor when
it could feasibly be placed 100 feet away is a violation, but using a chainsaw to cut a large hazard tree within 50 feet
of a sensitive receptor would not be a violation assuming no other feasible methods to remove that tree are
available).
Equipment Approximate Buffer Between Equipment
and Sensitive Receptors (feet) – for Work
Occurring in One Location for Less Than 10
Days (Not to Exceed 75 dBA L eq ) in Santa
Clara County or for any work duration in
Santa Cruz County
Approximate Buffer Between Equipment
and Sensitive Receptors (feet) – for Work
Occurring in One Location for 10 Days or
Longer (Not to Exceed 60 dBA L eq ) in Santa
Clara County
Chipper 100 568
Tractor 90 506
Generator/ water
pump
71 402
Chainsaw/
excavator
64 358
Skid steer -- 284
Backhoe/
brushcutter
-- 254
Fire engine/ crane -- 226
Leaf blower -- 201
Pickup truck -- 179
Power pole saw -- 80
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-19
Impact Description Level of
Significance
Before
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure Leve of
Significant
After
Mitigation
Minimization Measures and Disturbance Coordinator
If these restrictions are not implementable between the receptors and a given location, Midpen shall notify the
resident or contact at the sensitive receptor within one week of conducting the activity to schedule the activity.
Activities shall be coordinated to minimize disturbance to the receptor, such as conducting the work when no one is
there. Engineering controls could also be used, if feasible, to keep noise levels below 75 dBA L eq for work occurring
in one location for less than 10 days or 60 dBA L eq for work occurring in one location for 10 days or longer. Midpen
shall designate a disturbance coordinator to address any noise complaints under these circumstances. The noise
coordinator can be the person performing the work.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-20
3.2.2 Chapter 3: Project Description
Figure 3.2-1 on page 3-3 is revised to include a label for Los Altos Hills:
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-21
Figure 3.3-3 on page 3-10 is revised to include a label for Los Altos Hills:
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-22
Table 3.3-1 on page 3-14 is revised as follows:
Table 3.3-1 Existing Treatment Areas on Midpen Lands Under the IPMP (Acres)
Managed Land Shaded
Fuelbreaks
Non-Shaded
Fuelbreaks
Ingress/Egress
Route
Fuelbreaks
Disclines Defensible
Space 100-
foot
Defensible
Space 30-
foot
Fire
Management
Logistics
Areas a
Grand Total
Bear Creek
Redwoods OSP
1.6 1.0 -- 7.0 6.4 8.1 2.8 0.8 21.2 20.6
Coal Creek OSP 16.9 0.1 -- -- 1.0 0.2 -- 18.2
El Corte de
Madera Creek
OSP
2.4 1.5 0.1 -- -- 1.0 0.2 0.6 4.3 3.4
El Sereno OSP 1.5 0.2 -- -- -- -- 2.2 3.9
Felton Station -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Foothills OSP 2.4 -- -- 0.1 -- -- -- 2.5
Fremont Older
OSP
-- 0.1 -- 14.1 2.3 0.6 1.0 18.1 18.0
La Honda Creek
OSP
7.0 1.1 -- -- 13.1 3.4 1.7 3.1 27.8
Long Ridge OSP 19.1 20.3 1.7 -- -- 0.9 0.2 2.7 24.6 25.8
Los Trancos
OSP
0.8 -- -- 4.9 -- -- -- 5.6
Miramontes
Ridge OSP
-- 1.3 -- -- 1.8 0.3 -- 3.4
Monte Bello
OSP
28.5 0.5 -- 4.4 2.9 0.6 2.8 39.6
Picchetti Ranch
OSP
0.1 -- -- 5.4 5.3 2.1 0.8 1.9 10.3 10.2
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-23
Managed Land Shaded
Fuelbreaks
Non-Shaded
Fuelbreaks
Ingress/Egress
Route
Fuelbreaks
Disclines Defensible
Space 100-
foot
Defensible
Space 30-
foot
Fire
Management
Logistics
Areas a
Grand Total
Pulgas Ridge
OSP
-- 0.1 -- -- -- -- 0.7 0.8
Purisima Creek
Redwoods OSP
19.8 0.5 -- -- 6.8 1.9 0.3 29.3
Rancho San
Antonio OSP
2.9 0.1 -- 10.1 11.5 2.8 2.8 30.2
Ravenswood
OSP
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Russian Ridge
OSP
22.5 19.2 0.3 -- 5.8 10.6 2.4 2.8 3.4 45.0 41.6
Saratoga Gap
OSP
17.7 4.8 -- -- 1.0 0.2 -- 23.7
Sierra Azul OSP 38.4 14.4 9.1 9.0 4.6 5.3 1.4 7.2 80.4 80.3
Skyline Ridge
OSP
5.6 5.5 1.6 -- 0.1 0.2 10.7 2.8 0.9 21.6
Saint Joseph’s
Hill OSP
-- -- -- -- -- -- 1.4 1.4
Teague Hill OSP 7.8 5.8 -- -- -- -- -- -- 7.8 5.8
Thornewood
OSP
13.8 13.6 0.2 -- -- 3.1 0.8 -- 17.8 17.7
Tunitas Creek
OSP
-- 5.2 -- -- 5.2 6.8 1.2 1.8 -- 11.6 13.8
Windy Hill OSP 1.3 30.7 30.4 -- 3.4 4.4 1.2 1.5 42.5 42.1
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-24
Managed Land Shaded
Fuelbreaks
Non-Shaded
Fuelbreaks
Ingress/Egress
Route
Fuelbreaks
Disclines Defensible
Space 100-
foot
Defensible
Space 30-
foot
Fire
Management
Logistics
Areas a
Grand Total
Other Areas
Managed by
Midpen
-- 11.5 11.3 -- 1.5 -- -- -- 13.0 12.8
Grand Total 210.0 204.7 75.2 74.7 9.1 9.0 61.5 60.7 91.8 93.4 23.8 24.4 31.2 33.3 504.6 500.1
Notes:
a Currently maintained emergency staging areas, landing zones, and other fire management logistics areas and associated fuelbreaks are
accounted for in this category.
Depending on habitat type, maintenance of existing treatment areas is typically completed on a 3- to 5-year rotation. Annual treatments of up to
215 acres occurs a year within these treatment areas.
Numbers may not add up to the total due to rounding.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-25
Page 3-19 is revised as follows:
The need for vegetation management is primarily to reduce the presence of unnaturally
high fuel loads and secondarily to manage vegetation near ignition sources (e.g., WUI,
roads), thus reducing the intensity and harmful impacts of fires. Vegetation
management may help to restore ecosystem fuel loads closer to pre-fire suppression
conditions through the removal of dead and accumulated vegetation and treatment of
forest disease and invasive species. Vegetation management is also intended to decrease
the risk of extreme wildland fire behavior, slow the spread of a wildland fire, aid in the
suppression and control of a wildland fire, and/or reduce the impacts of wildland fire,
should it occur.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-26
Figure 3.5-4 on page 3-29 is revised to include a label for Los Altos Hills:
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-27
Page 3-39 is revised as follows:
The VMP would allow up to 50 additional hazard trees to be limbed or removed entirely
per year for fire hazard reduction as well as in addition to the eucalyptus and acacia tree
removal and tree removal to support other VMA treatments described above. Hazard
trees are trees that have a structural defect that makes them likely to fail in whole or in
part within an area of higher human residence time (e.g., parking lots, trailheads) and
are generally greater than 10 inches dbh. For example, scattered live trees (< (>10 inches
DBH) or SOD-killed trees may be removed at ridgetop locations that are vegetated
mainly with grass or chaparral.
Page 3-40 is revised as follows:
Before burning is allowed, Midpen must complete the following planning steps:
• Notify BAAQMD or MBARD of the proposed prescribed burn by
submitting the Prescribed Burning Smoke Management Plan (SMP; Form
Rx-1) form at least 30 days prior to burning.
• Develop Burn Plan in conjunction with CAL FIRE and local fire agency.
• Ensure both the smoke management plan and burn permit are issued and
approved by the appropriate agency.
• Ensure burn is conducted on a permissive burn day as determined by the
appropriate agency including CAL FIRE and BAAQMD or MBARD.
Page 3-41 is revised as follows:
New firelines would be constructed to standards described in the Burn Plan, but
typically would be 1-foot to 6-foot wide but may be wider, depending on location,
vegetation type, and type of equipment used to construct the line.
Page 3-45 is revised as follows:
Midpen anticipates conducting one to two prescribed burns annually during the first
three to five years after establishment of the detailed PFP, anticipated to be completed in
2022. After year five of the detailed PFP implementation, Midpen could implement as
much as three burns a year.
Table 3.8-1 on page 3-54 is revised as follows:
Table 3.8-1 Potential Permits or Approvals Needed for the Program
Agency Approval or Notification Component of Program
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act, Section 404,
Nationwide Permit 14
Impacts to jurisdictional waters of
the U.S., such as for stream
crossings for equipment or
infrastructure.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-28
Agency Approval or Notification Component of Program
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Act
Biological Opinion and Take
Authorization
If any activities could result in take
of a threatened, endangered, or
candidate species.
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Trustee agency for CEQA review During CEQA compliance process.
1602 Streambed Alteration
Agreement
For impacts to riparian areas or
any stream crossings.
2081 Incidental Take Permit or
Consistency Determination
If any activities could result in the
death of a state listed species.
California Department of
Transportation
Encroachment permits For trimming or removal of trees
within and encroachment on
Caltrans right-of-way.
Transportation permits For oversize or overweight
vehicles traveling on Caltrans
right-of-way.
California Coastal Commission (sought
through applicable county planning
and building department)
Coastal Development Permit or an
exemption
For vegetation management or
other development in the Coastal
Zone.
California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection
Burn Permit For any prescribed or pile burn
activities in the State
Responsibility Area.
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District
Prescribed Burning Smoke
Management Plan (Form Rx-1)
For any prescribed burn activities.
Open Burning Regulation 5
Notification Form
For any pile burn activities.
Monterey Bay Air Resources District Smoke Management Plan and
Smoke Management Permit
For any prescribed burn activities
over 10 acres.
Prescribed Burn Permit For any prescribed or pile burn
activities.
San Francisco Regional Water Quality
Control Board or Monterrey Regional
Water Quality Control Board
Section 401 Water Quality
Certification
If a Section 404 permit is needed.
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit
For ground disturbing impacts over
1 acre in size.
Waste Discharge Requirement For impacts to waters of the state
that are not waters of the U.S.
Local Public Works Departments,
Building Departments (San Mateo
County, Santa Clara County, Santa Cruz
County, and local cities)
Various types of encroachment,
building, planning, or grading
permits
For encroachment into roadways
to perform work, for any new fire
protection infrastructure that may
be needed.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-29
Agency Approval or Notification Component of Program
Local tree protection and brush
removal permits based on local
ordinances of various counties
and cities
For impacts on trees and brush.
Transportation/ oversize or
overweight permits
For oversize or overweight
vehicles traveling on local rights-
of-way.
Page 3-58 is revised as follows:
Section 3.9 Updates and Modifications to the Program
This Program is intended to be a “living document,” in which minor changes that do not
trigger additional environmental effects can be made without additional environmental
analysis. The Program may be updated, and if necessary, supplemental CEQA prepared.
When changes to the Program are required, the appropriate Vegetation Management
Coordinator or staff Coordinator will determine whether the proposed additions or
changes are minor or substantial (as defined under the CEQA for a project, as not
resulting in substantial new information or new significant environmental impacts). If
the Program changes are confirmed to be minor, these changes can be addressed
through the Vegetation Management Coordinator or staff Coordinator review and
approval process. The Final Program EIR will include a Project Environmental Review
Checklist to aid Midpen in this process.
3.2.3 Chapter 4: Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
Section 4.1
Page 4-5 is revised as follows:
Residential land uses adjacent to all OSPs comprises 11 percent of the OSP boundaries,
as of preparation of this EIR total approximately 75 acres of land, which comprises less
than 0.2 percent of the total Program area (Midpen, 2011).
Section 4.2: Aesthetics
Impact Aesthetics-2 on page 4.2-42 is revised as follows:
State scenic highways are designated under the California State Scenic Highway
Program managed by Caltrans. Scenic resources, including historic structures, unique
rock outcroppings, and trees, are located throughout Midpen lands and in many cases
are viewable from State scenic highways (predominantly, Highway 35).
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-30
Vegetation Management Plan
Several fuelbreaks are proposed adjacent to State scenic highways. The locations and
impacts of construction of fuelbreaks and other VMAs in the vicinity of State scenic
highways are identified in Table 4.2-2. In summary, impacts on scenic resources from
potential fuel treatments conducted within State scenic highways would be significant
and unavoidable even with mitigation.
Impact Aesthetics-2 on page 4.2-44 is revised as follows:
Wildland Fire Pre-Plan
Firefighting infrastructure (new or expanded roads, water infrastructure, and staging
and helicopter landing areas) generally would not be installed within the viewshed of a
State scenic highway. Where new infrastructure may be constructed in a scenic area
viewable from a State scenic highway, the impact could be significant. MM Aesthetics-2
would be applicable. The measure reduces aesthetic impacts by requiring new roads,
helicopter landing areas, and staging areas to be located in areas that minimize visibility
from scenic trails or viewpoints, and to minimize recontouring and cuts into hillsides.
Mitigation would likely reduce impacts to less than significant in the majority of cases,
but occasionally, it may not be possible to avoid placing an important new road, staging,
or helicopter landing area adjacent to a scenic trail or viewpoint where it could degrade
visual quality. Impacts, in those rare instances, may be significant and unavoidable.
Program
Impacts described here would similarly apply to any new land purchased or gifted to
Midpen and added to the Program, where the new areas would include VMAs, areas of
prescribed burning under the PFP, and/or new firefighting infrastructure that could be
visible from scenic roads, corridors, trails, and viewpoints.
Section 4.3: Air Quality
Table 4.3-4 on page 4.3-11 is revised as follows:
Sensitive Receptor Approximate Distance to Midpen Lands Boundary
Residential
Residences internal to OSPs El Corte de Madera Creek OSP
Fremont Older OSP
La Honda Creek OSP
Long Ridge OSP
Miramontes OSP
Monte Bello OSP
Picchetti Ranch OSP
Purisima Creek Redwoods OSP
Rancho San Antonio OSP
Russian Ridge OSP
Saratoga Gap OSP
Sierra Azul OSP
Skyline Ridge OSP
Thornewood OSP
Tunitas Creek OSP
Windy Hill OSP
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-31
Sensitive Receptor Approximate Distance to Midpen Lands Boundary
Nearest residential areas outside OSPs 30 feet from Rancho San Antonio OSP
45 feet from Miramontes Ridge OSP
60 feet from Sierra Azul OSP
120 feet from Monte Bello OSP
130 feet from Los Trancos OSP
280 feet from Windy Hill OSP
330 feet from El Corte de Madera OSP
Page 4.3-35 is revised as follows:
The impact on worker health from high CO concentrations would be potentially significant as
carbon monoxide is very dangerous if inhaled. Respiratory equipment will be procured and
provided when appropriate in accordance with Midpen's safety manual (Safety Manual Section
2.3). To ensure that substantial CO exposure from prescribed burning is minimized, MM Air
Quality-4 requires use of real-time CO monitors and rotation of personnel out of heavy smoke.
The exposure impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Page 4.3-38 is revised as follows:
Respiratory equipment will be procured and provided when appropriate in accordance with
Midpen's safety manual (Safety Manual Section 2.3). To ensure that smoke exposure from
prescribed burning is minimized, MM Air Quality-4 requires Midpen employees to adhere to
procedures to minimize acrolein, formaldehyde, and respirable particulate matter exposure,
including avoidance of or rotating personnel through high-smoke areas, hazardous awareness
training, and the voluntary use of N95 or N100 dust masks and bandanas, as determined
appropriate by the Burn Boss.
Page 4.3-40 is revised as follows:
The effect on Midpen employees from vegetation management activities could be significant.
MM Air Quality-3 would be implemented to reduce the asbestos-exposure risk by requiring
watering of disturbed soils in serpentine soils or bedrock areas and requiring that mowing
heads are set high enough above the soil so as not to generate asbestos-containing dust.
Respiratory equipment will be procured and provided when appropriate in accordance with
Midpen's safety manual (Safety Manual Section 2.3). To ensure that smoke exposure from
prescribed burning is minimized, MM Air Quality-4 requires use of CO monitors, training
Midpen employees, availability of masks and bandannas, and rotations of Midpen employees
through areas with heavy smoke. The impact from pile burning and other vegetation
management activities would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Page 4.3-41 is revised as follows:
The effect on Midpen employees and sensitive receptors from prescribed burning activities
could be significant. MM Air Quality-3 would be implemented to reduce the asbestos-exposure
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-32
risk by requiring watering of disturbed soils in serpentine soils or bedrock areas and requiring
that mowing heads are set high enough above the soil so as not to generate asbestos-containing
dust. Respiratory equipment will be procured and provided when appropriate in accordance
with Midpen's safety manual (Safety Manual Section 2.3). To ensure that smoke exposure from
prescribed burning is minimized, MM Air Quality-4 requires use of CO monitors, training
Midpen employees, availability of masks and bandannas, and rotations of workers through
areas with heavy smoke. MM Hazards-3 requires closure of trails and Midpen-owned roads
within at least 500 feet of the edges of a prescribed-burn area. Due to the unpredictability of
smoke, even on days with optimal conditions, the impact from prescribed burning would be
potentially significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
MM Air Quality-2 is revised as follows:
MM Air Quality-2: Burn Emission Reduction Techniques
For activities within a small portion of Long Ridge OSP and a very small portion of Sierra Azul OSP that falls within
the NCCAB, Midpen shall limit pile burning to 8.8 tons (i.e., not more than nine 10-foot-wide by six-foot-high
parabolic piles of shrub/hardwood vegetation or equivalent) in any one day.
Midpen shall incorporate the following measures during planning and implementation of a prescribed burn, where
feasible:
• When considering a prescribed burn, weigh the habitat benefits of burning in a particular vegetation type
against the emissions.
• Reduce the total area burned through mosaic burning if the objectives of the burn can still be met.
• Burn when fuels have a higher appropriate fuel moisture content, as determined by the expert preparing the
Smoke Management Plan.
• Reduce fuel loading by decreasing the density of vegetation and other fuels before ignition using mechanical
treatments, manual treatments, prescribed herbivory, and pile burning when logistically appropriate.
• Schedule burns before new vegetation growth, increases increasing fuel loads, when logistically appropriate.
• Delay planned burns when a Spare the Air Burn Ban has been declared.
• Provide public notification at least 48 hours in advance of a burn less than 50 acres to individuals and
jurisdictions within one mile, and at trailheads and access roads leading to an area with piles proposed for
burning. For burns in excess of 50 acres, noticing shall extend to a larger region as determined appropriate by
Midpen. The public notification shall include current contact numbers to the appropriate burn coordinator.
Applicable Location(s): Prescribed burn projects in the NCCAB and SFBAAB; Pile burning in NCCAB.
Performance Standards and Timing:
• Before Activity: (1) Choose vegetation types with fewer emissions when other considerations are equal, (2)
reduce the fuel loads, and (3) schedule burn prior to new vegetation growth, and (4) conducting noticing.
• During Activity: (1) Mosaic burn, (2) burn when fuels have higher appropriate moisture content, and (3) limit
pile burns conducted in any one day in NCCAB.
• After Activity: N/A
Section 4.4: Biological Resources
Table 4.4-5 on page 4.4-53 is revised as follows:
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-33
Species Typical Habitat on Midpen
Lands
Mitigation and Conclusion
Monarch butterfly -
California
overwintering
population
Groves of trees on Midpen
lands that are near within 2
miles of the Pacific Coast,
including eucalyptus and
milkweed host plants.
IPMP BMP 21 requires implementation of a training program
that would describe special-status species and how to avoid
harming the species. Herbicide application would be
conducted according to Midpen’s IPMP BMPs and
regulations, which would prevent overspray and drift (IPMP
BMPs 1 through 10). Impacts on special-status monarchs
could remain significant. MM Biology-1 requires a qualified
biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified
biologist to conduct pre-activity surveys to flag the work
area, as appropriate, to designate host plants in the area.
MM Biology-13 requires surveys for host plants in areas of
suitable habitat prior to any activity and designation of a
buffer around host plants containing eggs, larvae, or pupae,
if present at the time of the activity, ensuring avoidance. MM
Biology-15 requires surveys and avoidance of monarch
overwintering aggregations. If overwintering aggregations
are located in eucalyptus removal areas, replacement of the
grove with native trees such as Monterey pine or Monterey
cypress are required over a long-term process to maintain
habitat integrity. Further minimization may be achieved
through implementing BMPs identified in the Monarch
Pesticide Supplemental Materials (Danaus plexippus
plexippus) Species Status Assessment Report (USFWS,
Revised 2020).
Less than Significant with Mitigation.
Page 4.4-78 is revised as follows:
Midpen implements invasive species and forest disease BMPs to minimize spread and
proliferation (IPMP BMPs 11 through 18). Impacts on sensitive communities from
spread of invasive species, forest diseases, and direct loss could remain significant. MM
Biology-4 requires Midpen to implement techniques to minimize the spread of invasive
species and forest diseases. MM Biology-5 identifies specific baseline data collection and
monitoring frequency for Midpen’s EDRR program and success criteria to be met. MM
Biology-17 includes additional avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that
Program activities minimize impacts to sensitive communities, including riparian
communities. Implementation of mitigation would reduce these impacts to less than
significant levels. Alteration of riparian vegetation may require a Section 1602 permit.
Various activities may involve riparian vegetation removal or alteration including fuel
reduction projects or, as analyzed in depth in Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality,
new or improved stream crossings. Midpen currently holds a Routine Maintenance
Agreement under the California Fish and Game Code Section 1602, Lake or Streambed
Alteration Agreement, which is valid through 2024. Midpen is revisiting this permit to
expand the definitions of “routine” and to clearly address activities under the IPMP and
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-34
WFRP. Any fuel reduction work within riparian corridors and that would impact
riparian communities would fall under this permit. Impacts from alteration to riparian
habitat caused by upgrades or new stream crossings must adhere to MM Hydrology-1.
The implementation of the terms of the permit would further ensure that impacts to
riparian communities are less than significant.
MM Biology-1 is revised as follows:
MM Biology-1: Training, Monitoring, and Reporting
Monitoring
• The biological monitor(s) or qualified biologist(s) shall have the authority to stop Program activities to avoid
take or impacts to special-status species or protected biological resources; in the event of unforeseen
circumstances (e.g., unanticipated impacts are occurring); or if Program personnel are not complying with
regulatory permit conditions and the BMPs listed herein. The biological monitor or qualified biologist shall
possess the necessary agency approvals or permits required for involvement in Program activities.
- A biological monitor is an individual who has a minimum of 2 years academic and 1 year professional
experience in biological sciences and related resource management activities, is able to identify species that
may be present within the work area, and is familiar with the habits and behavior of those species.
- A qualified biologist/botanist is an individual who has a minimum of a 4-year academic degree in biological
sciences or related resource management activities, with a minimum of two survey seasons years (e.g., two
seasons during the blooming season of sensitive plants) conducting surveys for each species that may be
present within the work area.
- A professional biologist/botanist is an individual who has a minimum of 5 years of academic training in
biological sciences or related studies and 3 or more years of professional experience conducting protocol-
level wildlife and/or florist field surveys.
- A Midpen-approved biologist/botanist is an outside consultant who has been approved by Midpen either by a
professional biologist/botanist, Resource Advisor or other appropriate individual, to conduct biological
monitoring and surveying activities. This individual can be any one of the three categories of biologist/botanist
described above.
- A Resource Advisor is an individual who provides professional knowledge and expertise for the protection of
resources (e.g., biological and cultural resources), within an emergency incident environment.
• The qualified biologist or biological monitor shall conduct on-site monitoring of Program activities that have the
potential to impact sensitive biological resources. The monitoring requirements (e.g., frequency and duration)
shall depend on the specific activity(ies) being performed and the ecological sensitivity of the site (e.g., the
potential for soil erosion or occurrence of special-status wildlife). Some activities shall warrant full-time
monitoring by one or more biologists and/or biological monitors; whereas weekly site inspections may be
sufficient for other activities. At a minimum, monitoring shall be conducted frequently enough to ensure
compliance with permit conditions and BMPs. The monitor shall maintain a log that documents: (a) the
monitoring dates, (b) areas and activities monitored, (c) compliance with permit conditions and BMPs, (d) any
remedial actions that were taken (or are needed).
• Post-activity monitoring shall also occur, with the scope and timing dependent on the potential for risks to
biological resources. The purpose of monitoring is to ensure that special-status plant species and sensitive
communities were avoided and are not experiencing negative indirect impacts from activities. If negative
impacts are observed or are potentially occurring, restoration measures shall be implemented, and
modifications made to future activities to avoid similar impacts.
Pre-Activity General Survey and Flagging
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-35
MM Biology-1: Training, Monitoring, and Reporting
A qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist shall survey all selected work areas
shortly before work to assess general conditions and determine environmental considerations as required by
IPMP BMPs 21 and 25. Prior to Program activities, the biologist or biological monitor shall use flagging (or other
methods) to clearly delineate the work area and any areas that shall be avoided (e.g., sensitive communities,
habitat for special-status species).
Reporting
Information on new localities or sightings for special-status species shall be reported to the Sacramento USFWS
Office and the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) annually. Information on any incidental capture,
injury, or mortality of special-status species shall be immediately reported within 3 working days of their discovery
or in accordance with the federal and State permit conditions. The data shall also be logged in Midpen’s
electronic inventory system identified in IPMP BMP 25.
Training
• Prior to commencing a Program activity, all personnel shall attend a worker environmental awareness training
program conducted or prepared by the qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a Midpen-
approved biologist as required by IPMP BMP 21.
• The worker environmental awareness training will include a brief review of the life history, field identification,
and habitat requirements of each special-status species that could potentially be present on-site, their known
or probable habitat types and locations, potential fines for violations, avoidance measures, and necessary
actions if special-status species or sensitive natural communities are encountered, as required by IPMP BMP
21. In addition, the training shall include information on:
- All BMPs, regulatory permit conditions, exclusion areas, and other work restrictions.
- Color coding for flagging used to demarcate work areas, staging areas, skid trails, watercourses, and
exclusion zones (e.g., around special-status plants and other sensitive biological resources).
- The identification and reproductive biology of invasive plants and animals.
- Phytopthora ramorum and other plant pathogens avoidance.
General Wildlife Protection Measures
• Vehicles traveling to and from the work areas off of established roads and trails, in sensitive plant or wildlife
habitat, must travel slowly (5 mph) and be preceded by a monitor to ensure that wildlife shall not be run over by
the passing vehicle. Vehicle monitors do not need to be trained biologists.
• Qualified biologists/biological Vehicle monitors shall check for any reptiles, amphibians, or other animals under
vehicles and equipment parked for more than 30 minutes.
• Some individual live, dead, or dying trees shall be retained as snags where recommended by the qualified
biologist and biological monitor and where leaving the tree would not increase fire hazards or be a safety
concern.
• Vehicles traveling to and from the work areas off of established roads and trails, in sensitive plant or wildlife
habitat, must travel slowly (5 mph) and be preceded by a monitor to ensure that wildlife shall not be run over by
the passing vehicle. Vehicle monitors do not need to be trained biologists.
• Qualified biologists/biological monitors are required to temporarily stop any work that they believe may harm
special-status species. Work shall not resume until a satisfactory method is agreed upon to minimize or avoid
take of the species.
• Qualified biologists/biological monitors may require staging areas or stockpiled equipment/materials to be
fenced with USFWS and/or CDFW-approved exclusion fencing if there is potential for special-status species to
enter the areas and become entrapped, and routine inspection of the area is not adequate to ensure that
species are not present. Fencing shall be inspected by a qualified biologist/biological monitor and maintained
daily as needed to ensure its proper function in excluding wildlife. Large-scale fencing around entire
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-36
MM Biology-1: Training, Monitoring, and Reporting
vegetation management areas is discouraged due to the habitat disruption associated with fence installation
and removal.
Applicable Location(s): All Midpen lands.
Performance Standards and Timing:
• Before Activity: (1) Survey all selected work areas and (2) conduct worker environmental awareness training
program.
• During Activity: (1) Conduct on-site monitoring, (2) immediately report information on any incidental capture,
injury, or mortality of special-status species, (3) temporarily stop any work that may harm special-status
species, and (4) inspect vehicles, equipment, and fencing daily.
• After Activity: Conduct post-activity monitoring.
MM Biology-2 is revised as follows:
MM Biology -2: Special-Status Plants
Pre-Activity Special-Status Plant Survey
As required by IPMP BMP 25, a biological monitor or qualified biologist shall survey the work site to determine the
potential presence of special-status plants (as defined under Section 4.4.2 in the Program EIR) and document any
observations. Surveys shall be conducted at the time of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable and
using a standard protocol relevant at the time of the survey, such as the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating
Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW, 2018). The
abundance and spatial distribution of all special-status plants and sensitive natural communities detected during
the surveys shall be recorded with a GPS unit and entered online into the CalFlora and Midpen’s GIS databases.
This information shall also be submitted to the CNDDB, per MM Biology-1. If any special-status plants are found to
occur in the activity footprint, the biologist/botanist shall evaluate the potential level of impacts the activity could
have on the plant species, either an individual or population, based on its biology and the nature of the activity (no
impact, low impact, or moderate/high impact). Activities with no or low impact can proceed. If an activity could
have a moderate or high impact (e.g., anticipated mortality) Midpen shall consult with CDFW and the appropriate
avoidance or minimization measures would be implemented, depending on the species’ rank, physiology, and
habitat requirements, as described below.
Species to Avoid (Unless Population Could Benefit from Program Activity, such as Prescribed Burning)
Program activities shall avoid impacts to State or federally listed plants that are known to occur or have the
potential to occur on Midpen lands:
• Ben Lomond spineflower • San Francisco popcornflower
• Butano Ridge cypress • San Mateo thorn-mint
• California seablite • San Mateo woolly sunflower
• Coyote ceanothus • Santa Clara Valley dudleya
• Crystal Springs fountain thistle • Santa Cruz cypress
• Dudley’s lousewort • Santa Cruz tarplant
• Marin western flax • Santa Cruz wallflower
• Metcalf Canyon jewelflower • Scotts Valley polygonum
• Monterey spineflower • Scotts Valley spineflower
• Pacific Grove clover • Two-fork clover
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-37
MM Biology -2: Special-Status Plants
• Robust spineflower • White-rayed pentachaeta
• Rock sanicle
In addition, Program activities shall avoid impacts to the following species that (a) have very specific habitat
requirements that are hard to replicate at a mitigation site; (b) are difficult to transplant or propagate; or (c) have
insufficient data on the ability to successfully transplant, relocate, or reintroduce the taxa:
• Anderson’s manzanita • Loma Prieta hoita
• Kings Mountain manzanita • Arcuate bush-mallow
• Clustered lady’s-slipper • Most beautiful jewelflower
• Mountain lady’s-slipper
Activities that could have a moderate or high impact on these species shall not occur within an appropriate buffer
(as determined by a qualified biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist) of any
individuals or populations identified. Disclines or firefighting infrastructure shall be relocated to avoid any
populations of these species.
Prescribed herbivory and prescribed burning shall be allowed in the habitats for these species if, in the
professional opinion of a qualified biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist, the
activity shall provide a long-term benefit to the plant (e.g., by eliminating non-native plants).
Minimization of Impacts for All Other Special-Status Species
Midpen shall implement the following approach for all other special-status plant species that have been detected,
or that are detected in the Program area during the pre-activity surveys conducted per MM Biology-1 (adding
specificity to IPMP BMP 21, which requires developing site-specific measures):
• A qualified biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist shall recommend spatial
buffers or other management actions. The buffer size needed to protect a special-status plant from adverse
edge effects (indirect impacts) is dependent on the specific species, threats to the species, existing
disturbances, and the habitat’s permeability to those threats (CBI 2000). Midpen shall implement the botanist’s
recommendations. Impacts to a special-status plant shall only occur if it is the botanist’s professional opinion
that the impact shall provide a long-term benefit to the plant (e.g., by eliminating non-native plants or another
threat to the species). If Midpen is unable to implement the botanist’s recommendations, or if there is
uncertainty regarding the effects of a Program activity on the special-status plant population, Midpen shall
assess subsequent effects on the plant population through post-activity monitoring. If the monitoring indicates
the Program activity has negatively impacted the plant population, the compensatory mitigation terms of MM
Biology-3 shall apply. If the monitoring indicates the effects were positive or neutral, no additional mitigation is
required.
• If Program activities are proposed to be conducted in habitat for a special-status plant, the activities shall be
conducted during the phenological stage least sensitive to disturbance, based on guidance from the botanist.
• If Program activities are proposed to be conducted in habitat for a special-status plant, and the work must be
conducted when the plant is sensitive to disturbance (e.g., during the growing season), Midpen shall assume
the plant could be permanently impacted and shall either:
- 1a. Monitor the response of the plant post-construction. If the study indicates the Program activity has
negatively impacted the plant population, the terms of MM Biology-3 shall apply.
- 1b. Attempt to salvage any special-status plants that are permanently impacted by a Program activity (e.g.,
plants within a proposed discline). Salvaged plants (and seeds) shall be used for the compensatory mitigation
required under MM Biology-3, and comply with best management measures intended to exclude
Phytophthora and other plant pathogens to the extent possible. Any supplemental plants (or seeds) needed for
a mitigation project, site rehabilitation, or other application shall be derived from locally appropriate genetic
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-38
MM Biology -2: Special-Status Plants
material and nurseries that comply with best management measures intended to exclude Phytophthora and
other plant pathogens to the extent possible; or
- 2. Provide compensatory mitigation in accordance with the terms of MM Biology-3.
General Minimization and Avoidance Measures
Burn piles shall not be located within 50 feet of a special-status plant except those species that a qualified
biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist determines shall benefit from burning
(e.g., Kings Mountain manzanita). Propane flaming shall not be conducted within the vicinity of special-status
plants that could be accidentally damaged by the flaming activities. Vegetative debris shall not be placed on top of
special-status plants, unless the biologist/botanist determines this is acceptable.
MM Biology-7 is revised as follows:
MM Biology-7: California Red-Legged Frog Protection Measures
Handling of California Red-legged Frog
Handling of California red-legged frog will be done by permitted and qualified biologists or biological monitor
working under a qualified biologist in an expedient manner with minimal harm to the individuals being handled.
Handling of California red-legged frog will be done with wet hands. The hands and arms of all workers handling
California red-legged frog will be free of lotions, creams, sunscreen, oils, ointment, insect repellent, or any other
material that may harm California red-legged frog. Larval California red-legged frog will not be handled out of the
water for longer than 30 seconds unless rewetted and will not be retained for longer than 5 minutes for
processing. If captured California red-legged frog exhibit signs of distress (e.g., lack of response to stimuli or
erratic behavior), they will be immediately released at the point of capture. All captured California red-legged frog
will be released at the point of capture unless that location puts them in imminent danger, in which case they will
be placed in a nearby refugium sufficient to protect them. The number of California red-legged frog to be captured
is no more than 30 adults per habitat location (defined as the area that specific work is conducted such as a pond
site or OSP) per year. In the course of monitoring associated with the activities, if California red-legged frog egg
masses are observed in ponds or wetted areas that are going to dry naturally before tadpoles develop (as
determined by a qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist), emergency salvage
of egg masses by the qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist is permitted to
relocate egg masses into deeper waters that will not be affected by the proposed activities. USFWS shall be
notified of the emergency salvage per the terms of the recovery permit. Amplexing pairs of California red-legged
frog will not be captured, handled, or disturbed. The permittee will disinfect sampling and field gear to minimize
the spread of pathogens as follows:
1. Sampling and field gear will be disinfected after exiting one aquatic habitat and before entering the next
aquatic habitat, unless the waters are hydrologically connected to one another.
2. All organic matter will be removed from nets, traps, boots, vehicle tires and all other surfaces that have
come into contact with water or potentially contaminated sediments. These items will then be rinsed with
clean water before leaving each study site.
3. Boots, nets, traps, hands, etc., will be scrubbed with a bleach solution (0.5 to 1.0 cup per 1.0 gallon of
water), Quat-128™ (1:60), or a 3 to 6 percent sodium hypochlorite solution and thoroughly rinsed clean
with water between study sites. Equipment will be rinsed clean with water between study sites. Cleaning
equipment in the immediate vicinity of aquatic habitats will be avoided (e.g., clean in an area at least 100
feet from aquatic features). Care will be taken so that all traces of the disinfectant are removed before
entering the next aquatic habitat.
4. Used cleaning materials (liquids, etc.) will be disposed of safely, and if necessary, taken back to the lab
for proper disposal. Used disposable gloves will be retained for safe disposal in sealed bags.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-39
MM Biology-7: California Red-Legged Frog Protection Measures
California red-legged frog will not be removed from the wild and held in captivity for any reason unless prior
written approval is acquired by the appropriate USFWS Office or unless the severity of an injury to the California
red-legged frog obviates immediate care. Animals will be transported according to accepted methods, in moist
cloth bags or in terrarium with moisture gel or non-cellulose sponge to minimize desiccation.
Protocols for California Red-legged Frog Depending Upon Location of Activity
For activities conducted within riparian habitat or Waters of the State and/or U.S. and 1 mile of a known California
red-legged frog occurrence:
• Prior to and within 48 hours of the planned start of Program activities, a focused survey for California red-
legged frog using an agency approved protocol will be conducted by a qualified biologist or biological monitor
working under a qualified biologist to determine if they are in the area. If California red-legged frog are found,
Midpen will coordinate with CDFW and USFWS immediately to determine the correct course of action and
Program activities at that location will not commence until after May 30 or authorized by CDFW and USFWS.
• If California red-legged frog are found, biological monitor(s) and/or qualified biologists will be on site while
Program activities are being conducted. Midpen will implement the following measures:
a. Inspection of Parked Vehicles: Any vehicle parked on-site for more than 15 minutes will be inspected by
the biological monitor or qualified biologist before it is moved to ensure that California red-legged frog has
not moved under the vehicle. Any parking areas must be checked in advance by the biological monitor or
qualified biologist.
b. Vegetation Removal by Mechanized Equipment at California Red-legged Frog Sensitive Sites (areas within
or adjacent to wetted aquatic sites): For vegetation removal on berms or other wetted sites with known
California red-legged frog observations, vegetation will be cut down to 3 inches by hand tools
(weedwhacker, etc.). Once the ground is visible, a visual survey for California red-legged frog will be
conducted. If no sensitive species are found in the area, removal of vegetation may continue by mowing or
mechanized equipment very slowly with a biological monitor walking in front of the equipment to observe. If
a California red-legged frog is observed that is in harm’s way, all activities shall cease and Midpen will
notify CDFW and USFWS immediately or the California red-legged frog can be relocated by a person
permitted by the USFWS and approved by CDFW for this project to handle California red-legged frog.
c. Vegetation Disposal: Vegetation removed shall be placed directly into a disposal vehicle and removed from
the site. Vegetation shall not be piled on the ground unless it is later transferred, piece by piece, under the
direct supervision of the biological monitor or qualified biologist or is going to remain on-site for erosion
control or slash and not be moved or disturbed.
d. No Stockpiled Soil: Soil shall not be stockpiled on the ground unless it is on a paved surface or staging
area where there are not burrows. Soils stockpiled for more than a single day near potential habitat should
be covered or surrounded by exclusion fencing as directed by a qualified biologist to prevent burrowing
animals from entering the stockpile.
e. California Red-legged Frog Exclusion for Sediment Removal with Large Equipment: California red-legged
frog will be excluded from the project site prior to Program activities at sites involving the use of large
equipment for sediment removal. USFWS and CDFW-approved exclusion fencing will be installed around
the sediment removal site, staging areas, and any areas where fill may be dumped. After installation of the
fence barrier, a biological monitor or qualified biologist will inspect the project work area, staging and
stockpiling areas daily prior to the commencement of activities. If the biological monitor or qualified
biologist determines that sensitive species are not within the work area, equipment or materials may be
moved into the project site and Program activities may commence under the observation of the biological
monitor.
For activities conducted in ponds:
• Focused Surveys Prior to Work Activities. Prior to and within 48 hours of the planned start of Program
activities, a focused survey for California red-legged frog using agency approved protocol will be conducted by
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-40
MM Biology-7: California Red-Legged Frog Protection Measures
a qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist to determine if California red-
legged frog is in the area. The pond will be sampled by a qualified biologist to ensure that all California red-
legged frog from that pond are in the post metamorphic stage and will be minimally affected by draining the
pond. If a California red-legged frog is located during the pre-treatment surveys but escapes capture, the area
where the frog was lost will be marked by flag and a 50-foot (15 meter) radius will be actively patrolled during
the work. If California red-legged frog are found, Midpen will coordinate with CDFW and USFWS immediately
to determine the correct course of action and Program activities at that location will not commence until after
May 30 as or authorized by CDFW and USFWS. After the pre-project survey, an avoidance strategy will be
devised and presented to all individuals involved in the pond enhancement prior to starting any activities. The
number of California red-legged frog encountered and transferred to safe areas or held in captivity by a
permitted and qualified biologist during treatment will be reported to the Sacramento USFWS Office and
CDFW.
• Number of On-Site Biologists. The minimum number of qualified biological monitors required at each pond site
will be determined in advance by the qualified project biologist either the ranch manager or a permitted
biological consultant based on pond size, the amount and complexity of work to be performed, and the
equipment to be used. This number of monitors will be approved by USFWS prior to the start of any work.
• Travel Corridors. Corridors for travel of vehicles and heavy machinery to the pond site will be established at
least 24 hours in advance of the proposed work. Corridors that are not established, marked, and improved
roads (paved or unpaved) require special consideration for use by any vehicle. During the use of these off-road
corridors by vehicles and machinery, a monitor shall proceed directly before the vehicle or machinery to
ensure all California red-legged frog and observable wildlife is cleared from the pathway of the oncoming
vehicle. Monitors shall signal vehicles to stop if a California red-legged frog is on the pathway, and shall allow
the animal to clear the pathway by its own direction. Any handling of the red-legged frog must only be done by
a qualified permitted individual. Measures shall be taken to minimize the number of vehicles allowed on the
property. All vehicles involved with the site-specific work that are not transported to the work site will be
retained in a prearranged, marked parking area in a clearing as close to the main road as possible. At least one
monitor will ensure wildlife is clear from the parking area while vehicles are arriving and leaving. All vehicles
must stay on designated roads.
• Seasonal Work Period in Ponds. If California red-legged frog are found in the pond and water is present in the
pond, sediment removal and berm or outfall repair activities shall be performed from August 15 to November 1.
Midpen will coordinate with CDFW and USFWS prior to dredging or de-watering activities. Sediment will be
removed from ponds by hand to the extent feasible. Sediment removal from ponds will occur as soon as the
ponds are dry (if prior to August 15).
• Vegetation Removal at Ponds. If California red-legged frog is found, tule and emergent vegetation will be
removed by hand when feasible. If mechanized equipment is used, one or more biological monitors or qualified
biologists will be onsite monitoring the scoop bucket while scooping and watching each load unload. Midpen
will coordinate with CDFW and USFWS during the annual project notification process regarding anticipated
mechanized equipment use for vegetation removal at ponds. In areas where egg masses are known, Midpen
and contractor personnel will not enter the channel/pond to avoid dislodging egg masses. Trimming activities
shall be performed from the banks, if possible.
• Inspection for Egg Masses. In work areas containing emergent vegetation (e.g., tules, cattails), vegetation will
be inspected for California red-legged frog eggs masses prior to Program activities. If work cannot be
postponed, a buffer of vegetation at least 10 feet in diameter shall be left around any egg masses found.
Midpen will keep a record of sites where egg masses are found and conduct vegetation removal at these sites
prior to November 1 in subsequent years.
If California red-legged frog is not found during the focused survey, or for activities conducted in suitable habitat
where California red-legged frog has not been documented:
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-41
MM Biology-7: California Red-Legged Frog Protection Measures
• The biological monitor shall remain on-site if sensitive areas are identified during the presurvey. A biological
awareness training shall be provided to all persons prior to beginning work. If at any time a California red-
legged frog is observed, work shall stop immediately until a biological monitor is contacted. Biological
monitor(s) and/or qualified biologists shall then remain be on the project site while Program activities are being
conducted. If California red-legged frog is observed, the applicable California red-legged frog measures
procedures described above will be followed.
General California Red-legged Frog Avoidance Measures
• If California red-legged frog enters the project area, all work shall stop until the animal leaves on its own. If a
person is permitted by the USFWS and approved by CDFW for this specific project to handle California red-
legged frog, they can handle and relocate California red-legged frog. Midpen will coordinate with CDFW and
USFWS to develop site appropriate avoidance measures utilized for relocation. Prior to the start of work, areas
will be identified by the biological monitor-in-charge and approved by the USFWS and CDFW as acceptable
locations to which California red-legged frog may be relocated if these species are encountered within a work
area. Relocation areas will be a minimum of 500 feet from the boundary of any work area and will not include
staging areas or roads. No California red-legged frog will be removed from the site or maintained in captivity
overnight without prior notification and written approval by the USFWS and CDFW unless the animal is in need
of emergency medical assistance. Medical assistance will be provided to injured animals by a certified wildlife
veterinarian familiar with amphibian and reptile care. When transporting individual California red-legged frog,
safe handling precautions will be taken to ensure that the animals are not over-stressed. Safe handling
measures include: keeping animals in a cool, dark, and safe location (terrarium for California red-legged frog),
providing adequate hydration, maintaining a stable cool temperature to avoid over-heating, keeping animals
isolated to prevent them from harming one another, and ensuring holding tanks or bags are kept clean to
prevent the spread of any diseases.
• All practicable measures shall be taken to avoid killing or injuring any life stage of California red-legged frog
during habitat enhancement activities.
• The biological monitor and/or qualified biologist shall have the authority to halt work activities that may affect
California red-legged frog adults, tadpoles or egg masses until they can be moved out of harm’s way.
• Any project-related, human caused injuries to California red-legged frog will be immediately reported to CDFW
and USFWS.
Applicable Location(s): Where Program activities are proposed within riparian habitat or Waters of the State
and/or U.S. and 1 mile of a known California red-legged frog occurrence.
Performance Standards and Timing:
• Before Activity: (1) Provide a biological awareness training in accordance with MM Biology-1, (2) identify
acceptable locations where California red-legged frog may be relocated if encountered within a work area, (3)
conduct a focused survey for California red-legged frog using an agency approved protocol prior to and within
48 hours of the planned start of Program activities, (4) for all work occurring within 50 feet of ponds, streams,
and wetlands suitable for California red-legged frog, conduct visual surveys by walking at least a 50-foot buffer
area around the pond in an attempt to locate individual California red-legged frog no more than 24 hours prior
to conducting work, (5) devise an avoidance strategy and present it to all individuals involved in Program
activities prior to the start of work, and (6) inspect vegetation in work areas containing emergent vegetation for
California red-legged frog eggs masses prior to Program activities and keep records.
• During Activity: (1) Stop work immediately if a California red-legged frog enters the work area, and (2)
implement applicable measures for stop work and handling of individuals if California red-legged frog are
found.
• After Activity: N/A
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-42
MM Biology-12 is revised as follows:
MM Biology-12: Marbled Murrelet Nest Protection Measures
a. Implement IPMP BMP 22 with the additional provisions listed here.
b. In areas within the range of marbled murrelet habitat as identified in the latest maps (e.g., Midpen 2007
maps), Midpen shall conduct a survey of habitats within 0.25-mile of the work area for trees that meet the
Pacific Seabird Group definition of potential marbled murrelet nesting trees. If such trees are present
within 300 feet of the work area or if a marbled murrelet nest is detected, Midpen shall coordinate with
CDFW and USFWS before proceeding. If habitat trees are present within 0.25-mile of the work area but are
greater than 300 feet from the work area, Midpen shall implement the following conditions:
c. Work within the work area shall be confined to the period of September 15 to November 1 when possible.
d. If activities cannot be conducted outside the breeding season, and must occur during the marbled
murrelet breeding season (March 24 to September 15) Midpen shall:
i. Coordinate with CDFW and USFWS.
ii. Implement seasonal disturbance minimization buffers as listed in the table below and in the July 26,
2006 document, Estimation of the Effects of Auditory and Visual Disturbance to Northern Spotted Owls
and Marbled Murrelets in Northwestern California October 2020 document Revised Transmittal of
Guidance: Estimating the Effects of Auditory and Visual Disturbance to Northern Spotted Owls and
Marbled Murrelets in Northwestern California (table below) (or the appropriate, CDFW-recommended
or approved guidance at the time of implementation). The thresholds shown apply to noise-generating
activities occurring during the midday period, when the risk of disturbance is lower and do not apply to
activities within 2 hours of sunrise or sunset. Activities conducted during the dawn and dusk periods
have special considerations for ambient sound level. If proposed activities will occur within 2 hours of
sunrise or sunset, and if the ambient sound environment during the dawn and dusk period can
reasonably be expected to be 5 dB or more quieter than the midday sound environment, then the
estimated disturbance distance threshold should be calculated based on an ambient level 10 dB lower
(i.e., one row up in the table) compared to the normal ambient rating in the table below.
Existing Pre-Program
(Ambient) Sound Levela
Anticipated Action Generated Sound Levelb
Moderate (71-
80 dB)
High
(81-90 dB)
Very High (91-
100 dB)
Extreme
(101-110 dB)
Natural Ambient
(<=50 dB)c
165 feet 500 feet 1,320 feet 1,320 feet
Very Low
(51-60 dB)
40 0 feet 330 feet 825 feet 1,320 feet
Low
(61-70 dB)
40 0 feet 165 feet 825 feet 1,320 feet
Moderate
(71-80 dB)
40 0 feet 165 feet 330 feet 1,320 feet
High
(81-90 dB)
40 0 feet 165 feet 165 feet 500 feet
Notes:
a Existing (ambient) sound level includes all natural and human-induced sounds occurring at the
work area prior to the proposed action, and are not causally related to the proposed action.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-43
MM Biology-12: Marbled Murrelet Nest Protection Measures
b Action-generated sound levels are given in decibels (dB) experienced by a receiver, when
measured at 15.2 m from the sound source.
c "Natural Ambient" refers to sound levels generally experienced in habitats not substantially
influenced by human activities.
iii. Conduct a sound level monitoring study to determine the level of ambient and construction activity
noise anticipated during construction activities to calculate seasonal disturbance minimization buffer
widths. Midpen shall provide a description of methods and results of the study to USFWS and CDFW to
coordinate site-specific avoidance measures 30 days prior to commencement of Program activities at
the applicable location(s). In order to alert work crews to their presence, marbled murrelet seasonal
disturbance buffers, as determined by the sound study and table above, shall be flagged in the field
where they enter the work area. If Midpen chooses not to conduct the sound study, no Program
activities shall occur within 0.25-mile of potential nest trees during the marbled murrelet breeding
season (March 24 to September 15).
iv. If noise generating construction activity takes place during the breeding season (March 24 to
September 15) within suitable Redwood and Redwood/Douglas-fir forests, construction activities shall
be restricted to 2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before sunset to minimize disturbance of potential
nesting marbled murrelet using forest habitat as a travel corridor between inland nesting and coastal
habitat.
v. Midpen or its contractor shall not conduct Program activities within a visual line-of-sight distance of 40
100 meters or less from a suitable nest tree as designated by a qualified biologist or biological monitor,
or the appropriate distance per the latest, appropriate, CDFW-recommended guidance at the time of
implementation.
e. If marbled murrelet protocol level surveys are conducted and do not indicate that the habitat is occupied by
marbled murrelet, the seasonal and distance work restrictions may be lifted with approval from CDFW and
USFWS. Protocol level survey procedures and information can be found at:
http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org/publications/PSG_TechPub2_MAMU_ISP.pdf or the appropriate,
CDFW-recommended or approved guidance at the time of implementation may be used. If Midpen chooses
to conduct marbled murrelet protocol level surveys, Midpen shall coordinate with CDFW and USFWS
regarding the survey stations to ensure all contiguous suitable habitat is covered and good visuals of the sky
and nearby flyways, if present, are provided. If marbled murrelet protocol level surveys are conducted,
Midpen shall submit the report consistent with Methods for Surveying Marbled Murrelets in Forests: A
Revised Protocol for Land Management and Research or the appropriate, CDFW-recommended or approved
guidance at the time of implementation may be used.
Applicable Location(s): Where Program activities are proposed within the range of marbled murrelet habitat.
Performance Standards and Timing:
• Before Activity: (1) Conduct a survey of habitats within 0.25-mile of the work area for trees that meet the
Pacific Seabird Group definition of potential marbled murrelet nesting trees, and (2) implement appropriate
measures based on survey results.
• During Activity: If activity occurs during the nesting season, conduct a sound level monitoring study, provide
results to USFWS and CDFW, and comply with applicable measures based on survey results.
• After Activity: N/A
MM Biology-15 is revised as follows:
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-44
MM Biology-15: Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Aggregation Protection
Prior to any Program activities in tree groves comprised primarily or entirely of pine, cypress, fir, or eucalyptus
that are within 2 miles of the Pacific Coast, a desktop record review shall be conducted to determine if the grove
historically was occupied by monarchs. For all other tree groves comprised primarily or entirely of pine, cypress,
fir, or eucalyptus that are within 2 miles of the Pacific Coast, a qualified biologist or biological monitor working
under a qualified biologist shall survey the grove for aggregations of monarch butterflies during the overwintering
season according to the Xerces Society’s Western Monarch Count Protocol (Xerces Society 2019), available at
https://www.westernmonarchcount.org or the latest protocol available at the time of implementation may be used.
Two surveys shall be conducted during the overwintering season, one during the Western Monarch Thanksgiving
Count period (the three-week period centered on the Thanksgiving holiday), and a second during the New Year’s
Count period (the two-week period beginning the weekend prior to New Year’s Day).
• Each survey shall be conducted by two surveyors to provide multiple independent estimates of monarch
numbers.
• Surveys shall be conducted in the morning while temperatures are below 55˚ F (13˚ C) and monarchs are more
likely to be clustered.
• Surveys shall not be conducted during rain or strong winds due to poor visibility and the chance that individual
monarchs shall be scattered on the ground.
• If no monarch overwintering aggregations are observed, Program activities may proceed pursuant as long as
they occur prior to November 1. If Program activities are delayed beyond November 1, then the grove shall be
re-surveyed.
• If a monarch overwintering aggregation of any size is detected or historical occupation is identified according
to record reviews, then no Program activities may take place inside the tree canopy within 200 feet of the
aggregation, when present. Activities outside of the canopy line but within 200 feet may proceed (i.e., treatment
of low-growing vegetation outside of the tree grove) if a qualified biologist or monitor determines that the
activity does not pose a threat to the monarch aggregation.
• Groves with historical occupation shall not be altered without further consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW.
• Once the aggregation disperses (typically by March), treatment of vegetation within 200 feet of tree(s) where
monarch aggregations were observed may proceed if, as determined by a qualified biologist or monitor, it shall
not result in significant alteration to wind and sunlight patterns within the grove.
• If monarch overwintering aggregations are detected in eucalyptus removal areas, then a long-term tree
planting strategy is necessary (see Protecting California’s Butterfly Groves [Xerces Society 2017]).
• Native tree species suitable for monarchs must be planted many years prior to eucalyptus removal with the
understanding that they may not reach functional heights to provide wind protection and suitable dappled
lighting for 15-30 years. Transplanting saplings from a local source may speed this process. Planting of
eucalyptus shall be prohibited. Removal of eucalyptus may proceed once native replacement trees have
reached sufficient size to provide wind protection within the grove.
• Standing dead trees generally do not contribute to monarch overwintering habitat (Xerces Society 2017) and
may be removed within the grove between April 1 and August 31, outside of the overwintering period, as
determined appropriate by a qualified biologist or monitor. Sites where invasive dead trees have been removed
may create opportunities for native tree planting within the interior of the grove.
• If a eucalyptus grove where a monarch overwintering aggregation was previously detected is re-surveyed
using the Western Monarch Count Protocol (Xerces Society 2019) and found to be unoccupied for 5
consecutive years, then the grove may be removed before native replacement trees have reached full size.
Applicable Location(s): Where Program activities are proposed in tree groves comprised primarily or entirely of
pine, cypress, fir, or eucalyptus that are within 2 miles of the Pacific Coast.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-45
MM Biology-15: Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Aggregation Protection
Performance Standards and Timing:
• Before Activity: (1) Survey tree groves for aggregations of monarch butterflies during the overwintering season
according to the Xerces Society’s Western Monarch Count Protocol and implement appropriate measures
based on survey results, and (2) develop a long-term tree planting strategy if monarch overwintering
aggregations are detected in eucalyptus removal areas.
• During Activity: Implement tree planting strategy.
• After Activity: N/A
MM Biology-20 is revised as follows:
MM Biology-20: Significant and Heritage Tree Ordinances
Prior to conducting any work that involves tree removal, biologist or other personnel qualified in tree identification
shall identify if any County or local protected and heritage tree ordinances are relevant to the area of work. If an
ordinance would apply to the area of work, the area of work shall be investigated by the biologist or personnel
qualified in tree identification to identify if any trees subject to the ordinance are found in the project area. If a tree
subject to the ordinance is in the area of work, the tree shall be clearly marked as a “Leave Tree” so that it is not
accidentally damaged or removed during work. If a tree that qualifies as a protected or heritage tree must be
removed, the appropriate steps shall be implemented to obtain the appropriate permits for tree removal. If trees
within the CalTrans right-of-way must be removed, the tree removal must be part of the Encroachment Permit, to
be reviewed by CalTrans, which may require tree replacement in its permit terms.
Applicable Location(s): Where tree removal occurs.
Performance Standards and Timing:
• Before Activity: (1) Identify County and local protected and heritage tree ordinances, (2) identify trees that are
subject to the ordinance, (3) maker mark trees for avoidance, and (4) obtain necessary permit to remove
protected and heritage trees or trees within Caltrans right-of-way.
• During Activity: Avoid impacts on trees that are marked for avoidance.
• After Activity: N/A
Section 4.6: Geology and Soils
Page 4.6-3 is revised as follows:
Due to the various factors discussed above, including the types of geologic units present,
known historic failures in the geologic units present, soil conditions, and slope, portions
of Midpen lands have been mapped as susceptible to landslides (Brabb E. E., Pampeyan,
E. H., 1972; Cooper-Clark and Associates, 1975; CGS, 2002, 2005, and 2019). The most
common l Landslide types encountered in Midpen lands include is a debris flows.,
which is a A debris flow can result from significant erosional processes on hillsides over
time as well as from deep-seated landslides (Ellen, Mark, Wieczorek, Ramsey, & May,
1997; Wills et al, 2011). Various landslide types have different factors that affect
landslide potential. Debris flows are fast-moving downslope flows of mud that may
include rocks, vegetation, and other debris. These flows typically begin during intense
rainfall as shallow landslides on steep slopes. Depending on the scale and location, rapid
movement and sudden arrival of debris flows following a triggering rainfall can pose a
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-46
significant threat to life and property. Debris-flow initiation requires steep slopes and
often concave parts of hillsides. Translational/rotational slides are relatively deep with a
somewhat cohesive slide mass and occur in relatively cohesive, homogenous soils and
rocks. Slides can occur in saturated and impaired drainage conditions. Comparatively
large areas of tree removal or removal of toe material can induce instability (CGS, 2013).
Page 4.6-4 is revised as follows:
Figure 4.6-3 shows the portion of the landscape where evidence of historic landslides,
notably slides and earth flows, within Midpen lands was identified. This data is used to
predict where future landslides could occur. Some small proportion of the identified
historic landslides may become active in any one year, with movements concentrated
within all or part of the landslide masses or around their edges.
A Under certain conditions, areas where with slopes are under 35 percent have may be
associated with the lowest potential for landslides and areas with slopes greater than 50
percent have may be associated with the highest potential for landslides (McClelland, et
al., 1998). Areas within OSPs where slopes are 35 percent to 50 percent, and 50 percent
or greater, are shown in Figure 4.6-4. As discussed, slope is one of several factors that
contribute to instability. The susceptibility for deep-seated landslides is shown in Figure
4.6-5, which considers rock strength and slopes on Midpen lands. Table 4.6-2 provides a
breakdown of susceptibility across Midpen lands. Very high susceptibility is classed as
VIII, IX, and X, which occurs in areas with very steep slopes in hard rocks and moderate
to very steep slopes in weak rocks. As shown, over 50 percent of Midpen lands are
highly susceptibility to landsliding.
Some areas with more moderate slopes, such as La Honda Creek OSP have a high
susceptibility for landsliding due to weaker rock (as indicated by Figure 4.6-4 and Figure
4.6-5).
Table 4.6-2 Landslide Susceptibility Within Midpen Lands
Landslide Susceptibility Classes Percent of Midpen Lands
O (Lowest) 5.3
III 6.2
V 3.3
VI 8.9
VII 21.9
VIII 17.5
IX 24.5
X (Highest) 12.6
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-47
Note:
No class II or IV landslide susceptibility exist.
Table 4.6-2 on page 4.6-5 is revised as follows:
Geologic Unit Geologic
Time of
Formation
Geologic Description Proximity to Midpen
Lands
Surficial Sediments
Alluvium Holocene or
Pleistocene
Epochs
Alluvium consists of unconsolidated deposits of
clay, silt, sand, and gravel that have been
transported and deposited by streams. Within the
lowland areas and at the base of slopes in the
Program area, bedrock is overlain by younger
surficial deposits. Alluvium is found at the margins
of the hillside areas. The youngest deposits are
loose and soft sediments deposited within the last
10,000 years. These deposits are typically those
that are the most Colluvium in upland areas,
particularly thick colluvium, can be highly
susceptible to landslides and slope instability if
subjected to grading or clearing. Alluvium in areas
of flat slopes is less susceptible to land instability
but can be susceptible to soil collapse.
Alluvium is dispersed
throughout Midpen
lands east of the San
Andreas Fault Zone on
the bayside of San
Mateo and Santa Clara
Counties.
Basement Complex Rocks
Franciscan
Complex
mélange,
Franciscan
Complex
sedimentary
rocks, and
Franciscan
Complex
volcanic rocks
Eocene or
Paleocene
Epochs, Late
Cretaceous
Period, or
Late
Jurassic
Period
The Franciscan Complex is Cretaceous- and
Jurassic-age bedrock that has been broken and
sheared by tectonic forces. The result is a
disrupted mass of hard rock types embedded in a
fine-grained matrix that has been sheared and
crushed. The Franciscan Complex is
characteristically inherently weak and pervasively
sheared. Due to these characteristics, components
of this formation are susceptible to land instability.
Other minor components of the formation, including
the common massive sandstone, thinly bedded
sandstone, butano sandstone, and shale bedrock in
the Franciscan complex generally exhibit high
stability on natural slopes. However, these rocks
produce sandy and/or silty soils prone to erosion.
They are also highly susceptible to erosion when
stripped of their vegetative cover.
The Santa Cruz
Mountains are
composed primarily of
Franciscan
assemblage. A
significant amount of
Franciscan Complex is
found in Sierra Azul,
Monte Bello, and
Rancho San Antonio
OSPs.
Sources: (Norris & Webb, 1976; DWR, 2016; Brabb, E.E.; Pampeyan, E. H., 1972; Brabb & Pampeyan, 1983; Brabb, E.E., 1980; Brabb,
E. E.; Graymer, R. W.; Jones, D. L., 1998; Midpen, 2012; Lajole, Helley, Nichols, & Burke, 1974; Brabb, Graymer, & Jones, 1998;
Graymer, et al., 2006; Marin County, 2005)
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-48
Figure 4.6-3 on page 4.6-9 is revised as follows:
Figure 4.6-3 Historic and Projected Landslides and Predicted Areas of Projected Movement Within
Midpen Lands
Source: (USGS, 2013; USGS, 2016; Tele Atlas North America, Inc., 2018; Midpen, 2019; Wentworth, et al. USGS, 1997)
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-49
The title of Figure 4.6-4 on page 4.6-10 is revised and a new figure added as follows:
Figure 4.6-4 Areas with Steep Slopes and Highest Potential for Slope Instability Within Midpen Lands
Associated with Potentially Higher Slope Instability
Figure 4.6-5 Landslide Susceptibility Within Midpen Lands
Source: (Wills et al, 2011)
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-50
Impact Geology and Soils-1 on page 4.6-18 is revised as follows:
Impact Geology and Soils-1: Directly or indirect substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known
fault; ii) Strong seismic ground shaking; iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction; or iv) Landslides.
Significance
Determination
Less than significant
Midpen lands traverse several counties and are subject to compliance with various local
laws and ordinances concerning geology and soils, including the San Mateo, Santa
Clara, and Santa Cruz County General Plans. Midpen adheres to these local regulations
when managing its lands that fall into those respective jurisdictions and would continue
to do so when implementing the Program. Midpen also has specific regulations for the
management of its lands that involve Program activities, as outlined in Midpen’s
Resource Management Policies. The Program area features several earthquake faults
susceptible to rupture and historically has experienced strong seismic ground shaking,
such as during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Maps for the Program area indicate that Midpen lands are located within
earthquake fault zones and are also designated as zones of required investigation under
the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (CGS, 2002; CGS, 2005; CGS, 2019).
An impact is only considered significant if the Program would exacerbate existing or
future seismic hazards by increasing the severity or likelihood of such hazards affecting
people that would exist without the project. The number of workers on Midpen lands at
any one time and throughout the year would increase under the Program. Workers may
be at risk of injury or death from various Program activities if activities are conducted in
an area where fault rupture, seismic-related ground failure, or landslide occur; however,
seismic ground shaking events are unpredictable, and the potential occurrence of such
events coinciding with Program activities is minimal. Earthquake safety training
pursuant to Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations would
minimize potential for impacts on workers. The Program involves implementation of
various vegetation management activities and does not include any substantial new
structures or operational activities that could create or exacerbate a ground-shaking risk
to the surrounding population. The Program would not involve construction of
habitable structures that could expose persons to adverse effects from earthquakes and
strong seismic ground shaking. Implementation of Program activities would not directly
cause an increased risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake
fault, strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction and landslides. The direct impact would be less than significant. Refer to
Impact Geology and Soils-3 for an analysis of the potential for the Program to increase
landslide risk and soil destabilization, which could indirectly increase substantial
adverse effects due to increasing the risk of landsliding during a seismic event.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-51
Impact Geology and Soils-2 on pages 4.6-21 through 4.6-22 is revised as follows:
Access and Vehicle Travel
Vehicle travel to project sites and within the Program area could result in some erosion.
Most of the proposed fuelbreaks are located adjacent to and along the upslope and
downslope side of roads. Defensible spaces are located near public areas, facilities, and
utilities. These areas are accessed via roads. Vehicle travel and transport of equipment
on established unpaved or gravel roadways and trails could result in erosion. Impacts
on any one area from off-road travel would be limited because vehicle use would be
dispersed throughout the Program area. The additional trips associated with
implementation of the Program would not result in significant increases in erosion and
loss of topsoil as most erosion occurs from the presence of the unpaved roads and trails
versus the use of them. Former skid trails may be mowed and vegetation cleared for use
to access areas beyond existing roads, such as to access forest treatment areas, but they
would not be graded. Root systems of larger vegetation would generally be left in place,
minimizing the potential for erosion from use of these roads. In some locations, more
extensive vegetation clearance may be needed to utilize former trails. Substantial
vegetation removal, particularly in areas of steep slopes or with evidence of former
landsliding, has the potential to result in destabilization and erosion, which would be a
significant impact. MM Geology-2 requires qualified personnel to assess areas of
substantial vegetation removal to determine the control measures needed to avoid
erosion. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Analysis of Plans
Vegetation Management Plan
The maintenance of existing and creation of new VMAs would require the use of
manual and mechanical equipment for vegetation removal. Soil erosion and loss of
topsoil could occur during such vegetation management activities resulting in a
significant impact. IPMP BMP 28 requires implementation of erosion control measures
before or after vegetation treatment near sites with loose or unstable soils, steep slopes,
where a large percentage of the groundcover will be removed, or near aquatic features
that could be adversely affected by an influx of sediment. Implementation of this BMP
would minimize topsoil erosion. Use of prescribed herbivory as pre-treatment in some
areas could result in erosion and loss of topsoil if new livestock trails are formed. MM
Geology-1 would reduce impacts by requiring implementation of design features to
minimize creation of livestock trails. MM Geology-2 requires qualified personnel to
assess areas of substantial vegetation removal to determine the control measures needed
to avoid erosion. Impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.
Impacts associated with the VMP would be less than significant with implementation of
mitigation.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-52
Prescribed Fire Plan
Prescribed burns could result in a substantial increase in erosion and loss of topsoil due
to removal of surface vegetation and alteration of soils. Prescribed burns may necessitate
creation of new fire lines that could result in additional denuded areas that are more
prone to erosion. IPMP BMP 28 requires the installation of erosion control measures in
areas with loose soils to minimize impacts from erosion as a result of vegetation
removal. MM Geology-2 requires maintenance of a 50-foot buffer around perennial and
intermittent streams when a prescribed burn is proposed on a slope greater than 35
percent and upslope of the stream to minimize potential risk of erosion impacting
nearby water bodies. MM Geology-2 also requires qualified personnel to assess sites
prior to implementation of a project to determine appropriate erosion control measures,
including when clearing a former trail for access. MM Geology-3 requires prescribed
burn boundaries to be designed to avoid gullies and highly erodible soils as well as
restoration of fire lines that do not use existing infrastructure (e.g., roads, trails, or other
permanent infrastructure). Implementation of mitigation would reduce impacts to less
than significant.
Wildland Fire Pre-Plan
Use of vehicles and equipment during construction of spur roads, water storage tanks,
staging and landing areas, and other firefighting infrastructure would require ground
disturbance that could result in some increased erosion. Vehicle use would be dispersed
throughout the Program area, therefore reducing the impact on any one area.
Construction of facilities would require ground disturbance and substantial vegetation
removal that could result in erosion and loss of topsoil. IPMP BMP 28 reduces erosion
by requiring installation of erosion control measures such as application of forest duff or
mulches, straw bales, straw wattles, or other erosion control material, or seeding or
planting of appropriate native plant species to control erosion. Creation of spur roads or
other infrastructure that requires clearing of vegetation could still result in substantial
erosion depending upon the location, soil types, and soil moisture. MM Geology-2
requires avoidance of steep slopes, where feasible, assessment by a qualified individual,
and implementation of erosion control design measures and considerations to minimize
potential risk of erosion, when constructing on steep slopes and areas of landsliding.
Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Impact Geology and Soils-3 on pages 4.6-22 through 4.6-30 is revised as follows (note that no
changes to Table 4.6-5 are made):
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-53
Impact Geology and Soils-3: Instability of a geologic unit or soil that could potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse including indirectly causing indirect substantial adverse effects from
seismic-related ground failure.
Significance
Determination
Less than significant
with mitigation
Overview
As described in Section 4.6.2: Existing Environment, Midpen lands are subject to
instability. The Program would not involve water extraction that could lead to
subsidence. While liquefaction and lateral spread has the potential to occur on Midpen
lands due to the nearby faulting and presence of water saturated areas, Program
activities would not exacerbate these conditions, such as by altering soil saturation or
use of vibratory equipment. Soil collapse occurs when shrink-swell soils shrink during
the dry season as well as where saturated soils are loaded or compressed. Conditions
that could lead to soil collapse exist on Midpen lands, however Program activities would
not involve construction of large facilities that could cause soil collapse. These concerns
are not addressed further.
Landslides of various kinds including seismic-induced, deep-seated, and debris flows
are a significant geologic hazard found throughout the Program area. Due to the
underlying topography and geology, landslides are a natural part of the landscape and
are a continuous geologic process that creates unique landforms and hillside topography
important to the ecological environments found on Midpen lands. Program-related
alteration of the land may increase landslides, primarily through vegetation removal
that can weaken soil matrix strength. Severe landslides can be devastating to the
wildland environment by covering plants, knocking down or damaging trees, and
upsetting habitat equilibrium. Landslides or debris flows can also damage infrastructure
throughout or directly adjacent to Midpen lands, including roads, trails, and structures.
Significant alteration to hydrologic and groundwater conditions in some cases may
decrease slope stability and result in landslides; however, the Program is not anticipated
to create such conditions. Alteration to natural drainage courses is discussed in Section
4.8: Hydrology and Water Quality.
Many proposed VMAs are most likely underlain by, or near, preexisting landslide
debris and/or cross-debris flow path locations. The proposed vegetation management
actions that alter vegetative cover, expose soils, and/or minimize soil-root matrix
strength could pose a significant impact related to ground stability and could create
landslides. These impacts are discussed in detail in this section.
Analysis of Tools and Techniques
Manual and Mechanical Techniques, and Chemical Application
Slope steepness, soil and geologic unit type (rock and soil strength), vegetation, soil
water content, and human action affect slope stability. The interaction between
vegetation and soil as it relates to slope stability is complex and interconnected. The two
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-54
broad categories in which vegetation affects soil stability are hydraulic (e.g.,
evapotranspiration) and mechanical (e.g., root anchoring). Assessments conducted of
landslides found that relatively few landslides occurred on slopes less than 35 percent
even where anthropogenic activities such as logging or roads were present. Whereas the
likelihood of a landslide occurring increased as slope increased with the highest rates on
slopes of 46 to 50 percent or greater (McClelland, et al., 1998; Megahan, Day, & Bliss,
1978). Studies of landslides and forest management practices, including tree cutting (e.g.,
timber harvest), have found landslide rates to be significant due to loss of root strength
(McClelland, et al., 1998). Most landslides that occur after tree removal can be attributed
to reduced soil cohesion from root decay. The magnitude of decrease in soil cohesion
depends on the existing level of slope stability, dependence on root systems for stability
and density of vegetation in the area, and intensity of root system removal (e.g., removal
of weeds over a large area versus spot removal) (Rice, Smith, & Strand, 1976). Vegetation
and trees also affect rainfall partition (where and how rain falls), evapotranspiration,
and changes in soil hydraulics (Rodrigues Afonso Dias, 2019). Many treatment areas are
located along or near roads and/or trails, and the decreased slope stability could result in
a greater landslide or debris-flow risk that could affect important infrastructure and
habitats.
Trees would be removed at the base, and the stumps would be ground down to below
the surface. The root systems of removed trees would be left intact to the greatest extent
feasible, limiting the potential for soil erosion and slope destabilization for a period of
time. Loss of root strength has a direct effect on soil stability (Ziemer, 1981). The level at
which retained roots reinforce soil stability is dependent upon soil type, slope, climate,
health of the tree, and tree species. Landslide frequency often increases after tree
removal but gradually decreases as the area revegetates. The rate at which roots lose
strength after tree death has been studied in a variety of forest types. In North America,
a 50-percent reduction in root reinforcement was observed to occur 14 to 66 months (just
over 1 year to 5.5 years) after conifer tree removal, depending upon the species and
other variables (O'Loughlin and Watson 1979). Conservatively, a loss of 50 percent root
strength could be expected after a little more than a year after tree removal.
Program activities have the potential to be conducted in areas with steep slopes, historic
landsliding, or other areas susceptible to destabilization. Manual and mechanical
methods of vegetation removal often include cutting or scalping of vegetation at the
surface, thereby leaving roots intact, which would also minimize the potential for slope
failure or landslides. Pulling includes the removal of trees or other large-scale areas of
brush and weeds by the roots. Herbicide use would lead to plant mortality but would
typically be stump or spot spray. No broadcast spraying would occur, minimizing large
swaths of dead plants that could lead to soil instability. Root systems increase the
stability of slopes by acting as a cohesive force in soil and by reducing the moisture
content of soils, which tends to reduce the possibility for landslides. Substantial slope
failure could occur if intensive tree (e.g., eucalyptus) and understory removal or other
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-55
clearing activity (e.g., for creation of spur roads) were conducted on steep slopes,
historic landsliding, or low rock strength. , which This impact would be a significant
impact if such a slope failure resulted in damage to structures, roads, trails,
infrastructure, or habitat or resulted in loss, injury, or death during a seismic-induced
ground failure.
Midpen requires implementation of erosion control measures on sites with loose or
unstable soils, on steep slopes, or where a large percentage of the groundcover will be
removed (IPMP BMP 28). IPMP BMP 28 does not address all potential scenarios that
may cause erosion leading to landslides, such as the use of heavy equipment on steep
slopes. MM Geology-2 requires workers to avoid the use of heavy equipment on slopes
greater than 35 percent unless specialized equipment is used that minimizes slope
instability, and requires use of surface mounds, depressions, logs, rocks, trees and
stumps, slash and brush, the litter layer, and native herbaceous vegetation downslope of
denuded areas to reduce sedimentation and erosion, as is necessary to prevent erosion
or slope destabilization. The measure also requires consideration of slope stability prior
to conducting work that could result in denuded surfaces or long-term loss of roots that
bind soil on slopes. Work in areas with high slope failure potential would be limited if a
slope failure results in damage to roads, trails, structures, or habitat or increased risk of
seismic-related landslides that could cause loss, injury, or death. Slope stabilization
provisions would be implemented to minimize the likelihood of landslides during or
after the work is completed. Implementation of IPMP BMP 28 as well as MM Geology-2,
where applicable, would minimize the likelihood of landslides during or after Program
activities are completed, reducing impacts to less than significant.
Prescribed Herbivory
Prescribed herbivory can result in the creation of livestock trails that could create bare
areas of earth. Grazing animals also tend to wallow and trample, which all loosen
topsoil. Overgrazing an area has the potential to cause bare soil. The impact on soil
stability from prescribed herbivory would be potentially significant. MM Geology-1
requires implementation of design features to minimize creation of livestock trails, that
the number of livestock in an area are controlled to prevent overgrazing, and that bare
soils are remediated after work is completed. The impact would be less than significant
with mitigation.
Prescribed Burning
Prescribed burning would result in the removal of vegetation on the surface. Soil
instability could result through the loss of root strength as roots die and other effects
from loss of vegetation from burns on steep slopes (i.e., greater than 35 percent) or
historic landsliding. Temporary effects of hydrophobic soils could actually reduce the
potential for landslides as it would prevent water from infiltrating the soil. In the interim
between the time of a prescribed burn and new vegetative growth, a burned area on a
slope or other area of possible instability may be subject to increased landslide potential.
Impacts would be potentially significant were landslides to affect infrastructure or
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-56
habitat; however, IPMP BMP 28 requires erosion control measures to stabilize the soils
and reduce impacts, but impacts may remain significant to less-than-significant levels. If
prescribed burns are conducted near a water body, increased erosion could cause a
landslide that may contaminate a water body and cause a potentially significant impact.
MM Geology-2 requires qualified personnel to assess sites prior to implementation of a
project or activity under the Program to determine appropriate erosion control
measures, including when clearing a former trail for access. a 50-foot buffer around
perennial and intermittent streams when a prescribed burn is proposed on a slope
greater than 35 percent and upslope of the stream to minimize risk of landslides
impacting water quality. Fire lines, if created exclusively for the purpose of the
prescribed burn, would result in denuded areas that are more prone to landslides as a
result of vegetation removal. MM Geology-3 requires use of existing facilities (e.g.,
roads, trails, and wet lines) for fire lines where they occur or else implementing other
erosion control measures, as defined in MM Geology-3, to restore fire lines that do not
use existing facilities. Minimizing erosion would minimize slope stability issues. Impacts
from prescribed burns would be less than significant with mitigation.
Access and Vehicle Travel
Access and vehicle travel would not have significant impacts on slope stability –
primarily because the roads and access routes are already established. On-road travel
from implementation of the Program would not result in significant increase in slope
instability or landslides from use of the roads. Skid roads may be mowed to access areas
beyond existing roads, such as to access forest treatment areas. These former logging
skid roads would not be graded to bare soil; vegetation would be cut and downed trees
removed, minimizing the potential for slope failures or landslides from these roads.
Substantial vegetation clearance may be needed to use former trails, which has the
potential to result in destabilization particularly in areas of steep slopes or areas with
evidence of former landsliding. MM Geology-2 requires qualified personnel to assess
areas of substantial vegetation removal to determine the control measures needed to
avoid erosion. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Analysis of Plans
Vegetation Management Plan
VMAs would be created and maintained by cutting and mowing vegetation and by
removing small trees, brush, and ladder fuels. The creation of new VMAs and
maintenance of existing fuel reduction areas, ingress/egress routes, fuelbreaks, and
disclines would result in plant root disturbance and exposed soils. New VMAs could be
created in areas with steep or very steep slopes potentially increasing soil instability and
landslide risk. Figure 4.6-4 identifies areas of the OSPs where slopes are greater than 35
percent and 50 percent, corresponding to areas of progressively greater risk. The
following table summarizes where different types of potential VMAs could be
implemented in areas of steep slopes within each OSP that pose the greatest risks of
landslide and debris flow. While Table 4.6-5 indicates that new VMAs may be created in
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-57
areas within steep slopes, in any one year only a comparatively small subset of new
VMAs would be created of the total potential area for VMAs. For example, up to 20
acres of eucalyptus and acacia removal would occur in any one year (refer to Table 3.6-1
of Chapter 2: Project Description) even though a total of 44 acres of Miramontes Ridge
OSP of eucalyptus and acacia groves are located on steep slopes.
Impacts would include those identified for manual and mechanical methods, such as
mowing and pile burning, and from access and vehicle travel. IPMP BMP 28 requires
installation of erosion-control measures on unstable soils or steep slopes. Additional
measures may also be needed to reduce effects. MM Geology-2 would further reduce
potential impacts to less than significant by restricting the types of activities that could
occur and requiring implementation of erosion controls depending on the steepness of
the slopes. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Prescribed Fire Plan
Prescribed burns would remove vegetation and disrupt soils, which could lead to
increased landslide risk. The installation of fire lines would create areas susceptible to
increased landslides by removing vegetation and leaving soils exposed. The potential
risk of landslides would be reduced with implementation of Midpen’s erosion control
measures (IPMP BMP 28). As previously described, MM Geology-2 requires qualified
personnel to assess sites prior to implementation of a project to determine appropriate
erosion control measures, including when clearing a former trail for access. a 50-foot
buffer around perennial and intermittent streams when a prescribed burn is proposed
on a slope greater than 35 percent and upslope of the stream to minimize potential risk
of a landslide impacting water quality. MM Geology-3 requires the use of existing
barriers such as roads, trails, or wet lines as fire lines and the restoration of fire lines
upon completion of the prescribed burn if they would not be used again. Prescribed
burn boundaries would be designed to avoid gullies and highly erodible soils to the
fullest extent possible. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Wildland Fire Pre-Plan
Implementation of a Wildland Fire Pre-Plan could require the use of vehicles, access
roads, and manual or mechanical equipment, which could increase the risk of landslides
by reducing vegetation, as discussed above. A study of landslides associated with forest
management, roads, or natural occurrences, found that most landslides (58 percent)
were associated with roads compared to much lower occurrences associated only with
forest practices (29 percent related to logging) and even lower landslides associated with
natural slopes (12 percent) (McClelland, et al., 1998). Installation of spur roads could
contribute to an increase in landslide risk if installed in areas of steep slopes,
landsliding, or weak geologic units. While staging areas and landing zones could
contribute to an increased landslide risk, these types of infrastructure would not
typically be installed on steep slopes due to logistics but may still result in
destabilization, depending upon other factors. These potentially significant impacts
would be mitigated with implementation of IPMP 28 and MM Geology-2, where
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-58
necessary, by requiring installation of installing erosion control measures to reduce the
potential for landslides, assessment by a qualified individual, and identification of
identifies measures to be implemented when installing roads or other cleared areas on
steep slopes. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
MM Geology-2 is revised as follows:
MM Geology-2: Erosion Control and Slope Stability Measures
In addition to Midpen’s erosion-control measures (IPMP BMP 28), control measures shall be implemented to
ensure vegetation management does not result in erosion, loss of topsoil, or slope instability in areas where work
could expose bare soils or create loss of root-soil matrix strength. General erosion-control measures are
identified that apply to all projects.
If Generally, if groundcover or native mulch/organic matter is determined to be less than 70 percent following
work or if work is proposed to occur on steep slopes (over 35 percent slope), then specific control measures, as
identified here, shall be implemented as determined appropriate by the qualified personnel. Other site conditions,
such as unconsolidated soils or evidence of landslides, or the scale of project proposed may trigger the need for
the qualified personnel to determine that the control measures shall apply.
Prior to conducting work in any given area under any management action that could result in erosion or slope
instability (e.g., prescribed burns, tree removal, weed removal, or forest treatments that could reduce the
groundcover and expose soil, or for infrastructure creation such as new roads, pipelines, or water storage tanks)
a review of site conditions shall be conducted the area shall be inspected for existing signs of erosion or slope
instability (e.g., rills, slumped soil). The review of site conditions may include but is not limited to a desktop review
of slope, LiDAR, historic evidence of landslides (e.g., Wentworth et al. 1997), local hazard mapping and safety
plans, proximity to infrastructure, and modeling of landslide susceptibility GIS data (e.g., Wills et al. 2011) as well
as a site visit for existing signs of erosion or slope instability (e.g., rills, slumped soil). Depending on the slope and
the downslope resources that could be impacted by slope failure (e.g., roads that could be impacted if a slope
failed, waterbodies, or habitat that could be impacted from erosion, important habitat, etc.), erosion-control and
slope-stabilization measures shall be determined prior to implementation of work, based on the list below.
Generally, if an action would expose soils (leaving groundcover or native mulch/organic matter less than 70
percent), then measures to protect soils, minimize erosion, and prevent slope instability shall be implemented. In
addition, management actions may be adjusted to achieve similar results.
The measures to be implemented shall depend on the site’s specific characteristics and the type and extent of
vegetation management work to be performed. The inspection and determination of appropriate measures shall
be made by qualified personnel with knowledge and experience (a person with a qualified SWPPP developer
[QSD] or a qualified SWPPP practitioner [QSP]; licensed geologist [P.G. or C.E.G.]; licensed engineer; Registered
Professional Forester [RPF]; etc.) in the application of erosion-control and slope-stabilization control measures
through training or field experience with control- measure installation. The qualified personnel shall memorialize
in writing their field observations and corresponding recommendations regarding installation of control measures.
A licensed geologist or RPF shall conduct the site inspection for projects that would involve substantial grading or
vegetation removala on active slide areas, unstable areas, or unstable soils (as defined in the California Forest
Practice Rules) if the following applies:
• in previously undisturbed soils; or
• up to 0.5-mile above or 0.25-mile below infrastructure, including potentially occupied structures.
A licensed geologist or RPF shall conduct site inspections for new road additions that are greater than 600 feet,
regardless of the proximity to active slide areas, unstable areas, or unstable soils. The licensed geologist shall
identify specific control measures that must be implemented, which may include but are not limited to the control
measures identified in this mitigation measure. In areas that were previously analyzed by an RPF or qualified
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-59
MM Geology-2: Erosion Control and Slope Stability Measures
geologist, the District shall review the prior recommendations for consistency with the proposed activity and
determine if a new review is warranted.
General Control Measures
The following measures shall be considered for implementation and required as determined appropriate by the
qualified personnel during work as applicable:
• Minimize areas to be disturbed to the greatest extent feasible.
• Shut down use of heavy equipment, skidding, and truck traffic when soils become saturated and unable to
support the machines.
• No substantial ground disturbing work (e.g., use of heavy equipment, pulling large vegetation) shall occur during
rain events and 48 hours after a rain event, defined as 0.5 inch of rain within a 48-hour or greater period, using
the NOAA website as the official record for rain events.
Reduced Groundcover Control Measures
The following measures shall be considered for implementation and required as determined appropriate by the
qualified personnel during work if the activity may leave less than 70 percent of groundcover or native
mulch/organic material and as determined to be applicable by qualified personnel:
• Sow native grasses and other herbs on denuded areas where natural colonization or other replanting will not
occur rapidly; use slash or chips to prevent erosion on such areas.
• Use surface mounds, depressions, logs, rocks, trees and stumps, slash and brush, the litter layer, and native
herbaceous vegetation downslope of denuded areas to reduce sedimentation and erosion, as necessary to
prevent erosion or slope destabilization.
• Install approved, biodegradable erosion-control measures and non-filament-based geotextiles (e.g., coir, jute)
when:
- Conducting substantial ground-disturbing work (e.g., use of heavy equipment, pulling large vegetation) within
100 feet and upslope of currently flowing or wet wetlands, streams, lakes, and riparian areas;
- Causing soil disturbance on moderate to steep (10 percent slope and greater) slopes; and
- Following the removal of Removing invasive plants from stream banks to prevent sediment movement into
watercourses and to protect bank stability.
• Sediment- control devices, if installed, shall be certified weed-free, as appropriate. Sediment- control devices
shall be inspected daily during active construction to ensure that they are in good repaired and working as
needed to prevent sediment transport into the waterbodies (and repaired as needed).
Once work is completed, the areas shall be inspected at least annually if as needed and as accessible, but at least
annually until groundcover exceeds 70 percent and slopes have stabilized it is clear that significant erosion and
slope instability are not occurring. At that time, erosion- control and slope- stability devices may be removed at
the discretion of District staff.
Steep Slopes Control Measures
The following measures, in addition to the ones described above, shall be considered for implementation and
required as determined appropriate by the qualified personnel during work conducted on steep slopes (greater
than 35 percent) and as determined to be applicable by qualified personnel:
• Avoid use of heavy equipment on slopes greater than 35 percent unless qualified personnel determine that the
specialized equipment is used that does not impact slope stability.
• Prescribed and pile burns shall be performed outside of perennial and intermittent streams and of riparian
forest/ woodland. A 50-foot buffer around perennial and intermittent streams shall be maintained when the burn
is proposed upslope of the stream on slopes greater than 35 percent.
• Avoid installation of cleared areas, including spur roads or staging areas, on steep slopes, particularly over 50
percent slope, where feasible. Where not feasible, a licensed geologist/engineer or RPF shall be consulted, as
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-60
MM Geology-2: Erosion Control and Slope Stability Measures
required above. The licensed geologist/engineer shall identify and require implantation of implement
appropriate design and control measures including but not limited to those identified in Low-Volume Roads
Engineering (Keller & Sherar, 2003); Handbook for Forest, Ranch, and Rural Roads (Weaver, 2015); latest
California Forest Practice Rules; or other suitable engineering guidance, such as:
- Locate roads on well-drained soils and slopes where drainage moves away from the road
- Provide adequate surface drainage
- Avoid wet and unstable areas (seeps, springs, etc.)
- Use the natural topography to control or dictate the ideal location of road or cleared area (e.g., staging area);
use saddles, follow ridges, use bench areas, etc.
Recommendations provided in the assessment shall be implemented as needed to ensure that slope instability
does not occur. When a desktop review or site visit reveals that In areas of steep slopes (greater than 35 percent),
active slides, unstable areas, or unstable soils (as defined in the California Forest Practice Rules) that are located
above infrastructure, or sensitive habitat, or structures potentially occupied by people, a licensed
geologist/engineer shall perform an assessment to evaluate whether the proposed if intensive tree removal (e.g.,
removal of eucalyptus grove/cluster rather than isolated trees), removal is proposed to evaluate whether could
cause erosion, and/or further slope instability or a public safety concern could occur from tree removal.
Recommendations provided in the assessment shall be implemented as needed to ensure that slope instability
does not occur. R Other recommendations could include measures such as stabilizing slopes with mats or natural
materials after tree removal and replanting to bind soils.
Note:
a Substantial grading is defined as cuts above 3 feet and fill above 1.5 feet with lengths greater than 20 feet or
removal of greater than 20 linear feet of shrubs and trees on an abandoned/little-used road on cross slopes
greater than 55 percent. Substantial vegetation removal is defined as removal of all vegetative cover (both
aboveground and belowground root structure for shrubs; aboveground for trees) for an area with a cross
slope greater than 55 percent and in excess of 20 linear feet in any direction.
Applicable Location(s): Any areas where qualified personnel determine erosion and slope stability is a concern
(e.g., the ground is disturbed and soils are exposed through vegetation management activities, with measures
specific to areas on steep slopes).
Performance Standards and Timing:
• Before Activity: Inspect areas prior to treatment to assess the potential for erosion and soil instability.
• During Activity: Implement protection measures as needed to avoid or minimize erosion and slope instability.
• After Activity: Conduct inspections as needed, depending on the size and nature of the work and the site, to
ensure that erosion is not occurring and to remove any erosion control devices once they are no longer needed.
MM Geology-4 is revised as follows:
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-61
MM Geology-4: Soil Assessment for Construction of New Water-Supply Pipelines
The following soil-assessment measures shall be implemented to ensure significant risks to life or property do not
occur as a result of water-supply pipeline construction in an expansive soil in Ravenswood OSP or Stevens Creek
Shoreline Nature Area:
1. Consult appropriate GIS data (e.g., USDA, 1991; USDA, 2015) to determine if expansive soils may be
present within the proposed construction site.
2. Conduct a field assessment using a proven scientific test or method, such as a soil expansion index test,
to verify presence of expansive soils on the site.
3. If verified to be present, determine if the expansive soils can be avoided through design specifications. If
appropriate design measures cannot be utilized to avoid expansive soils, no excavated soil shall be used
for fill during construction; instead, clean fill soils with a low expansion potential shall be used.
Applicable Location(s): Locations of new water-supply pipeline construction in Ravenswood OSP or Stevens
Creek Shoreline Nature Area.
Performance Standards and Timing:
• Before Activity: (1) Obtain permits if appropriate and (2) prepare plans and design specifications according to
results of soil assessment.
• During Activity: Monitor construction and ensure proper construction practices are implemented.
• After Activity: Verify appropriate soils were used during construction.
Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Page 4.7-11 is revised as follows:
Carbon Sequestration Analysis
Impacts on carbon sequestration are discussed qualitatively. Proposed activities, namely
the fuel reduction activities (e.g., fuelbreak creation and maintenance) could all result in
the short- term removal of some amount of carbon stock and changes to carbon
sequestration across Midpen lands. Given the adaptive nature of the plan as an adaptive
plan Program and the nature inclusion of several activities where the exact area of
treatment is not currently unknown, the quantification of carbon stock changes lost
cannot be reliably calculated to a degree of accuracy that would improve understanding
of Program impacts. Such a calculations would depend on the health, size, and type of
vegetation removed at the time of removal, which is difficult if not speculative to
calculate quantify at large scales the present time. Calculations of Calculating the
benefits of increased carbon sequestration rates over time are is also made difficult due
to the speculation involved in modeling challenging because of model uncertainties
when predicting the future regrowth of carbon stock in a healthy forest after treatments
or the speculation involved in modeling and the net change offset of carbon stock lost
compared with the benefits gained by reduced after reducing fire risks for such
management actions. A qualitative discussion of the benefits of the Program is provided
as well as an analysis of the Program’s consistency with the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan
and the Forest Carbon Plan.
Impact GHG-1 on pages 4.7-11 and 4.6-12 is revised as follows:
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-62
Vegetation-management activities would consist of manual and mechanical vegetation
removal, prescribed burning, prescribed herbivory, and revegetation and restoration
activities. Use of vehicles and equipment during these activities and to reach project sites
would also generate GHG emissions. Pile burning and, more substantially, prescribed
burning would generate significant quantities of GHG emissions. Hand tools would not
result in the emission of GHGs. The use of livestock specifically for fuel management
purposes (prescribed herbivory 1) would generate methane emissions, but these
emissions were not calculated because of due to the limited application and, therefore,
small contribution overall of this vegetation-management method, these emissions were
not calculated and are assumed to be minimal.
The majority of the GHG emissions are caused by the proposed prescribed burning
activities, similar to criteria air pollutants analyzed in Section 4.3: Air Quality.
Quantified GHG emissions associated with Program implementation would be
generated from three primary sources: emissions from mechanical equipment and
vehicles, emissions from pile burning, and emissions from prescribed burning, as shown
in Table 4.7-8. The majority of the GHG emissions are caused by the proposed
prescribed burning activities, similar to criteria air pollutants analyzed in Section 4.3: Air
Quality. In addition to these direct sources of GHG emissions, Program activities could
indirectly change the total amount of carbon stored and released on Midpen lands.
Reduced carbon uptake from vegetation removal and the slow release of carbon and
carbon equivalents (e.g., methane) from decomposition of removed vegetation (e.g.,
chipped vegetation) would decrease carbon storage. Carbon intake by mature vegetation
would increase carbon storage. These processes are not quantified but would fluctuate
throughout Program implementation. Due to the current higher fuel loads than pre-fire
suppression, it is anticipated that a net release of carbon from treated vegetation
communities would occur, resulting in even greater total emissions attributable to the
Program, at least in the near-term as the ecosystem fuel loads are restored closer to pre-
fire suppression conditions and wildland fire risk is minimized.
Recommendations to minimize wildland fires and associated GHG emissions include
pre-treatment by reduction of fuels and vegetation before using a prescribed fire, smoke
management, and harvesting small woody biomass for energy (Thompson, 2008). A
Smoke Management Plan must be prepared and implemented for prescribed burns in
SFBAAB per BAAQMD’s Regulation 5, and prescribed burns in MBARD (should a
prescribed burn occur in the less than 3 percent of Program area within the MBARD)
must adhere to smoke management requirements in accordance with Rule 438, which
would minimize some GHG emissions due to adhering to seasonal and daily timing
1 The WFRP is a separate program from conservation grazing. Conservation grazing, while it results in
fuel reduction, is not a part of this program.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-63
restrictions. The details of the PFP have not yet been established and are only presented
programmatically at this time. MM Air Quality-2 requires Midpen to consider and
implement measures to minimize emissions associated with a prescribed burn, as
feasible, including pre-treating the proposed burn area and burning when fuels have a
higher moisture content. Mitigation would minimize some GHG emissions, but GHG
emissions would remain many magnitudes greater than existing conditions due to
prescribed burning, and could significantly impact the environment.
Section 4.8: Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildland Fire
Impact Hazards-5 on page 4.8-36 is revised as follows:
Pile Burning
Pile burning is conducted as part of current vegetation management practices. Piles of
vegetation would be created following manual and mechanical vegetation removal and
allowed to dry prior to burning later. The stockpiling of dry, vegetative material has the
potential to increase fire risks prior to burning because it is a concentrated source of
flammable fuels. This risk is an existing risk associated with current practices; however,
the number and location of stockpiles would increase with implementation of the
Program. Ignition would be most likely to occur where piles are located near human use
or influence, such as close to trails or roads. When burning the piles, current safety
practices, such as having a fire-suppression crew on site during pile burns, would
continue to be implemented as part of the Program. The intensity and location of piles to
be burned could increase with implementation of the Program. If a pile or burn event
were to ignite a wildland fire of any size or with potential for spread, the impact would
be considered significant. A Smoke Management Plan would be prepared and
implemented in accordance with BAAQMD’s Regulation 5 and Title 17 of the CCR for
any prescribed burn (including pile burns). The Smoke Management Plan would require
identification of contingency actions to reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to smoke
and specifications for monitoring and verifying meteorological conditions and smoke
behavior. Pile burning on Midpen lands within the State Responsibility Area would
comply with CAL FIRE regulations, including acquiring a permit and only burning on
permissive burn days. For Midpen lands within Santa Cruz County, prescribed burning
would comply with the Santa Cruz County Fire Code that declares the open burn season
for the county. The Program would coordinate with the Santa Cruz County Fire Chief to
determine when pile burning would be allowed. Midpen would adhere to the
restrictions and requirements of Rule 438 when conducting pile burning on lands within
MBARD. Pile burning events would be registered with MBARD annually or seasonally
and include a completed Smoke Management Plan and Smoke Management Permit
Application Form consistent with the requirements of CCR, Title 17. Compliance with
regulations would minimize the effect, but impacts could remain significant.
Impact Hazards-5 on pages 4.8-37 and 4.8-38 is revised as follows:
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-64
Prescribed Burning
Prescribed burns would typically occur over the course of one half-day, with another
one-half to two days for mop up and monitoring, which is undertaken to ensure that
prescribed burns have been put out completely. The locations of prescribed burns would
be selected considering the ability to manage the burn, but prescribed burns would still
have the potential to become uncontrolled. Uncontrolled fires could place firefighters
and residents, or other sensitive receptors outside of Midpen lands, at risk of injury or
death. Structures within and adjacent to Midpen lands could be placed at risk as well.
The impact from an escaped prescribed burn would be significant.
A Smoke Management Plan would be prepared and implemented in accordance with
BAAQMD’s Regulation 5 and Title 17 of the CCR for any prescribed burn. A Burn Plan
would also be prepared for each prescribed burn. The plan would include the following:
parameters for a fire-risk assessment based on several conditions of the area proposed
for burn, including the topography, the vegetation, the weather, and the wind speed;
contingency plans; and public notification. Burns are planned for and conducted under
optimal weather conditions, including low wind, high moisture, and cool temperatures,
which among other reasons, allows firefighters to ensure containment. The Burn Plan
would also include provisions specifying when burns could occur, as allowed by
BAAQMD or MBARD and CAL FIRE, and the permits and notifications required. The
Burn Plans prepared by Midpen would coordinate with CAL FIRE’s 2018 Strategic Fire
Plan to ensure the protection of lives, property, and natural resources from wildland fire
as well as improve environmental resilience to wildland. Similar to pile burning, all
prescribed burns on lands in the State Responsibility Area must comply with CAL FIRE
regulations. Prescribed burning on the lands under the jurisdiction of Santa Cruz
County would be required to comply with the Santa Cruz County Fire Code. Midpen
would coordinate the timing of all prescribed burns with the Santa Cruz County Fire
Chief to ensure the burns fall within the designated open-burn season for the county.
Prescribed burns on lands under the jurisdiction of the Monterey Bay Air Resources
District would adhere to the restrictions and requirements of Rule 438, as described
above. Midpen Resource Management Policies require Midpen to work closely with
CAL FIRE and other fire departments to implement prescribed burns, support the
suppression of wildland fires, and prohibit activities that could spark fires during
extreme fire hazard (RM Policies WF-1, WF-2). Adherence to the Burn Plan, Smoke
Management Plan, and Midpen requirements would limit potential for escape of a
prescribed fire, but may not be adequate to prevent harm to recreationalists or the public
on trails and roads adjacent to prescribed burn areas.
MM Hazards-2 is revised as follows:
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-65
MM Hazards-2: Fire Risk Reduction for Stockpiling and Pile Burning
The following measures shall be implemented to reduce hazards associated with pile burning:
• Pile burning shall only be allowed on days when fire is less likely to spread (e.g., wind speeds are less than 15
mph).
• Piles shall not be constructed in areas where burning cannot be safely controlled, such as bottoms of steep,
vegetated hills.
• Piles shall be set back from roads and trails at a distance specified by Midpen to minimize risk to
recreationalists and other users.
• All requirements of CAL FIRE or the BAAQMD or MBARD shall be met, including any permit, notification, burn
bans, and reporting requirements.
• Public notification shall be provided at least 24 hours in advance of a less than 10 pile burns (defined as 10-foot-
wide by six-foot-high) to immediately adjacent residents (within 1,000 feet) individuals within one mile, and at
trailheads and access roads leading to the area with piles proposed for burning. For 10 or more piles (defined
as 10-foot-wide by six-foot-high), noticing shall extend to residents within 1 mile. The public notification shall
include current contact numbers to the appropriate burn coordinator.
Applicable Location(s): Wherever stockpiles of slash are made and piles burned.
Performance Standards and Timing:
• Before Activity: Notify public and obtain all permits and make all necessary notifications as required by
BAAQMD and MBARD.
• During Activity: (1) Ensure that piles are located appropriately and (2) ensure proper weather conditions
during pile burning.
• After Activity: N/A
Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact Hydrology-1 on page 4.9-20 is revised as follows:
Access and Vehicle Travel
Vehicle and equipment access would primarily occur on existing roads and trails, most
of which are unpaved or gravel. Vehicles and equipment can access most types of VMAs
entirely on existing roads and trails with existing waterway crossings (i.e., bridges or
culverts). Increased use of existing road and trail crossings may result in increased
degradation of these facilities that could lead to erosion and subsequent sedimentation.
On very rare occasions, particularly for the creation or maintenance of FRAs that are
more expansive in size and generally interior in the preserves, vehicles may need to
access project sites across streams or other waterways. Vehicle access could cause rutting
or deposition of soil from banks into the bed of streams, even if the stream is crossed
while dry. Crossing a waterbody has the potential to disrupt the bed and/or, bank, and
riparian corridor and can diminish water quality by introducing suspended particulate
and contaminants carried by sediments. contribute to sedimentation that could affect
water quality. As previously described, sediments transport contaminants, which
impacts water quality. Vehicle access could cause rutting or deposition of soil from
banks into the bed of streams even if the stream is crossed while dry. Additional water-
quality impacts from vehicle access could occur if a spill of fuels or lubricants were to
occur in or near waterbodies or waterways. Vehicle travel to and from work areas
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-66
within Midpen lands could result in a minimal risk of accidental spills of fuels or
lubricants from these vehicles, which could additionally impact water quality. Impacts
would be potentially significant. Leaks and spills would be addressed by implementing
Midpen’s spill-prevention BMPs (MO Manual Sections 14.005 and 13.010; Safety Manual
Sections 1.6.5 and 1.6.6). MM Hydrology-1 includes measures that pertain to stream or
other waterway crossings, on the very rare occasion, should they be needed.
Implementation of MM Hydrology-1 requires that instream crossings, in the rare event
they are needed for FRA work, are only allowed during periods of no flow and no
saturation and if the stream can be crossed without alteration to the bed or bank (such as
through the use of temporary mats). If the waterway cannot be crossed when dry and
without alteration to the bed or bank, either plates or similar structures would be used
to span from bank to bank, or the instream crossing would only be performed after and
in accordance with the appropriate 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW
and Section 404 and 401 CWA permits. Upgrades to existing crossing facilities that
degrade due to increased use must comply with appropriate permits as well. If a stream
could be impacted through soil deposition, rutting, or loss of vegetation, MM
Hydrology-1 requires that streambed and banks be restored immediately after work is
completed and access is no longer needed and that exposed banks or disturbed
vegetation is replanted with native riparian vegetation, as appropriate. The impacts
from siltation and sedimentation would be less than significant after implementation of
mitigation.
Impact Hydrology-5 on page 4.9-25 is revised as follows:
For most activities, waterbodies can be avoided by using existing roads and trails with
the appropriate waterbody crossings. Increased use of existing crossings may result in
faster degradation of the facilities that could lead to erosion and subsequent
sedimentation. On a very rare occasion while working in more interior areas such as on
FRAs, water bodies may need to be crossed with equipment where there is not an
existing crossing. While unlikely, should vehicles need to cross a waterways, and should
existing crossings degrade faster than under existing conditions, sedimentation and
erosion could occur. MM Hydrology-1 requires that instream crossings be avoided to the
greatest extent feasible. On the rare occasion where instream crossings cannot be
avoided, MM Hydrology-1 requires that instream crossings occur when the stream is
dry, with no alteration to the streambed and bank, unless a Section 1602 and potentially
a Section 404 permit is obtained, with restoration of the area after work is completed to
compensate for impacts. Upgrades to existing crossing facilities that degrade due to
increased use must comply with appropriate permits as well. Impacts due to instream
crossings would be less than significant with implementation of MM Hydrology-1.
MM Hydrology-1 is revised as follows:
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-67
MM Hydrology-1: Water Quality Protection During Waterway Crossing or Work Near Waterbodies
Vehicles and heavy equipment shall avoid new instream crossings. On rare occasions, such as to perform work to
create or maintain FRAs, equipment may need to access off an existing road into a treatment area through a
waterbody. If instream (waterway) crossings must occur because no other options for access are reasonably
available, the crossing shall be performed when the stream is dry and soils are not saturated. The crossing shall
be performed in a way that does not result in any permanent alteration of the stream bank or bed (e.g., choosing
areas with stable soils and the least slope or with vegetation to protect the bed and bank). If water is flowing or
the stream has flow or saturation, temporary plates or the equivalent shall be installed from bank to bank for
equipment access across the waterway. Increased use of existing stream crossings may require upgrades and/or
re-engineering of the existing road or water crossing structure. If a new an instream crossing or refurbishment of
an existing crossing that could impact the bank or bed or riparian vegetation is needed, the crossing shall only be
performed after and in accordance with the appropriate 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW and
Section 404 and 401 Clean Water Act permits. All soils shall be restored after the instream crossing and banks
revegetated, as needed, after the work is completed, in accordance with permits.
Applicable Location(s): Anywhere vehicles and heavy equipment must cross streams or creeks (waterways).
Performance Standards and Timing:
• Before Activity: (1) Obtain permits and (2) install plates or record vegetative conditions, as appropriate.
• During Activity: Minimize soil or vegetation disturbance, as appropriate.
• After Activity: Restore crossing area.
Section 4.10: Noise
MM Noise-1 is revised as follows:
MM Noise-1: Noise Restrictions
Construction Noise Standards
Midpen shall determine the jurisdiction(s) within which an activity is proposed and identify the applicable noise
standards. For activities in unincorporated areas, the specific buffers identified in this measure shall apply. For
activities in incorporated areas, Midpen shall determine if the standards have a numeric limit and calculate
adequate buffers between noise-generating activities and specified land uses (e.g., residential) as appropriate.
Construction Hours
All construction hours identified in the local noise ordinances shall be followed.
Buffer Zones (Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties)
Buffer zones shall be established to reduce noise at sensitive receptors to the maximum extent feasible to reduce
noise to the conditional limits identified by Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties’ noise ordinances.
The buffer zone distances are shown below that identify the distances needed for noise levels to remain below 75
dBA L eq for work occurring less than 10 days, and below 60 dBA L eq for work occurring for 10 days or longer in
Santa Clara County and below 75 dBA Leq for Santa Cruz County. These distances do not need to be implemented
where it is not technically feasible to implement them per the applicable noise ordinances that requires that noise
must only be reduced where it is possible to do so (i.e., Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance, or considering the
necessity of the work in Santa Cruz County).
A violation of the noise ordinances would only occur where the noise exceeded the conditional limits set by the
jurisdiction, but there is a feasible way to reduce that noise (e.g., placing a chipper within 50 feet of a receptor
when it could feasibly be placed 100 feet away is a violation, but using a chainsaw to cut a large hazard tree
within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor would not be a violation assuming no other feasible methods to remove that
tree are available).
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-68
MM Noise-1: Noise Restrictions
Equipment Approximate Buffer Between Equipment
and Sensitive Receptors (feet) – for Work
Occurring in One Location for Less Than
10 Days (Not to Exceed 75 dBA L eq ) in
Santa Clara County or for any work
duration in Santa Cruz County
Approximate Buffer Between Equipment
and Sensitive Receptors (feet) – for Work
Occurring in One Location for 10 Days or
Longer (Not to Exceed 60 dBA L eq ) in
Santa Clara County
Chipper 100 568
Tractor 90 506
Generator/ water
pump
71 402
Chainsaw/
excavator
64 358
Skid steer -- 284
Backhoe/
brushcutter
-- 254
Fire engine/ crane -- 226
Leaf blower -- 201
Pickup truck -- 179
Power pole saw -- 80
Minimization Measures and Disturbance Coordinator
If these restrictions are not implementable between the receptors and a given location, Midpen shall notify the
resident or contact at the sensitive receptor within one week of conducting the activity to schedule the activity.
Activities shall be coordinated to minimize disturbance to the receptor, such as conducting the work when no one
is there. Engineering controls could also be used, if feasible, to keep noise levels below 75 dBA L eq for work
occurring in one location for less than 10 days or 60 dBA L eq for work occurring in one location for 10 days or
longer. Midpen shall designate a disturbance coordinator to address any noise complaints under these
circumstances. The noise coordinator can be the person performing the work.
Applicable Location(s): Midpen lands near sensitive receptors.
Performance Standards and Timing:
• Before Activity: Notify affected parties one week before, if applicable.
• During Activity: (1) A designated coordinator shall ensure that either setbacks or other conditions are
implemented or affected parties are properly notified (if setbacks are not feasible) and (2) a buffer shall be
maintained between receptor and equipment, if needed and appropriate.
• After Activity: N/A
3.2.4 Chapter 6: Alternatives to the Program
Page 6-15 is revised as follows:
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-69
The IPMP includes up to 136 215 acres of manual and mechanical treatments annually,
combined with other ongoing fuel management would total within approximately 505
500 acres of fuel management areas, as compared with up to 2,630 acres of fuel
treatments annually under the WFRP’s VMP.
Page 6-23 is revised as follows:
Air Quality and GHG Emissions
Air quality and GHG emissions would be similar to those described for the Program.
Criteria pollutant emissions for fuelbreak work would be reduced by an amount
commensurate with the reduction in activities associated with enhanced fire
management VMA creation and maintenance, but these impacts were already less than
significant for the Program, as shown in Section 4.3: Air Quality, Table 4.3-7 and Section
4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Table 4.7-7. Carbon stock loss would be marginally less
under this alternative as the overall potential areas of treatment within which vegetation
would be removed and thinned would be reduced. The potentially significant air quality
and GHG impacts of the Program are primarily caused by prescribed fire, which would
be performed in the same manner under this alternative. The significant unavoidable
impacts from prescribed fire would be the same as for the Program.
Page 6-46 is revised as follows:
The benefits of prescribed burning may outweigh the cost drawback of temporary but
significant and unavoidable emissions during the burn.
3.2.5 Chapter 8: References
New or revised references are as follows:
Ana Sofia Rodrigues Afonso Dias. (2019). The effect of vegetation on slope stability of
shallow pyroclastic soil covers. February 22.
C. J. Wills, F. G. Perez, C. I, Gutierrez. (2011). Susceptibility to Deep-Seated Landslides in
California.
CGS. (2002, 2005, 2019). Seismic Hazard Zone Reports for Various 7.5-Minute
Quadrangles.
CGS. (2013). Factors Affecting Landslides in Forested Terrain. January.
Cooper-Clark and Associates. (1975). Preliminary map of landslide deposits in Santa
Cruz County.
Ellen, S. D., Mark, R. K., Wieczorek, G. F., Ramsey, D. W., & May, T. E. (1997). Map
Showing Principal Debris-Flow Source Areas in the San Francisco Bay Region,
California. USGS Open-File Report 97-745-E. U.S. Geological Survey.
EXHIBIT A
3 REVISIONS TO TEXT OF DRAFT EIR
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
3-70
Marin County. (2005). Geology, Mineral Resources and Hazardous Materials Technical
Background Report. November.
Lajoie Lajole, K. R., Helley, E. J., Nichols, D. R., & Burke, D. B. (1974). Geologic Map of
Unconsolidated and Moderately Consolidated Deposits of San Mateo County,
California. United States Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-575,
scale 1:62,500.
Weaver, et al. (2015, April). Handbook for Forest, Ranch, and Rural Roads. A Guide For
Planning, Designing, Constructing, Reconstructing, Upgrading, Maintaining and
Closing Wildland Roads.
Wentworth, C.M., Graham, S.E., Pike, R.J., Beukelman, G.S., Ramsey, D.W., and Barron,
A.D., 1997, Summary distribution of slides and earth flows in the San Francisco
Bay Region, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-file Report 97-745 C, map
scales 1:275,000 and 1:125,000.
USGS. (1997). Landslides. USGS GIS dataset.
O’Loughlin, Colin and Watson, Alex (1979, October). Root-Wood Strength Deterioration
in Radiate Pine after Clearfelling. Forest Research Institute, New Zealand Forest
Service, Christchurch.
USFWS. (Revised 2020, July). Supplemental Materials 1a. for the Monarch (Danaus
plexippus plexippus) Species Status Assessment Report.
3.2.6 Appendix 4.4
Table 4 in Appendix 4.4 is revised as follows:
Species Name
Common Name
Listing Status a Habitat Requirements and
Additional Notes
Danaus plexippus pop. 1
Monarch butterfly - California overwintering
population
Fed: None Candidate
CA: SA
Along the California Coast,
overwintering roosts
typically occur in wind-
protected groves of
eucalyptus, pine, and
cypress trees within 1
kilometer 2 miles of the
coast. The winter
migratory lifespan reaches
>9 months and adults
return to northern habitats
in spring.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-1
4 Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
4.1 Introduction
When approving projects with mitigation measures that if implemented would avoid or lessen
significant impacts, CEQA requires public agencies to adopt monitoring and reporting
programs or conditions of project approval to mitigate or avoid the identified significant effects
(Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1)). A public agency adopting measures to mitigate
or avoid the significant impacts of a proposed project is required to ensure that the measures
are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other means (Public Resources
Code Section 21081.6(b)). The mitigation measures required by a public agency to reduce or
avoid significant project impacts not incorporated into the design may be made conditions of
project approval as set forth in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The
MMRP must be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project
implementation. The MMRP for the Program is detailed in Table 4.3-1.
Midpen will use the Project Environmental Review Checklist, provided in Appendix A of this
Final EIR, to evaluate if impacts of individual projects are covered in the Program EIR and to
identify best management practices and mitigation measures that are applicable to those
individual projects. Individual projects that do not conform to the scope of the Program EIR
may require additional environmental analyses under CEQA.
4.2 Format
This MMRP is organized in a table format, keyed to each significant impact and mitigation
measure. Each mitigation measure is set out in full, followed by a tabular summary of
monitoring requirements. The column headings in the tables are defined as follows:
• Mitigation Measure. This column presents the significant impact and full
mitigation measure.
• Implementation Responsibility. This column assigns the party responsible for
implementation of the measures
• Monitoring Responsibility. This column assigns the party responsible for
monitoring implementation.
• Timing and Performance Standards: This column identifies at which stage of the
project mitigation must be completed. Performance standards are identified that
must occur during the specified stage of project implementation to determine that
the objectives of the mitigation are met.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-2
4.3 Enforcement
This MMRP will be incorporated as a condition of project approval. All mitigation measures
must be carried out to fulfill the requirements of approval.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-3
Table 4.3-1 Wildland Fire Resiliency Program Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
Aesthetics
MM Aesthetics-1: Reduction of Visual Impacts from Scenic Roads, Corridors, Trails, and Viewpoints from VMAs
• Midpen shall conduct a visual reconnaissance of any planned VMAs during the annual planning process, prior to implementation of the
VMA. The reconnaissance shall only apply to VMAs, based on desktop review, that could have the potential to be visible from a
designated scenic road, corridor, trail, or viewpoint.
• If Midpen identifies that a VMA would fall within an area with lengthy views from a scenic road, corridor, trail, or viewpoint (i.e., longer
than a few minutes) of a proposed treatment area, and would degrade the view by changing the existing character or opening up a less
scenic view, Midpen will, before implementation, identify any change in location or design (such as avoid areas or reduce degree of
thinning) of the VMA to reduce impacts to scenic areas and public views.
• If no changes are available that would reduce impacts to public viewers and that could achieve the intended wildland fire risk reduction
objectives of the proposed treatment, Midpen will thin and feather adjacent vegetation to break up the linear edges of treatment areas
and strategically preserve vegetation at the edge of the treatment area to help screen public views and minimize the contrast between
the treatment area and surrounding vegetation.
Midpen and/or
Contractor
Midpen Throughout Midpen
lands.
Before Activity: Conduct desktop
review to determine visibility of
VMAs, conduct visual
reconnaissance where
appropriate to avoid scenic
viewpoints, where feasible.
Modify design and locations,
where possible.
During Activity: N/A
After Activity: N/A
MM Aesthetics-2: Guidelines for Design of Roads, Landing Zones, or Staging Areas
New roads, landing zones, and staging areas (firefighting infrastructure) shall be designed in accordance with the following guidelines, as
feasible:
• Locate new firefighting infrastructure away from ridgelines.
• Maximize natural conditions of the area surrounding infrastructure (e.g., mowed grass cover versus hardened surface).
• Minimize recontouring of hills and natural topography.
• Minimize hillside cuts that run against the contours; follow contours to the greatest extent possible.
• Avoid large rocks and mature, healthy trees.
Midpen and/or
Contractor
Midpen Throughout Midpen
lands.
Before Activity: Design
firefighting infrastructure to meet
the guidelines.
During Activity: N/A
After Activity: N/A
Air Quality
MM Air Quality-1: Fugitive Dust Control Measures for Infrastructure Installation
At a minimum, the following control measures must be implemented during construction:
• When moisture content is low enough to create dust, all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas,
and unpaved access roads) shall be watered or treated with a non-synthetic dust palliative (e.g., organic nonpetroleum products) as
often as needed to control dust emissions.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered.
• Vehicle ingress and egress locations shall be stabilized to minimize erosion and sediment transfer.
• For Program activities involving grading or excavation conducted directly off public roads, all visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent
public roads shall be removed. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited on public roads.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph, in accordance with Midpen policy (LU Regulations Section 500.1; MO
Manual 07.005).
• All roadway, driveway, and sidewalk paving shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at Midpen regarding dust complaints. Midpen
shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The applicable air district’s (e.g., BAAQMD or MBARD) phone number shall also
be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as
required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, § 2485 of CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction
workers at all access points.
Contractor Midpen Areas with grading
or blading.
Before Activity: Post a publicly
visible sign with contact
information for the public to make
dust complaints.
During Activity: (1) Water
exposed surfaces twice a day, (2)
cover filled haul trucks, (3)
adequately manage soil track-
out, (4) limit vehicle speeds, (5)
limit idling to 5 consecutive
minutes, and (6) have
construction equipment
maintained by a certified
mechanic.
After Activity: N/A
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-4
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
• Construction equipment shall be properly maintained by a certified mechanic.
MM Air Quality-2: Burn Emission Reduction Techniques
For activities within a small portion of Long Ridge OSP and a very small portion of Sierra Azul OSP that falls within the NCCAB, Midpen shall
limit pile burning to 8.8 tons (i.e., not more than nine 10-foot-wide by six-foot-high parabolic piles of shrub/hardwood vegetation or
equivalent) in any one day.
Midpen shall incorporate the following measures during planning and implementation of a prescribed burn:
• When considering a prescribed burn, weigh the habitat benefits of burning in a particular vegetation type against the emissions.
• Reduce the total area burned through mosaic burning if the objectives of the burn can still be met.
• Burn when fuels have appropriate fuel moisture content, as determined by the expert preparing the Smoke Management Plan.
• Reduce fuel loading by decreasing the density of vegetation and other fuels before ignition using mechanical treatments, manual
treatments, prescribed herbivory, and pile burning when logistically appropriate.
• Schedule burns before new vegetation growth increases fuel loads, when logistically appropriate.
• Delay planned burns when a Spare the Air Burn Ban has been declared.
• Provide public notification at least 48 hours in advance of a burn less than 50 acres to individuals and jurisdictions within one mile, and at
trailheads and access roads leading to an area with piles proposed for burning. For burns in excess of 50 acres, noticing shall extend to a
larger region as determined appropriate by Midpen. The public notification shall include current contact numbers to the appropriate burn
coordinator.
Midpen Midpen Prescribed burn
projects in the
NCCAB and
SFBAAB; Pile
burning in NCCAB.
Before Activity: (1) Choose
vegetation types with fewer
emissions when other
considerations are equal, (2)
reduce the fuel loads, (3)
schedule burn prior to new
vegetation growth, and (4)
conduct noticing.
During Activity: (1) Mosaic burn,
(2) burn when fuels have
appropriate moisture content,
and (3) limit pile burns conducted
in any one day in NCCAB.
After Activity: N/A
MM Air Quality-3: Asbestos Management
Prior to conducting any activities requiring manual soil-disturbing activities (e.g., pulling of vegetation or trenching), use of mechanical
equipment (e.g., skid steer loader or backhoe), or off-road access to a work site, consult the map created using GIS that shows where
serpentine soils and rock formations are located. If the work site or temporary access route passes through an area with serpentine soils
or rock formations, implement the asbestos-management measures (below), developed based on CARB Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control
Measures developed for construction and grading operations.
Asbestos Management Measures:
• Areas known to have asbestos shall be watered during ground-disturbing activities (e.g., pulling of medium-to-large vegetation, digging
large holes for planting) to ensure that the soil remains moist during the extent of the activity.
• Avoid or minimize the tracking of dust into vehicles.
• Do not use compressed air for cleaning your vehicles after your visit. Use a wet rag to clean the interior.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph, in accordance with Midpen policy (LU Regulations Section 500.1; MO
Manual 07.005).
• When mowing in serpentine soils, the mower head shall be set at least 6 inches above the ground to minimize asbestos dust generation.
If when mowing, dust is seen from the mower pluming more than 4 feet above the ground surface, the mower shall be adjusted to the
minimum height needed to avoid generating dust plumes.
Midpen and/or
Contractor
Midpen Areas with
serpentine soils or
rock formations
where activities
could occur.
Before Activity: Water areas with
serpentine soils or exposed rock
formations.
During Activity: (1) Water
exposed surfaces twice a day, (2)
limit vehicle speeds, and (3) raise
mower head to minimize dust.
After Activity: N/A
MM Air Quality-4: Midpen Employee Protection from Prescribed Burn Air Pollutants
Midpen shall require that prescribed burns on Midpen lands are managed to reduce Midpen employee exposure to CO concentrations and
other air pollutants through implementation of the following measures:
• Use real-time CO monitors.
• Train workers to be aware of smoke hazards associated with prescribed and pile burns.
• Rotate personnel out of heavy smoke areas and routinely monitor for smoke exposure during burn events.
• Avoid burning heavy fuel loads, such as large logs, on the ground to avoid additional mop up.
• Strategically place firefighters and fire lines where smoke exposure is less.
• N95 or N100 dust masks, or bandanna shall be available for voluntary use and must be used when recommended by the Burn Boss.
Midpen Prescribed burn
locations.
Before Activity: Purchase real
time CO monitors.
During Activity: (1) Provide real-
time CO monitors to firefighters,
(2) rotate firefighters out of heavy
smoke areas, and (3) avoid
burning of areas with heavy fuel
loads.
After Activity: N/A
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-5
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
Biological Resources
MM Biology-1: Training, Monitoring, and Reporting
Monitoring
• The biological monitor(s) or qualified biologist(s) shall have the authority to stop Program activities to avoid take or impacts to special-
status species or protected biological resources; in the event of unforeseen circumstances (e.g., unanticipated impacts are occurring);
or if Program personnel are not complying with regulatory permit conditions and the BMPs listed herein. The biological monitor or
qualified biologist shall possess the necessary agency approvals or permits required for involvement in Program activities.
- A biological monitor is an individual who has a minimum of 2 years academic and 1 year professional experience in biological
sciences and related resource management activities, is able to identify species that may be present within the work area, and is
familiar with the habits and behavior of those species.
- A qualified biologist/botanist is an individual who has a minimum of a 4-year academic degree in biological sciences or related
resource management activities, with a minimum of two survey seasons years (e.g., two seasons during the blooming season of
sensitive plants) conducting surveys for each species that may be present within the work area.
- A professional biologist/botanist is an individual who has a minimum of 5 years of academic training in biological sciences or related
studies and 3 or more years of professional experience conducting protocol-level wildlife and/or florist field surveys.
- A Midpen-approved biologist/botanist is an outside consultant who has been approved by Midpen either by a professional
biologist/botanist, Resource Advisor or other appropriate individual, to conduct biological monitoring and surveying activities. This
individual can be any one of the three categories of biologist/botanist described above.
- A Resource Advisor is an individual who provides professional knowledge and expertise for the protection of resources (e.g., biological
and cultural resources), within an emergency incident environment.
• The qualified biologist or biological monitor shall conduct on-site monitoring of Program activities that have the potential to impact
sensitive biological resources. The monitoring requirements (e.g., frequency and duration) shall depend on the specific activity(ies) being
performed and the ecological sensitivity of the site (e.g., the potential for soil erosion or occurrence of special-status wildlife). Some
activities shall warrant full-time monitoring by one or more biologists and/or biological monitors; whereas weekly site inspections may be
sufficient for other activities. At a minimum, monitoring shall be conducted frequently enough to ensure compliance with permit
conditions and BMPs. The monitor shall maintain a log that documents: (a) the monitoring dates, (b) areas and activities monitored, (c)
compliance with permit conditions and BMPs, (d) any remedial actions that were taken (or are needed).
• Post-activity monitoring shall also occur, with the scope and timing dependent on the potential for risks to biological resources. The
purpose of monitoring is to ensure that special-status plant species and sensitive communities were avoided and are not experiencing
negative indirect impacts from activities. If negative impacts are observed or are potentially occurring, restoration measures shall be
implemented, and modifications made to future activities to avoid similar impacts.
Pre-Activity General Survey and Flagging
A qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist shall survey all selected work areas shortly before work to
assess general conditions and determine environmental considerations as required by IPMP BMPs 21 and 25. Prior to Program activities,
the biologist or biological monitor shall use flagging (or other methods) to clearly delineate the work area and any areas that shall be
avoided (e.g., sensitive communities, habitat for special-status species).
Reporting
Information on new localities or sightings for special-status species shall be reported to the Sacramento USFWS Office and the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) annually. Information on any incidental capture, injury, or mortality of special-status species shall be
immediately reported within 3 working days of their discovery or in accordance with the federal and State permit conditions. The data shall
also be logged in Midpen’s electronic inventory system identified in IPMP BMP 25.
Training
• Prior to commencing a Program activity, all personnel shall attend a worker environmental awareness training program conducted or
prepared by the qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a Midpen-approved biologist as required by IPMP BMP 21.
Midpen and
Contractor
Midpen All Midpen lands. Before Activity: (1) Survey all
selected work areas and (2)
conduct worker environmental
awareness training program.
During Activity: (1) Conduct on-
site monitoring, (2) report
information on any incidental
capture, injury, or mortality of
special-status species, (3)
temporarily stop any work that
may harm special-status species,
and (4) inspect vehicles,
equipment, and fencing daily.
After Activity: Conduct post-
activity monitoring.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-6
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
• The worker environmental awareness training will include a brief review of the life history, field identification, and habitat requirements
of each special-status species that could potentially be present on-site, their known or probable habitat types and locations, potential
fines for violations, avoidance measures, and necessary actions if special-status species or sensitive natural communities are
encountered, as required by IPMP BMP 21. In addition, the training shall include information on:
- All BMPs, regulatory permit conditions, exclusion areas, and other work restrictions.
- Color coding for flagging used to demarcate work areas, staging areas, skid trails, watercourses, and exclusion zones (e.g., around
special-status plants and other sensitive biological resources).
- The identification and reproductive biology of invasive plants and animals.
- Phytopthora ramorum and other pathogen avoidance.
General Wildlife Protection Measures
• Vehicles traveling to and from the work areas off of established roads and trails, in sensitive plant or wildlife habitat, must travel slowly (5
mph) and be preceded by a monitor to ensure that wildlife shall not be run over by the passing vehicle. Vehicle monitors do not need to
be trained biologists.
• Vehicle monitors shall check for any reptiles, amphibians, or other animals under vehicles and equipment parked for more than 30
minutes.
• Some individual live, dead, or dying trees shall be retained as snags where recommended by the qualified biologist and biological monitor
and where leaving the tree would not increase fire hazards or be a safety concern.
• Qualified biologists/biological monitors are required to temporarily stop any work that they believe may harm special-status species.
Work shall not resume until a satisfactory method is agreed upon to minimize or avoid take of the species.
• Qualified biologists/biological monitors may require staging areas or stockpiled equipment/materials to be fenced with USFWS and/or
CDFW-approved exclusion fencing if there is potential for special-status species to enter the areas and become entrapped, and routine
inspection of the area is not adequate to ensure that species are not present. Fencing shall be inspected by a qualified
biologist/biological monitor and maintained daily as needed to ensure its proper function in excluding wildlife. Large-scale fencing
around entire vegetation management areas is discouraged due to the habitat disruption associated with fence installation and removal.
MM Biology-2: Special-Status Plants
Pre-Activity Special-Status Plant Survey
As required by IPMP BMP 25, a biological monitor or qualified biologist shall survey the work site to determine the potential presence of
special-status plants (as defined under Section 4.4.2 in the Program EIR) and document any observations. Surveys shall be conducted at
the time of year when plants will be both evident and identifiable and using a standard protocol relevant at the time of the survey, such as
the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW,
2018). The abundance and spatial distribution of all special-status plants and sensitive natural communities detected during the surveys
shall be recorded with a GPS unit and entered online into the CalFlora and Midpen’s GIS databases. This information shall also be
submitted to the CNDDB, per MM Biology-1. If any special-status plants are found to occur in the activity footprint, the biologist/botanist
shall evaluate the potential level of impacts the activity could have on the plant species, either an individual or population, based on its
biology and the nature of the activity (no impact, low impact, or moderate/high impact). Activities with no or low impact can proceed. If an
activity could have a moderate or high impact (e.g., anticipated mortality) Midpen shall consult with CDFW and the appropriate avoidance
or minimization measures would be implemented, depending on the species’ rank, physiology, and habitat requirements, as described
below.
Species to Avoid (Unless Population Could Benefit from Program Activity, such as Prescribed Burning)
Program activities shall avoid impacts to State or federally listed plants that are known to occur or have the potential to occur on Midpen
lands:
• Ben Lomond spineflower • San Francisco popcornflower
• Butano Ridge cypress • San Mateo thorn-mint
• California seablite • San Mateo woolly sunflower
Midpen biological
monitor or qualified
biologist and
Contractor
Midpen Any area where
Program activities
occur near special-
status plant species.
Before Activity: Survey the work
site to determine the potential
presence of special status plants
and document and report
accordingly.
During Activity: (1) Avoid impacts
to State or federally listed plants,
(2) implement botanist’s
recommendations for spatial
buffers or other management
actions, and (3) implement
general avoidance and
minimization measures.
After Activity: Attempt to salvage
any special-status plants that are
permanently impacted by a
Program activity.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-7
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
• Coyote ceanothus • Santa Clara Valley dudleya
• Crystal Springs fountain thistle • Santa Cruz cypress
• Dudley’s lousewort • Santa Cruz tarplant
• Marin western flax • Santa Cruz wallflower
• Metcalf Canyon jewelflower • Scotts Valley polygonum
• Monterey spineflower • Scotts Valley spineflower
• Pacific Grove clover • Two-fork clover
• Robust spineflower • White-rayed pentachaeta
• Rock sanicle
In addition, Program activities shall avoid impacts to the following species that (a) have very specific habitat requirements that are hard to
replicate at a mitigation site; (b) are difficult to transplant or propagate; or (c) have insufficient data on the ability to successfully transplant,
relocate, or reintroduce the taxa:
• Anderson’s manzanita • Loma Prieta hoita
• Kings Mountain manzanita • Arcuate bush-mallow
• Clustered lady’s-slipper • Most beautiful jewelflower
• Mountain lady’s-slipper
Activities that could have a moderate or high impact on these species shall not occur within an appropriate buffer (as determined by a
qualified biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist) of any individuals or populations identified. Disclines or
firefighting infrastructure shall be relocated to avoid any populations of these species.
Prescribed herbivory and prescribed burning shall be allowed in the habitats for these species if, in the professional opinion of a qualified
biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist, the activity shall provide a long-term benefit to the plant (e.g., by
eliminating non-native plants).
Minimization of Impacts for All Other Special-Status Species
Midpen shall implement the following approach for all other special-status plant species that have been detected, or that are detected in
the Program area during the pre-activity surveys conducted per MM Biology-1 (adding specificity to IPMP BMP 21, which requires
developing site-specific measures):
• A qualified biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist shall recommend spatial buffers or other
management actions. The buffer size needed to protect a special-status plant from adverse edge effects (indirect impacts) is dependent
on the specific species, threats to the species, existing disturbances, and the habitat’s permeability to those threats (CBI 2000). Midpen
shall implement the botanist’s recommendations. Impacts to a special-status plant shall only occur if it is the botanist’s professional
opinion that the impact shall provide a long-term benefit to the plant (e.g., by eliminating non-native plants or another threat to the
species). If Midpen is unable to implement the botanist’s recommendations, or if there is uncertainty regarding the effects of a Program
activity on the special-status plant population, Midpen shall assess subsequent effects on the plant population through post-activity
monitoring. If the monitoring indicates the Program activity has negatively impacted the plant population, the compensatory mitigation
terms of MM Biology-3 shall apply. If the monitoring indicates the effects were positive or neutral, no additional mitigation is required.
• If Program activities are proposed to be conducted in habitat for a special-status plant, the activities shall be conducted during the
phenological stage least sensitive to disturbance, based on guidance from the botanist.
• If Program activities are proposed to be conducted in habitat for a special-status plant, and the work must be conducted when the plant
is sensitive to disturbance (e.g., during the growing season), Midpen shall assume the plant could be permanently impacted and shall
either:
- 1a. Monitor the response of the plant post-construction. If the study indicates the Program activity has negatively impacted the plant
population, the terms of MM Biology-3 shall apply.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-8
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
- 1b. Attempt to salvage any special-status plants that are permanently impacted by a Program activity (e.g., plants within a proposed
discline). Salvaged plants (and seeds) shall be used for the compensatory mitigation required under MM Biology-3, and comply with
best management measures intended to exclude Phytophthora and other plant pathogens to the extent possible. Any supplemental
plants (or seeds) needed for a mitigation project, site rehabilitation, or other application shall be derived from locally appropriate
genetic material and nurseries that comply with best management measures intended to exclude Phytophthora and other plant
pathogens to the extent possible; or
- 2. Provide compensatory mitigation in accordance with the terms of MM Biology-3.
General Minimization and Avoidance Measures
Burn piles shall not be located within 50 feet of a special-status plant except those species that a qualified biologist/botanist or biological
monitor working under a qualified biologist determines shall benefit from burning (e.g., Kings Mountain manzanita). Propane flaming shall
not be conducted within the vicinity of special-status plants that could be accidentally damaged by the flaming activities. Vegetative debris
shall not be placed on top of special-status plants, unless the biologist/botanist determines this is acceptable.
MM Biology-3: Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Special-Status Plants
Midpen shall provide compensatory mitigation for any special-status plant population that is permanently and negatively impacted by
Program activities (i.e., could not be avoided or benefited through activities and subsequent monitoring determines an adverse effect to the
population where a decline in the population is attributable to the Program activities, per MM Biology-2). Compensatory mitigation may be
accomplished through habitat preservation, creation, restoration, or enhancement as determined appropriate by Midpen’s qualified
biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW. All compensatory mitigation projects
shall include a mitigation plan outlining the strategy, and the plan must be approved by CDFW, including identification of the success
thresholds established depending on the population and site conditions.
The compensation ratio for planting shall be no less than 3:1 (plants at mitigation site/plants at impact site). Under some circumstances a
higher ratio may be needed, which shall be determined by Midpen’s qualified biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a
qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW.
If habitat enhancement is selected, the compensation ratio shall be no less than 6:1. If possible, compensatory mitigation shall occur on
lands under Midpen’s control. Mitigation sites on Midpen land shall include provisions for protecting them from impacts caused by other
projects or programs (existing and future). Compensatory mitigation shall not be allowed on lands outside of Midpen’s control unless those
lands have a legally enforceable mechanism that ensures they shall be protected and managed in perpetuity for the benefit of the target
species (i.e., special-status plant requiring mitigation). Midpen shall hold responsibility for the success of mitigation projects conducted on
lands outside of its control, unless mitigation is accomplished through an approved program (i.e., mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program).
Midpen shall apply the monitoring methods outlined in the Monitoring Plan of the Program to monitor the success of compensatory
mitigation projects. To account for natural variability in the size of plant populations, Midpen shall also monitor a nearby reference
population. Midpen shall prepare annual monitoring reports that document the monitoring methods and results. Monitoring reports shall be
submitted to CDFW. Monitoring of compensatory planting shall be conducted for at least 5 years. If after 3 years, monitoring has
determined that the planting success standards are met, the report shall make this determination and monitoring may cease. Monitoring of
compensatory habitat enhancement shall be conducted for at least 1 year, after which time if the success standards are met, no further
monitoring is required.
A mitigation project shall be considered successful if during the monitoring period, the qualified botanist or biological monitor working
under a qualified biologist, determines the success threshold has been achieved. The success threshold may be adjusted downward
commensurate with any decline observed at the reference population. For example, if a special-status species is detected in a planned
work area, and Midpen is unable to reconfigure the treatment or treatment method to avoid impacts to the species, Midpen shall count the
number of plants in the work area and at a nearby reference population. The compensation requirement shall be based on the number of
plants impacted by the treatment, whereas the number of plants at the reference site shall serve as the baseline for evaluating natural
fluctuations in the population. For example, if 100 plants of a given special-status species are located in the work area, the compensation
requirement is 300 plants. However, if during the final 2 years of mitigation monitoring the reference population has 20 percent less plants
than the baseline value, the threshold for success at the mitigation site shall also be 20 percent less (240 plants, assuming the success
threshold was set to 300 plants).
Midpen Midpen Any area where
Program activities
permanently affect
any special-status
plant population.
Before Activity: Determine
appropriate compensation ratio.
During Activity: Select habitat
preservation, creation,
restoration, or enhancement for
compensatory mitigation project.
After Activity: Monitor the
success of compensatory
mitigation projects for no less
than 5 years.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-9
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
To facilitate the likelihood of success, Midpen shall:
• Ensure materials used for plant establishment (e.g., seed sources, container plantings) are sourced from genetically appropriate material
and comply with best management measures intended to exclude Phytophthora and other plant pathogens to the extent possible.
Container plants shall only be sourced from a nursery that complies with best management measures intended to exclude
Phytophthora and other plant pathogens to the extent possible.
• Maintain less than 10 percent cover of invasive plants at the mitigation site until the target species has successfully established.
Thereafter, Midpen shall conduct invasive plant removal on an as-needed basis.
• Implement measures (e.g., close restoration areas, install signage) to restrict public access within mitigation zones, at least until the
target species has successfully established.
• Conduct visual inspections of the mitigation site to identify any major problems (e.g., unauthorized trespass) requiring remedial actions.
The frequency of visual inspections shall be commensurate with threats to the ecological integrity of the site. The site shall be inspected
annually until the success criteria of the permitting agencies (e.g., CDFW) are met, after which the site shall be monitored in accordance
with Midpen’s Monitoring Plan for the WFRP.
MM Biology-4: Invasive Plants and Soil Pathogens
General Invasive Plant Measures
In addition to Midpen’s standard invasive species practices under the IPMP (i.e., IPMP BMPs 11 through 18), Midpen shall implement the
following invasive plant measures:
• Data on populations of invasive weed species in the work area and along access roads shall be collected and reviewed prior to
implementation of the Program activity. Data shall include the distribution, abundance, and seral stage of invasive weed species. Pre-
activity general surveys conducted according to MM Biology-1 shall be designed to detect all weeds on the CDFA noxious weed list, and
Cal-IPC species with a rank of High and Moderate.
• Invasive weed species that occur within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of proposed treatment areas shall be removed prior
to the treatment—unless the treatment has been specifically designed to control or eliminate those species. For example, yellow star
thistle removal shall not be required for a grazing treatment designed to control yellow star thistle. Midpen shall identify the appropriate
disposal location for weeds that are removed. In determining the disposal location, Midpen shall assess the potential for spread of plant
pathogens that might be present.
• Schedule activities to maximize the effectiveness of control efforts and minimize introduction and spread of invasive plants (e.g., install
and maintain fuelbreaks, disclines, and other VMAs before non-native plants set seeds).
• Implement vegetation methods favorable to native plants.
Prescribed Fire and Planning Invasive Plant Measures
• A qualified biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist shall evaluate the likely effects of a prescribed burn
on invasive species in the proposed burn area based on the species that are known to occur in the area or that are found during the pre-
activity survey (MM Biology-1). If the burn might promote spread of an invasive species, Midpen shall implement measures (e.g., manual
treatments) to proactively reduce the threat or invasive species spread following the burn.
• A qualified biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist shall assess the effects of the burn to determine
whether revegetation is needed in any areas to speed recovery of the desired plant community.
• A qualified biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist shall monitor vegetation recruitment on control
lines. If vegetation recruitment is not on a trajectory for restoration of the impacted community, Midpen shall implement remedial
measures such as planting or seeding.
• An interdisciplinary team shall determine when activities (including conservation grazing and public access) may resume in burned
areas. The team shall include natural resource staff knowledgeable about invasive plants.
General SOD and Soil Phytopthoras Measures
Midpen biological
monitor or qualified
biologist and
Contractor
Midpen All Midpen lands. Before Activity: (1) Collect data
on populations of invasive weed
species in the work area and
along access roads and, (2)
evaluate the likely effects of a
prescribed burn on invasive
species in the proposed burn
area.
During Activity: (1) Remove
invasive weed species that occur
within or immediately adjacent to
the boundaries of proposed
treatment areas, (2) clean
vehicles, equipment, and boots
prior to entering the work area,
(3) assess the effects of a
prescribed burn to determine
whether revegetation is needed
in any areas to speed recovery of
the desired plant community, (4) if
a prescribed burn might promote
spread of an invasive species,
implement measures to
proactively reduce the threat that
the plant shall spread following
the burn, and (5) implement the
BMPs recommended by the
California Oak Mortality Task
Force and the Phytophthoras in
Native Plant Habitats Work
Group.
After Activity: Monitor vegetation
recruitment on disturbance lines
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-10
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
Midpen shall implement the latest BMPs recommended by the California Oak Mortality Task Force (2020) and the Phytophthoras in Native
Plant Habitats Work Group, as determined appropriate by the qualified biologist/botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified
biologist.
for adequate restoration of the
impacted community, if
applicable.
MM Biology-5: Invasive Plant Detection and Response
Early Detection and Rapid Response
Midpen shall conduct routine monitoring of work areas (e.g., VMAs, prescribed burn areas) in accordance with the Early Detection Rapid
Response (EDRR) Protocol and the IPMP (generally every 3 to 5 years). If invasive or potentially invasive species are detected, Midpen
shall conduct rapid response dependent upon the circumstances and according to the EDRR Protocol.
Baseline Data and Reference Sites
A Midpen-approved biologist/botanist shall select a reference site for each sensitive natural community affected by the Program. The
reference site shall be on Midpen lands that are not directly or indirectly affected by Program activities. Prior to Program impacts in an
area, an initial assessment shall be conducted to select a reference site that possess characteristics similar to the impact sites. If a
suitable reference site does not exist and when feasible, Midpen shall collect 3 years of vegetation sampling data at the proposed impact
site. Quadrat sampling shall occur for up to 5 years at a reference site, if located. This pre-impact or reference site data shall serve as the
baseline for comparison with post-impact data.
Sampling shall be conducted within quadrats at both the impacted site and reference sites. Quadrat sizes vary depending upon habitat type
and shall be determined by the qualified botanist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist, but typical sizes are 0.5 to 1
square meter for short grassland, 2 square meters for shrublands, and up to 20 square meters for woodlands. The qualified botanist or
biological monitor working under a qualified biologist shall conduct power analysis to estimate the minimum number of quadrats needed to
determine a statistically significant difference between the impact site and reference sites (at a significance level of 0.05 and a power level
of 0.80). Quadrat sampling locations shall be randomly selected through use of a random number generator in GIS. Within each quadrat,
absolute cover of plants shall be visually estimated and recorded for the quadrat as a whole and for each individual plant species using the
California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS’s) method for estimating cover values (CNPS 2020). The CNPS method for estimating cover values
uses a “bird’s eye view,” looking from above and estimating cover for the living plants only. Litter and duff shall not be included in these
estimates, and the porosity of the vegetation shall be taken into consideration when estimating percent cover. Percent cover diagrams
shall be used to facilitate cover estimates. All invasive species that are incidentally detected during sampling (but outside of the quadrats)
shall be documented.
Cover data shall be entered into a spreadsheet for analysis. Total cover, percent cover contributed by natives, total cover contributed by
non-natives, and cover contributed by invasive weed species shall be calculated from these data.
Success Criteria
• Eradication of invasive or potentially invasive species with a California Invasive Plant Council high rating or designated as noxious that
were not detected during the baseline surveys. The target species is considered eradicated after 5 consecutive years with no
observations of the target species.
• Within 5 years of the impact, cover of non-native species is less than or equal to cover of non-native species at the reference sites.
Midpen biological
monitor or qualified
biologist
Midpen Midpen lands. Before Activity: Select pre-
impact or reference site data to
serve as the baseline for
comparison with post-impact
data.
During Activity: Implement EDRR
Protocol.
After Activity: Conduct
monitoring according to the EDRR
Protocol until success criteria is
achieved.
MM Biology-6: San Francisco Garter Snake Protection Measures
• All practicable measures shall be taken to avoid killing or injuring San Francisco garter snake during Program activities. Any project-
related, human-caused injuries to San Francisco garter snake shall be immediately reported to CDFW and USFWS.
• Within riparian habitat or Waters of the State and/or U.S. and one (1) mile of a known San Francisco garter snake occurrence, Program
activities shall be conducted consistent with permit terms and conditions of the current versions of the USFWS Recovery Permit Number:
TE225974-2 and CDFW Memorandum of Understanding “Research and Recovery of San Francisco Garter Snake and California Tiger
Salamander”.
• In suitable habitat where San Francisco garter snake has not been documented:
a. Biological Awareness Training. A biological awareness training shall be provided in accordance with MM Biology-1. A
biological monitor shall remain on-site in sensitive areas identified during the pre-survey. If at any time a San Francisco garter
Midpen biological
monitor or qualified
biologist and
Contractor
Midpen Where Program
activities are
proposed within
riparian habitat or
Waters of the State
and/or U.S. and 1
mile of a known San
Francisco garter
snake occurrence.
Before Activity: (1) Provide a
biological awareness training in
accordance with MM Biology-1,
(2) identify acceptable locations
where San Francisco garter
snake may be relocated if these
species are encountered within a
work area, (3) for all work
occurring within 50 feet of ponds,
streams, and wetlands suitable
for San Francisco garter snake,
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-11
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
snake is observed, work shall stop immediately until a qualified biological monitor is contacted. Biological monitor(s) and/or
qualified biologist(s) shall remain on the work area while initial ground disturbing activities are being conducted, after which
biological monitor(s) and/or qualified biologists shall be on-call while Program activities are being conducted at these sites.
b. Vegetation Removal by Mechanized Equipment. Mowing in areas of San Francisco garter snake habitat shall be conducted
outside the peak San Francisco garter snake activity season as determined by a qualified biologist or biological monitor
working under a qualified biologist (work typically occurs late October through mid-March or mid-June to end of August). The
qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist shall precede the mowing equipment and inspect
vegetation for San Francisco garter snake individuals. The mower head shall be kept at 6 inches above ground. Prior to use of
a masticator or other heavy equipment in discrete areas with San Francisco garter snake habitat, vegetation shall be cut
down to 3 inches by hand tools (weedwhacker, etc.). Once the ground is visible, a visual survey for San Francisco garter
snake shall be conducted. If no sensitive species are found in the area, removal of vegetation may continue by mechanized
equipment very slowly with a biological monitor walking in front of the equipment to observe. If a San Francisco garter snake
is observed, all activities shall cease and Midpen shall coordinate with USFWS and CDFW immediately. Prior to the start of
work, areas shall be identified by the biological monitor and approved by USFWS and CDFW as acceptable locations to which
San Francisco garter snake may be relocated if these species are encountered within a work area. Relocation areas shall be
a minimum of 100 feet from the boundary of any work area and shall not include staging areas or roads. No San Francisco
garter snake shall be removed from the site or maintained in captivity overnight without prior notification and written approval
by the USFWS and CDFW unless the animal is in need of emergency medical assistance. Medical assistance shall be
provided to injured animals by a certified wildlife veterinarian familiar with amphibian and reptile care. When transporting
individual San Francisco garter snake, precautions shall be taken to ensure that the animals are not over-stressed and are
maintained in safety. Such measures include: keeping animals in a cool, dark, and safe location (snake bag for San Francisco
garter snake), providing adequate hydration, maintaining a stable cool temperature to avoid over-heating, keeping animals
isolated to prevent them from harming one another, and ensuring holding tanks or bags are kept clean to prevent the spread
of any diseases.
c. No Stockpiling of Vegetation. Viable vegetation removed shall be placed directly into a disposal vehicle and removed from
the site. Vegetation shall not be piled on the ground unless it is later transferred, piece by piece, under the direct supervision
of the biological monitor or qualified biologist or is going to remain on-site for erosion control or slash and not be moved or
disturbed.
d. For all work occurring within 50 feet of ponds, streams, and wetlands suitable for San Francisco garter snake, visual surveys
shall be conducted by walking at least a 50-foot buffer area around the pond in an attempt to locate individual San Francisco
garter snake no more than 24 hours prior to conducting work. A trained and permitted professional biologist shall capture,
transfer, and release in a safe area any San Francisco garter snake deemed to be in danger of being harmed by Program
activities. If an San Francisco garter snake is located during the pre-treatment surveys but escapes capture, the area where
the snake was lost shall be marked by flag and a 50-foot (15 meter) radius shall be actively patrolled during the work. If
necessary, individual San Francisco garter snake may be held in captivity in a pillowcase for less than 24 hours and may later
be released near the point of capture after the work has been completed. After the pre-treatment survey, an avoidance
strategy shall be devised and presented to all individuals involved in Program activities prior to the start of work. The number
of San Francisco garter snake encountered and transferred to safe areas or held in captivity during treatment shall be
reported to USFWS, and each individual snake shall be photographed for use in identification.
conduct visual surveys by
walking at least a 50-foot buffer
area around the pond in an
attempt to locate individual San
Francisco garter snake no more
than 24 hours prior to conducting
work, and (4) devise an
avoidance strategy and present it
to all individuals involved in
Program activities prior to the
start of work.
During Activity: (1) Stop work
immediately if at any time a San
Francisco garter snake is
observed, (2) conduct mowing in
areas of San Francisco garter
snake habitat outside the peak
San Francisco garter snake
activity season, (3) conduct a
visual survey for San Francisco
garter snake after vegetation is
cute down to 3 inches by hand
tools, (4) continue vegetation
removal by mechanized
equipment very slowly if no
sensitive species are found in the
area, and (5) do not stockpile
vegetation.
After Activity: N/A
MM Biology-7: California Red-Legged Frog Protection Measures
Handling of California Red-legged Frog
Handling of California red-legged frog will be done by permitted and qualified biologists or biological monitor working under a qualified
biologist in an expedient manner with minimal harm to the individuals being handled. Handling of California red-legged frog will be done
with wet hands. The hands and arms of all workers handling California red-legged frog will be free of lotions, creams, sunscreen, oils,
ointment, insect repellent, or any other material that may harm California red-legged frog. Larval California red-legged frog will not be
handled out of the water for longer than 30 seconds unless rewetted and will not be retained for longer than 5 minutes for processing. If
Midpen biological
monitor or qualified
biologist and
Contractor
Midpen Where Program
activities are
proposed within
riparian habitat or
Waters of the State
and/or U.S. and 1
mile of a known
Before Activity: (1) Provide a
biological awareness training in
accordance with MM Biology-1,
(2) identify acceptable locations
where California red-legged frog
may be relocated if encountered
within a work area, (3) conduct a
focused survey for California red-
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-12
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
captured California red-legged frog exhibit signs of distress (e.g., lack of response to stimuli or erratic behavior), they will be immediately
released at the point of capture. All captured California red-legged frog will be released at the point of capture unless that location puts
them in imminent danger, in which case they will be placed in a nearby refugium sufficient to protect them. The number of California red-
legged frog to be captured is no more than 30 adults per habitat location (defined as the area that specific work is conducted such as a
pond site or OSP) per year. In the course of monitoring associated with the activities, if California red-legged frog egg masses are observed
in ponds or wetted areas that are going to dry naturally before tadpoles develop (as determined by a qualified biologist or biological
monitor working under a qualified biologist), emergency salvage of egg masses by the qualified biologist or biological monitor working
under a qualified biologist is permitted to relocate egg masses into deeper waters that will not be affected by the proposed activities.
USFWS shall be notified of the emergency salvage per the terms of the recovery permit. Amplexing pairs of California red-legged frog will
not be captured, handled, or disturbed. The permittee will disinfect sampling and field gear to minimize the spread of pathogens as follows:
1. Sampling and field gear will be disinfected after exiting one aquatic habitat and before entering the next aquatic habitat, unless
the waters are hydrologically connected to one another.
2. All organic matter will be removed from nets, traps, boots, vehicle tires and all other surfaces that have come into contact with
water or potentially contaminated sediments. These items will then be rinsed with clean water before leaving each study site.
3. Boots, nets, traps, hands, etc., will be scrubbed with a bleach solution (0.5 to 1.0 cup per 1.0 gallon of water), Quat-128™ (1:60), or
a 3 to 6 percent sodium hypochlorite solution and thoroughly rinsed clean with water between study sites. Equipment will be
rinsed clean with water between study sites. Cleaning equipment in the immediate vicinity of aquatic habitats will be avoided (e.g.,
clean in an area at least 100 feet from aquatic features). Care will be taken so that all traces of the disinfectant are removed
before entering the next aquatic habitat.
4. Used cleaning materials (liquids, etc.) will be disposed of safely, and if necessary, taken back to the lab for proper disposal. Used
disposable gloves will be retained for safe disposal in sealed bags.
California red-legged frog will not be removed from the wild and held in captivity for any reason unless prior written approval is acquired by
the appropriate USFWS Office or unless the severity of an injury to the California red-legged frog obviates immediate care. Animals will be
transported according to accepted methods, in moist cloth bags or in terrarium with moisture gel or non-cellulose sponge to minimize
desiccation.
Protocols for California Red-legged Frog Depending Upon Location of Activity
For activities conducted within riparian habitat or Waters of the State and/or U.S. and 1 mile of a known California red-legged frog
occurrence:
• Prior to and within 48 hours of the planned start of Program activities, a focused survey for California red-legged frog using an agency
approved protocol will be conducted by a qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist to determine if they
are in the area. If California red-legged frog are found, Midpen will coordinate with CDFW and USFWS immediately to determine the
correct course of action and Program activities at that location will not commence until after May 30 or authorized by CDFW and
USFWS.
• If California red-legged frog are found, biological monitor(s) and/or qualified biologists will be on site while Program activities are being
conducted. Midpen will implement the following measures:
a. Inspection of Parked Vehicles: Any vehicle parked on-site for more than 15 minutes will be inspected before it is moved to ensure
that California red-legged frog has not moved under the vehicle. Any parking areas must be checked in advance by the biological
monitor or qualified biologist.
b. Vegetation Removal by Mechanized Equipment at California Red-legged Frog Sensitive Sites (areas within or adjacent
to wetted aquatic sites): For vegetation removal on berms or other wetted sites with known California red-legged frog observations,
vegetation will be cut down to 3 inches by hand tools (weedwhacker, etc.). Once the ground is visible, a visual survey for California
red-legged frog will be conducted. If no sensitive species are found in the area, removal of vegetation may continue by mowing or
mechanized equipment very slowly with a biological monitor walking in front of the equipment to observe. If a California red-legged
frog is observed that is in harm’s way, all activities shall cease and Midpen will notify CDFW and USFWS immediately or the
California red-legged
frog occurrence.
legged frog using an agency
approved protocol prior to and
within 48 hours of the planned
start of Program activities, (4) for
all work occurring within 50 feet
of ponds, streams, and wetlands
suitable for California red-legged
frog, conduct visual surveys by
walking at least a 50-foot buffer
area around the pond in an
attempt to locate individual
California red-legged frog no
more than 24 hours prior to
conducting work, (5) devise an
avoidance strategy and present it
to all individuals involved in
Program activities prior to the
start of work, and (6) inspect
vegetation in work areas
containing emergent vegetation
for California red-legged frog
eggs masses prior to Program
activities and keep records.
During Activity: (1) Stop work
immediately if a California red-
legged frog enters the work area,
and (2) implement applicable
measures for stop work and
handling of individuals if
California red-legged frog are
found.
After Activity: N/A
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-13
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
California red-legged frog can be relocated by a person permitted by the USFWS and approved by CDFW for this project to handle
California red-legged frog.
c. Vegetation Disposal: Vegetation removed shall be placed directly into a disposal vehicle and removed from the site. Vegetation shall
not be piled on the ground unless it is later transferred, piece by piece, under the direct supervision of the biological monitor or
qualified biologist or is going to remain on-site for erosion control or slash and not be moved or disturbed.
d. No Stockpiled Soil: Soil shall not be stockpiled on the ground unless it is on a paved surface or staging area where there are not
burrows. Soils stockpiled for more than a single day near potential habitat should be covered or surrounded by exclusion fencing as
directed by a qualified biologist to prevent burrowing animals from entering the stockpile.
e. California Red-legged Frog Exclusion for Sediment Removal with Large Equipment: California red-legged frog will be excluded from
the project site prior to Program activities at sites involving the use of large equipment for sediment removal. USFWS and CDFW-
approved exclusion fencing will be installed around the sediment removal site, staging areas, and any areas where fill may be
dumped. After installation of the fence barrier, a biological monitor or qualified biologist will inspect the project work area, staging
and stockpiling areas daily prior to the commencement of activities. If the biological monitor or qualified biologist determines that
sensitive species are not within the work area, equipment or materials may be moved into the project site and Program activities
may commence under the observation of the biological monitor.
For activities conducted in ponds:
• Focused Surveys Prior to Work Activities. Prior to and within 48 hours of the planned start of Program activities, a focused survey for
California red-legged frog using agency approved protocol will be conducted by a qualified biologist or biological monitor working under
a qualified biologist to determine if California red-legged frog is in the area. The pond will be sampled by a qualified biologist to ensure
that all California red-legged frog from that pond are in the post metamorphic stage and will be minimally affected by draining the pond. If
a California red-legged frog is located during the pre-treatment surveys but escapes capture, the area where the frog was lost will be
marked by flag and a 50-foot (15 meter) radius will be actively patrolled during the work. If California red-legged frog are found, Midpen
will coordinate with CDFW and USFWS immediately to determine the correct course of action and Program activities at that location will
not commence until after May 30 or as authorized by CDFW and USFWS. After the pre-project survey, an avoidance strategy will be
devised and presented to all individuals involved in the pond enhancement prior to starting any activities. The number of California red-
legged frog encountered and transferred to safe areas or held in captivity by a permitted and qualified biologist during treatment will be
reported to the Sacramento USFWS Office and CDFW.
• Number of On-Site Biologists. The minimum number of qualified biological monitors required at each pond site will be determined in
advance by the qualified project biologist based on pond size, the amount and complexity of work to be performed, and the equipment to
be used.
• Travel Corridors. Corridors for travel of vehicles and heavy machinery to the pond site will be established at least 24 hours in advance of
the proposed work. Corridors that are not established, marked, and improved roads (paved or unpaved) require special consideration for
use by any vehicle. During the use of these off-road corridors by vehicles and machinery, a monitor shall proceed directly before the
vehicle or machinery to ensure all California red-legged frog and observable wildlife is cleared from the pathway of the oncoming
vehicle. Monitors shall signal vehicles to stop if a California red-legged frog is on the pathway, and shall allow the animal to clear the
pathway by its own direction. Any handling of the red-legged frog must only be done by a qualified permitted individual. Measures shall
be taken to minimize the number of vehicles allowed on the property. All vehicles involved with the site-specific work that are not
transported to the work site will be retained in a prearranged, marked parking area in a clearing as close to the main road as possible. At
least one monitor will ensure wildlife is clear from the parking area while vehicles are arriving and leaving. All vehicles must stay on
designated roads.
• Seasonal Work Period in Ponds. If California red-legged frog are found in the pond and water is present in the pond, sediment removal
and berm or outfall repair activities shall be performed from August 15 to November 1. Midpen will coordinate with CDFW and USFWS
prior to dredging or de-watering activities. Sediment will be removed from ponds by hand to the extent feasible. Sediment removal from
ponds will occur as soon as the ponds are dry (if prior to August 15).
• Vegetation Removal at Ponds. If California red-legged frog is found, tule and emergent vegetation will be removed by hand when
feasible. If mechanized equipment is used, one or more biological monitors or qualified biologists will be onsite monitoring the scoop
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-14
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
bucket while scooping and watching each load unload. Midpen will coordinate with CDFW and USFWS during the annual project
notification process regarding anticipated mechanized equipment use for vegetation removal at ponds. In areas where egg masses are
known, Midpen and contractor personnel will not enter the channel/pond to avoid dislodging egg masses. Trimming activities shall be
performed from the banks, if possible.
• Inspection for Egg Masses. In work areas containing emergent vegetation (e.g., tules, cattails), vegetation will be inspected for California
red-legged frog eggs masses prior to Program activities. If work cannot be postponed, a buffer of vegetation at least 10 feet in diameter
shall be left around any egg masses found. Midpen will keep a record of sites where egg masses are found and conduct vegetation
removal at these sites prior to November 1 in subsequent years.
If California red-legged frog is not found during the focused survey, or for activities conducted in suitable habitat where California red-
legged frog has not been documented:
• The biological monitor shall remain on-site if sensitive areas are identified during the presurvey. A biological awareness training shall be
provided to all persons prior to beginning work. If at any time a California red-legged frog is observed, work shall stop immediately until a
biological monitor is contacted. Biological monitor(s) and/or qualified biologists shall then remain be on the project site while Program
activities are being conducted. If California red-legged frog is observed, the applicable California red-legged frog measures procedures
described above will be followed.
General California Red-legged Frog Avoidance Measures
• If California red-legged frog enters the project area, all work shall stop until the animal leaves on its own. If a person is permitted by the
USFWS and approved by CDFW for this specific project to handle California red-legged frog, they can handle and relocate California red-
legged frog. Midpen will coordinate with CDFW and USFWS to develop site appropriate avoidance measures utilized for relocation. Prior
to the start of work, areas will be identified by the biological monitor-in-charge as acceptable locations to which California red-legged
frog may be relocated if these species are encountered within a work area. Relocation areas will be a minimum of 500 feet from the
boundary of any work area and will not include staging areas or roads. No California red-legged frog will be removed from the site or
maintained in captivity overnight without prior notification and written approval by the USFWS and CDFW unless the animal is in need of
emergency medical assistance. Medical assistance will be provided to injured animals by a certified wildlife veterinarian familiar with
amphibian and reptile care. When transporting individual California red-legged frog, safe handling precautions will be taken to ensure
that the animals are not over-stressed. Safe handling measures include: keeping animals in a cool, dark, and safe location (terrarium for
California red-legged frog), providing adequate hydration, maintaining a stable cool temperature to avoid over-heating, keeping animals
isolated to prevent them from harming one another, and ensuring holding tanks or bags are kept clean to prevent the spread of any
diseases.
• All practicable measures shall be taken to avoid killing or injuring any life stage of California red-legged frog during habitat enhancement
activities.
• The biological monitor and/or qualified biologist shall have the authority to halt work activities that may affect California red-legged frog
adults, tadpoles or egg masses until they can be moved out of harm’s way.
• Any project-related, human caused injuries to California red-legged frog will be immediately reported to CDFW and USFWS.
MM Biology-8: Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Protection Measures
If foothill yellow-legged frog are found during the general survey conducted per MM Biology-1, biological monitor(s) and/or qualified
biologists shall remain in the work area while Program activities are conducted.
For activities conducted within riparian habitat or Waters of the State and/or U.S. and 1 mile of a known foothill yellow-legged frog
occurrence (within the last 20 years):
• Information on foothill yellow-legged frog shall be included in the biological awareness training provided in accordance with MM
Biology-1.
• Any vehicle parked on-site for more than 15 minutes shall be inspected by the biological monitor or qualified biologist before it is moved
to ensure that foothill yellow-legged frog have not moved under the vehicle. Any parking areas must be checked in advance by the
biological monitor or qualified biologist. Vehicles shall not be moved if a frog is found, until the frog has moved out of harm’s way as
determined by the biological monitor or qualified biologist.
Midpen biological
monitor or qualified
biologist
Midpen Where Program
activities are
proposed within
riparian habitat or
Waters of the State
and/or U.S. and 1
mile of a known
foothill yellow-
legged frog.
Before Activity: Provide a
biological awareness training in
accordance with MM Biology-1.
During Activity: (1) Stop work
immediately if at any time a
foothill yellow-legged frog is
observed and notify CDFW, (2)
conduct a visual survey for
foothill yellow-legged frog after
vegetation is cute down to 3
inches by hand tools, (3) continue
vegetation removal by mowing or
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-15
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
• For vegetation removal at sites with known foothill yellow-legged frog observations, vegetation shall be cut down to 3 inches by hand
tools (weedwhacker, etc.). Once the ground is visible, a visual survey for foothill yellow-legged frog shall be conducted. If no sensitive
species are found in the area, removal of vegetation may continue by mowing or mechanized equipment very slowly with a biological
monitor walking in front of the equipment to observe. If a foothill yellow-legged frog is observed, all activities shall cease and Midpen
shall notify CDFW immediately. Foothill yellow-legged frog can only be relocated by an individual permitted by CDFW for this Program to
handle foothill yellow-legged frog.
• Vegetation that is to be removed shall be placed directly into a disposal vehicle and removed from the site. Vegetation shall not be piled
on the ground unless it is later transferred, piece by piece, under the direct supervision of the biological monitor or qualified biologist or
is going to remain on-site for erosion control or slash and not be moved or disturbed.
mechanized equipment very
slowly if no sensitive species are
found in the area, (4) do not
stockpile vegetation, and (5)
check all parking areas and
under vehicles to ensure no
presence of foothill yellow-
legged frog and if any are found,
do not move vehicles until the
frog has moved out of harm’s
way.
After Activity: N/A
MM Biology-9: Western Pond Turtle Protection Measures
Within riparian habitat or Waters of the State and/or U.S. and 1 mile of a known western pond occurrence:
• Information on western pond turtle shall be included in the biological awareness training provided in accordance with MM Biology-1.
• A focused survey for western pond turtle and western pond turtle nests shall be conducted prior to and within 48 hours of the planned
start of Program activities by a qualified biologist or biological monitor to determine if any individuals are in the area.
• In the event western pond turtle are found in the work area, Midpen shall exercise measures to avoid direct injury to western pond turtle
as well as avoid areas where they are observed to occur.
• If a western pond turtle is observed during the Program activity, it shall be left alone to move out of the area on its own. If it does not
move on its own, it can be relocated to a safe location at least 100 feet away from the work area. Relocation areas shall be of suitable
habitat, on shallow banks with slow moving water and shall be far enough away so as not to be affected by Program activities.
• If a western pond turtle nest was not found during focused surveys but is observed after initiation of Program activities and its habitat is
determined to be unavoidable, all activities shall cease and Midpen shall coordinate with CDFW to develop site-appropriate avoidance
and minimization measures.
Midpen biological
monitor or qualified
biologist
Midpen Where Program
activities are
proposed within
riparian habitat or
Waters of the State
and/or U.S. and 1
mile of a known
western pond turtle
occurrence.
Before Activity: (1) Provide a
biological awareness training in
accordance with MM Biology-1,
and (2) conduct a focused survey
for western pond turtle and
western pond turtle nests prior to
and within 48 hours of the
planned start of Program
activities.
During Activity: (1) Exercise
measures to avoid direct injury to
western pond turtle as well as
avoid areas where they are
observed to occur if western
pond turtle are found in the work
area, (2) leave western pond
turtle alone to move out of the
work area on their own if a
western pond turtle is observed
during activities, (3) relocate
western pond turtle at least 100
feet distant from the work area if
it does not move on its own, and
(4) cease all activities is a
western pond turtle nest is found
and coordinate with CDFW to
develop avoidance and
minimization measures.
After Activity: N/A
MM Biology-10: California Giant Salamander, Santa Cruz Black Salamander, and Red-Bellied Newt Protection Measures
• In primary suitable habitat where Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, or red-bellied newt were observed or are
known to occur:
• Information on these species shall be included in the biological awareness training provided in accordance with MM Biology-1.
• A qualified biologist and biological monitor shall be available and on-call for the duration of Program activities.
Midpen biological
monitor or qualified
biologist and
Contractor
Midpen Where Program
activities are
proposed within
suitable habitat for
Santa Cruz black
Before Activity: (1) Provide a
biological awareness training in
accordance with MM Biology-1
and (2) conduct a pre-survey of
the work area.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-16
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
• A biological monitor shall be present on-site when working within 50 feet of wetted areas including stream channels, seeps, and springs.
• For Santa Cruz black salamander only, a biological monitor is also required in areas of talus slopes or areas having human stacked rocks
and other suitable materials acting as talus.
• Work in wetted areas, talus slopes, or human stacked rocks or other suitable materials acting as artificial talus should be completed prior
to July to avoid displacement of Santa Cruz black salamander females laying eggs and attending to clutches.
• Dismantling of talus and human-stacked rocks and other suitable materials acting as artificial talus shall be avoided and minimized
whenever possible. If removal is required to meet project objectives, these materials shall be dismantled by hand whenever possible.
• Whenever possible, individual Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, and red-bellied newt shall be allowed to leave
the area on their own.
• Individual Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, or red-bellied newt (not with eggs) that are in harm’s way or do not
leave the work site on their own may be relocated by a qualified biologist or biological monitor to predetermined sites located outside of
the work area but within the same subwatershed.
• If heavy equipment is required to remove talus, human stacked rocks or other suitable materials acting as artificial talus, this shall be
done in the presence of a qualified biological monitor.
• If at any time, Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, or red-bellied newt eggs are found, the area shall be flagged for
avoidance. If the area cannot be avoided to meet Program objectives, Midpen shall coordinate with CDFW to determine the best course
of action.
• In all other areas of suitable habitat for Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, and red-bellied newt:
• Information on these species shall be included in the biological awareness training provided in accordance with MM Biology-1.
• A qualified biologist and biological monitor shall be on-call with suitable availability to respond to calls for the duration of Program
activities.
• A pre-survey of the work area is required prior to starting work. If no Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, or red-
bellied newt are observed, work may proceed.
• If an individual Santa Cruz black salamander, California giant salamander, or red-bellied newt are observed at any time, all activities shall
stop and the biologist and/or biological monitor shall be notified and the above measures shall be implemented.
salamander,
California giant
salamander, or red-
bellied newt.
During Activity: (1) Ensure
biological monitors are present
on-site where applicable and (2)
stop all activities, implement
appropriate measures, and notify
the biologist and/or biological
monitor if an individual Santa
Cruz black salamander, California
giant salamander, or red-bellied
newt are observed at any time.
After Activity: N/A
MM Biology-11: Nesting Bird Protection Measures (With the Exception of Marbled Murrelet)
• Implement IPMP BMP 22 with the additional provisions listed here.
• To avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, all Program activities shall be conducted between September 1 to February 14 unless a
preconstruction nesting bird survey has been conducted by a qualified biologist or biological monitor. Work should be done during the
non-breeding season whenever possible. The bird nesting seasons for smaller birds and raptors are defined per IPMP BMP 22 as
follows:
- March 15 to August 30 for smaller bird species such as passerines; and
- February 15 to August 30 for raptors.
- Earlier surveys may be needed for specific species such as owls, hummingbirds, herons and egrets and/or other species if nesting
activity shifts due to climate change, as determined by a qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist.
• If Program activities are scheduled during the nesting season of raptors and/or migratory birds, a focused survey for active nests of such
birds shall be conducted by the qualified biologist or biological monitor within 15 days prior to the beginning of project-related activities.
Surveys shall be conducted in all suitable habitat located at work areas and in staging and storage areas. The minimum survey radius for
each bird type surrounding the work area shall be the following:
- 250 feet for passerines;
- 500 feet for other small raptors such as accipiters;
- 1,000 feet for larger raptors such as buteos and eagles.
- The bird survey methodology and the results of the survey shall be submitted to the CDFW prior to commencement of Program
activities.
Midpen biological
monitor or qualified
biologist
Midpen Where Program
activities are
scheduled during the
nesting season of
raptors and/or
migratory birds.
Before Activity: (1) Conduct a
focused survey for active nests of
raptors and/or migratory birds
within 15 days prior to the
beginning of Program activities
and submit results to CDFW, and
(2) if active nests are found,
designate active nest sites as
“Ecologically Sensitive Areas”
and comply with provisions
specified.
During Activity: (1) Complete
work during the non-breeding
season whenever possible, (2)
conduct nest monitoring during
Program activities, and (3) retain
individual dead or dying trees to
the maximum extent practicable.
After Activity: N/A
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-17
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
• If an active nest (i.e., a nest having eggs or chicks present, or a nest that adult birds have staked a territory and are displaying,
constructing a nest, or are repairing an old nest) is found and work cannot be postponed, Midpen shall designate active nest sites as
“Ecologically Sensitive Areas” and protected (while occupied) during Program activities with the establishment of flagging or a fence
barrier surrounding the nest site. No trees or shrubs that contain active bird nests shall be disturbed until all eggs have hatched, and
young have fully fledged (are no longer being fed by the adults, and have completely left the nest site). No habitat removal or modification
shall occur within the Ecologically Sensitive Area fenced nest zone even if the nest continues to be active beyond the typical nesting
season for the species, until the young have fully fledged and shall no longer be adversely affected by the Program. The minimum
distances of the protective buffers surrounding each identified nest site shall be the following per IPMP BMP 22, with some
considerations depending on nest location and substrate:
- 500 feet for large raptors such as buteos;
- 250 feet for small raptors such as accipiters;
- 250 feet for passerines; and
- 1,000 feet for eagles.
• A biological monitor or qualified biologist shall monitor the behavior of the birds (adults and young, when present) at the nest site to
ensure that they are not disturbed by Program-related activities. Nest monitoring shall continue during Program-related construction
work until the young have fully fledged, are no longer being fed by the parents and have left the nest site and surrounding area, as
determined by a biological monitor. If a protective buffer must be modified, Midpen shall coordinate with the CDFW and/or the USFWS as
appropriate prior to resumption of Program activities.
• If a lapse in Program-related work of 15 days or longer occurs, another focused survey shall be conducted before Program activities are
reinitiated.
MM Biology-12: Marbled Murrelet Nest Protection Measures
a. Implement IPMP BMP 22 with the additional provisions listed here.
b. In areas within the range of marbled murrelet habitat as identified in the latest maps (e.g., Midpen 2007 maps), Midpen shall
conduct a survey of habitats within 0.25-mile of the work area for trees that meet the Pacific Seabird Group definition of potential
marbled murrelet nesting trees. If such trees are present within 300 feet of the work area or if a marbled murrelet nest is detected,
Midpen shall coordinate with CDFW and USFWS before proceeding. If habitat trees are present within 0.25-mile of the work area
but are greater than 300 feet from the work area, Midpen shall implement the following conditions:
c. Work within the work area shall be confined to the period of September 15 to November 1 when possible.
d. If activities cannot be conducted outside the breeding season, and must occur during the marbled murrelet breeding season
(March 24 to September 15) Midpen shall:
i. Coordinate with CDFW and USFWS.
ii. Implement seasonal disturbance minimization buffers as listed in the table below and in the October 2020 document Revised
Transmittal of Guidance: Estimating the Effects of Auditory and Visual Disturbance to Northern Spotted Owls and Marbled
Murrelets in Northwestern California (table below) (or the appropriate, CDFW-recommended or approved guidance at the time of
implementation). The thresholds shown apply to noise-generating activities occurring during the midday period, when the risk of
disturbance is lower and do not apply to activities within 2 hours of sunrise or sunset. Activities conducted during the dawn and
dusk periods have special considerations for ambient sound level. If proposed activities will occur within 2 hours of sunrise or
sunset, and if the ambient sound environment during the dawn and dusk period can reasonably be expected to be 5 dB or more
quieter than the midday sound environment, then the estimated disturbance distance threshold should be calculated based on an
ambient level 10 dB lower (i.e., one row up in the table) compared to the normal ambient rating in the table below.
Existing Pre-Program (Ambient)
Sound Levela
Anticipated Action Generated Sound Levelb
Moderate (71-
80 dB)
High (81-90
dB)
Very High (91-
100 dB)
Extreme (101-110
dB)
Midpen biological
monitor or qualified
biologist and
Contractor
Midpen Where Program
activities are
proposed within the
range of marbled
murrelet habitat.
Before Activity: (1) Conduct a
survey of habitats within 0.25-
mile of the work area for trees
that meet the Pacific Seabird
Group definition of potential
marbled murrelet nesting trees,
and (2) implement appropriate
measures based on survey
results.
During Activity: If activity occurs
during the nesting season,
conduct a sound level monitoring
study, provide results to USFWS
and CDFW, and comply with
applicable measures based on
survey results.
After Activity: N/A
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-18
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
Natural Ambient
(<=50 dB)c
165 feet 500 feet 1,320 feet 1,320 feet
Very Low
(51-60 dB)
40 feet 330 feet 825 feet 1,320 feet
Low
(61-70 dB)
40 feet 165 feet 825 feet 1,320 feet
Moderate
(71-80 dB)
40 feet 165 feet 330 feet 1,320 feet
High
(81-90 dB)
40 feet 165 feet 165 feet 500 feet
Notes:
a Existing (ambient) sound level includes all natural and human-induced sounds occurring at the work area prior
to the proposed action, and are not causally related to the proposed action.
b Action-generated sound levels are given in decibels (dB) experienced by a receiver, when measured at 15.2 m
from the sound source.
c "Natural Ambient" refers to sound levels generally experienced in habitats not substantially influenced by
human activities.
iii. Conduct a sound level monitoring study to determine the level of ambient and construction activity noise anticipated during
construction activities to calculate seasonal disturbance minimization buffer widths. Midpen shall provide a description of
methods and results of the study to USFWS and CDFW to coordinate site-specific avoidance measures 30 days prior to
commencement of Program activities at the applicable location(s). In order to alert work crews to their presence, marbled
murrelet seasonal disturbance buffers, as determined by the sound study and table above, shall be flagged in the field where
they enter the work area. If Midpen chooses not to conduct the sound study, no Program activities shall occur within 0.25-mile
of potential nest trees during the marbled murrelet breeding season (March 24 to September 15).
iv. If noise generating construction activity takes place during the breeding season (March 24 to September 15) within suitable
Redwood and Redwood/Douglas-fir forests, construction activities shall be restricted to 2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before
sunset to minimize disturbance of potential nesting marbled murrelet using forest habitat as a travel corridor between inland
nesting and coastal habitat.
v. Midpen or its contractor shall not conduct Program activities within a visual line-of-sight distance of 100 meters or less from a
suitable nest tree as designated by a qualified biologist or biological monitor, or the appropriate distance per the latest,
appropriate, CDFW-recommended guidance at the time of implementation.
e. If marbled murrelet protocol level surveys are conducted and do not indicate that the habitat is occupied by marbled murrelet, the
seasonal and distance work restrictions may be lifted with approval from CDFW and USFWS. Protocol level survey procedures and
information can be found at: http://www.pacificseabirdgroup.org/publications/PSG_TechPub2_MAMU_ISP.pdf or the appropriate,
CDFW-recommended or approved guidance at the time of implementation may be used. If Midpen chooses to conduct marbled
murrelet protocol level surveys, Midpen shall coordinate with CDFW and USFWS regarding the survey stations to ensure all
contiguous suitable habitat is covered and good visuals of the sky and nearby flyways, if present, are provided. If marbled murrelet
protocol level surveys are conducted, Midpen shall submit the report consistent with Methods for Surveying Marbled Murrelets in
Forests: A Revised Protocol for Land Management and Research or the appropriate, CDFW-recommended or approved guidance at
the time of implementation may be used.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-19
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
MM Biology-13: Special-Status Insect Host Plant Protection
• Prior to conducting treatments in suitable habitat for special-status butterfly and moth species, surveys shall be conducted for the
following host plant species during the appropriate blooming period:
- Bay checkerspot butterfly: dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta), purple owl's clover (Castilleja densiflora), and exserted paintbrush
(Castilleja exserta).
- Smith’s blue butterfly: coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium) and seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium)
- Monarch butterfly: all milkweeds (Asclepias sp.)
- Unsilvered fritillary butterfly: violets (Viola sp.)
- Opler’s longhorn moth: California cream cups (Platystemon californicus)
- Callippe silverspot butterfly (not known to be present but the host plant has potential to be present): Johnny Jump up (Viola
pedunculata)
• Host plants containing eggs, larvae, or pupae of special-status butterfly or moth species shall be avoided, and shall be protected with an
appropriately-sized buffer as determined by a qualified biologist, taking into account the characteristics of the plant species and the
nature of the proposed treatment.
• Vegetation treatment may proceed if a qualified biologist determines that the host plants (1) are not occupied by special-status butterflies
or moths, and (2) may benefit from treatment (such as if the host plants have already set seed and post-treatment conditions will favor
them over non-native weed species).
Midpen biological
monitor or qualified
biologist
Midpen Where Program
activities are
proposed within
suitable habitat for
special-status
butterfly and moth
host plants.
Before Activity: (1) Conduct
survey for special-status butterfly
and moth host plants during the
appropriate blooming period, and
(2) implement appropriate
measures based on survey
results.
During Activity: Avoid host plants
containing eggs, larvae, or pupae
of special-status butterfly or moth
species and protect with
appropriate buffer.
After Activity: N/A
MM Biology-14: Salmonid Protection Measures
• Vegetative debris shall not be stockpiled in areas where it could enter a stream, wetland or riparian area.
• Corrective actions, such as repairs to erosion control BMPs necessary to preserve water quality and revegetation activities, are
allowable year-round.
• Seasonal Work Period in Salmonid Critical Habitat: Program activities within streams and associated riparian corridors that are
designated Critical Habitat for steelhead and Coho salmon shall be limited to June 15 to October 31.
• Seasonal Work Period in Aquatic Habitats Outside of Critical Habitat. Program activities within streams and associated riparian
corridors that are not designated Critical Habitat for salmonids shall be limited to April 15 to October 31, or are permissible from
November 1 to April 14 under the following conditions:
a. Work shall not occur until the site has received no rainfall for a period of 10 days and there is no rain in the forecast for a period of 7
or more days, and work requires no greater than 5 days to complete.
b. Work started during this period must be at least 50 percent complete within 2.5 days of beginning work.
c. Winterization materials must be on hand and installed if unanticipated rainfall begins (defined as 0.5 inches of rain in a 24-hour
period).
Midpen and
Contractor
Midpen Where Program
activities are
proposed within or
adjacent to streams
and associated
riparian corridors
that are designated
Critical Habitat for
steelhead and Coho
salmon.
Before Activity: Implement and
maintain corrective actions to
preserve water quality.
During Activity: (1) Do not
stockpile vegetative debris where
it could enter a stream, wetland,
or riparian area, (2) work within
streams and associated riparian
corridors that are designated
Critical Habitat for steelhead and
Coho salmon limited to June 15 to
October 31, and (3) work within
streams and associated riparian
corridors that are not designated
Critical Habitat for steelhead and
Coho salmon limited to April 15 to
October 31 or permissible under
additional conditions.
After Activity: N/A
MM Biology-15: Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Aggregation Protection
Prior to any Program activities in tree groves comprised primarily or entirely of pine, cypress, fir, or eucalyptus that are within 2 miles of the
Pacific Coast, a desktop record review shall be conducted to determine if the grove historically was occupied by monarchs. For all other
tree groves comprised primarily or entirely of pine, cypress, fir, or eucalyptus that are within 2 miles of the Pacific Coast, a qualified
biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist shall survey the grove for aggregations of monarch butterflies during the
overwintering season according to the Xerces Society’s Western Monarch Count Protocol (Xerces Society 2019), available at
https://www.westernmonarchcount.org or the latest protocol available at the time of implementation may be used.
Midpen biological
monitor or qualified
biologist
Midpen Where Program
activities are
proposed in tree
groves comprised
primarily or entirely
of pine, cypress, fir,
or eucalyptus that
are within 2 miles of
the Pacific Coast.
Before Activity: (1) Survey tree
groves for aggregations of
monarch butterflies during the
overwintering season according
to the Xerces Society’s Western
Monarch Count Protocol and
implement appropriate measures
based on survey results, and (2)
develop a long-term tree planting
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-20
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
Two surveys shall be conducted during the overwintering season, one during the Western Monarch Thanksgiving Count period (the three-
week period centered on the Thanksgiving holiday), and a second during the New Year’s Count period (the two-week period beginning the
weekend prior to New Year’s Day).
• Each survey shall be conducted by two surveyors to provide multiple independent estimates of monarch numbers.
• Surveys shall be conducted in the morning while temperatures are below 55˚ F (13˚ C) and monarchs are more likely to be clustered.
• Surveys shall not be conducted during rain or strong winds due to poor visibility and the chance that individual monarchs shall be
scattered on the ground.
• If no monarch overwintering aggregations are observed, Program activities may proceed pursuant as long as they occur prior to
November 1. If Program activities are delayed beyond November 1, then the grove shall be re-surveyed.
• If a monarch overwintering aggregation of any size is detected or historical occupation is identified according to record reviews, then no
Program activities may take place inside the tree canopy within 200 feet of the aggregation, when present. Activities outside of the
canopy line but within 200 feet may proceed (i.e., treatment of low-growing vegetation outside of the tree grove) if a qualified biologist or
monitor determines that the activity does not pose a threat to the monarch aggregation.
• Groves with historical occupation shall not be altered without further consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW.
• Once the aggregation disperses (typically by March), treatment of vegetation within 200 feet of tree(s) where monarch aggregations
were observed may proceed if, as determined by a qualified biologist or monitor, it shall not result in significant alteration to wind and
sunlight patterns within the grove.
• If monarch overwintering aggregations are detected in eucalyptus removal areas, then a long-term tree planting strategy is necessary
(see Protecting California’s Butterfly Groves [Xerces Society 2017]).
• Native tree species suitable for monarchs must be planted many years prior to eucalyptus removal with the understanding that they may
not reach functional heights to provide wind protection and suitable dappled lighting for 15-30 years. Transplanting saplings from a local
source may speed this process. Planting of eucalyptus shall be prohibited. Removal of eucalyptus may proceed once native replacement
trees have reached sufficient size to provide wind protection within the grove.
• Standing dead trees generally do not contribute to monarch overwintering habitat (Xerces Society 2017) and may be removed within the
grove between April 1 and August 31, outside of the overwintering period, as determined appropriate by a qualified biologist or monitor.
Sites where invasive dead trees have been removed may create opportunities for native tree planting within the interior of the grove.
• If a eucalyptus grove where a monarch overwintering aggregation was previously detected is re-surveyed using the Western Monarch
Count Protocol (Xerces Society 2019) and found to be unoccupied for 5 consecutive years, then the grove may be removed before native
replacement trees have reached full size.
strategy if monarch
overwintering aggregations are
detected in eucalyptus removal
areas.
During Activity: Implement tree
planting strategy.
After Activity: N/A
MM Biology-16: Prescribed Burns and Biological Resource Avoidance
• All participants in the burn shall be briefed by a Resource Advisor on the special-status species potentially present, where they would
likely be found, and who to contact if one is sighted. Resource Advisors shall (1) work with the ignition teams, (2) be a part of any ignition
sequence planning, and (3) be in radio contact with either the Ignition Specialist or the Incident Commander directly to ensure quick
communication and decision-making regarding the safety of sensitive wildlife.
• Prescribed burns shall maintain the following buffers from various sensitive species and wildlife habitats:
- Active bird nests shall be given species-appropriate buffers matching those outlined in MM Biology-11 and IPMP BMP 22:
i. 250 feet for passerines
ii. 500 feet for other small raptors such as accipiters
iii. 1,000 feet for larger raptors such as buteos and eagles
- A 10-foot buffer from San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests
- A 20-foot buffer from occupied bat roosting trees
- A 10-foot buffer from patches of special-status butterfly and moth host plants if prescribed burns occur before the plants have set
seed. Patches of host plants that may benefit from fire may be burned if determined appropriate by a qualified biologist or biological
monitor working under a qualified biologist.
Midpen and
Contractor
Midpen All prescribed burns. Before Activity: (1) Brief all
participants on special-status
species present in the burn area,
and (2) conduct visual surveys by
walking transects throughout the
proposed burn area no more than
24 hours prior to conducting a
prescribed fire and implement
applicable measures based on
survey results.
During Activity: (1) Maintain
appropriate buffers from
sensitive wildlife habitats, (2)
retain all vehicles in the
prearranged, marked parking
area and roads, and (3) conduct
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-21
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
• The listed buffer areas may be managed using other vegetation management techniques following each burn (e.g., cattle grazing), but
are to remain completely undisturbed during prescribed fire events. Every reasonable attempt shall be made to maintain 0.25 to 0.5 acre
(0.1 to 0.2 hectare) of unburned habitat for every 10 acres (4 hectares) of burned habitat (e.g., 4 to 8 acres of retreat habitat are needed
for a 160-acre burn, and 9 to 18 acres are needed for a 350-acre burn). Retreat areas shall be conserved randomly throughout the
treatment area, especially in areas with known populations of San Francisco garter snake and California red-legged frog. These retreat
areas may be naturally occurring areas such as rock formations, ponds and other wetland/riparian areas, areas with a high density of
burrows, and other areas not prone to burn, or these areas may be created and maintained using hand tools or water to create fire-
breaks or wet-lines.
• No more than 24 hours prior to conducting prescribed fires, visual surveys shall be conducted by walking transects throughout the
proposed burn area in an attempt to locate individual special-status reptile and amphibian species, including San Francisco garter snake,
California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle, Blainville’s horned lizard,
California giant salamander, Santa Cruz black salamander, and red-bellied newt. With permission from CDFW and/or USFWS, a permitted
biologist or biological monitor shall capture, transfer, and release in a safe area any special-status reptiles or amphibians deemed to be
in danger of being harmed by the prescribed fire activities. If individuals are located during the pre-treatment surveys but escape
capture, an area approximately 50 feet (15 meters) in diameter around the individual shall be protected from the burn. If necessary,
individuals may be held in captivity in a pillowcase for less than 24 hours and may later be released near the point of capture after the
burn has been completed. The numbers of special-status reptiles and amphibians encountered and transferred to safe areas or held in
captivity during treatment shall be reported to USFWS and CDFW. If San Francisco garter snakes are captured, each individual shall be
photographed for use in identification.
• All vehicles involved with the site-specific burn shall be retained in a prearranged, marked parking area in a clearing as close to the main
road as possible. At least one monitor shall ensure wildlife is clear from the parking area while vehicles are arriving and leaving. All
vehicles must stay on designated roads, and if it is necessary for a vehicle to travel off the designated main road, a monitor shall precede
the vehicle to clear wildlife from the pathway of the vehicle. Only biological monitors specifically authorized by the USFWS and CDFW to
handle San Francisco garter snake or California red-legged frog (normally these shall be individuals holding a federal recovery permit for
the species) shall be allowed to handle, transport, and relocate individuals of these species.
• Below ground temperature monitoring shall be conducted during the burn to monitor air temperatures in a representative subset of
suitable San Francisco garter snake refugia. One or more biologists or biological monitors shall place ground temperature monitoring
devices (e.g., "hobo thermocouples" in rodent burrows throughout the burn area to monitor changes in temperature in the burrows as fire
moves across the landscape. The knowledge gained shall be useful in determining how to conduct future prescribed fires in San
Francisco garter snake habitat in a manner that shall minimize potential effects to the species.
• Immediately following each prescribed fire, the permittee shall search the affected post-treatment area to identify dead or injured
individuals of all vertebrate taxa. Dead individuals of special-status species shall be collected and deposited at an approved repository.
Injured individuals shall be handled only by a permittee authorized to capture and handle the species. Midpen shall ensure medical
assistance is provided to injured animals by a certified wildlife veterinarian familiar with amphibian and reptile care.
• Prescribed fire shall not be employed in tidal marsh habitats.
• If an emergency situation necessitates the use of water from a pond occupied by California red-legged frog, a striker pump and intake
hose may be used to draw water from one of the small wetland ponds in the burn area to fill engines or back pumps. The intake hose
shall be screened with 0.25-inch mesh to prevent intake of California red-legged frogs. The burn plan details the use of lake and ocean
water to fill helicopter buckets to aid suppression efforts. If a helicopter bucket is used, it shall draft from the center of the pond, to
prevent uptake of California red-legged frogs that may potentially be present.
• Within San Francisco garter snake habitat, post-burn monitoring shall be conducted as part of the Program activity and shall include (1)
vegetative response to the burn, (2) wildlife response to the burn, and (3) fire behavior and burn conditions. Because the burn is intended
to enhance San Francisco garter snake habitat, the monitoring emphasis for vegetation and wildlife shall be on the wildlife and habitat
features that are considered to be necessary to support San Francisco garter snakes. The variables measured for San Francisco garter
snake response to habitat are pre- and post-burn data on the (1) vegetation community in the burn area in order to determine vegetative
response to the burn and (2) the frequency of valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows and other burrows. As part of its
below ground temperature
monitoring during the burn.
After Activity: (1) Search the
affected post-treatment area
immediately following each
prescribed fire, (2) conduct post-
burn monitoring within San
Francisco garter snake habitat,
and (3) measure the number of
rodent burrows during the
vegetation transect monitoring
immediately after the burn and
submit all data to USFWS.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-22
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
standard post-fire evaluation, CAL FIRE and/or Midpen shall provide an analysis of the burn, including how the fire responded to weather
and other burn conditions, and percent coverage of the burn within the boundaries of the burn unit.
Beginning immediately after the burn, the frequency (number) of rodent burrows shall be measured during the vegetation transect
monitoring. Vegetation monitoring shall include the establishment of four transects within and three transects outside of the burn area for
comparative analysis. Transects shall be randomly established in burned and unburned areas and each transect shall measure 50 meters
in length. A meter-square plot shall be established at 5-meter intervals along the transects. Vegetative composition and percent cover for
all plant species shall be recorded for each plot. Transect sampling shall take place prior to the burn and at least once per year after the
burn for 3 years. Response of native and non-native grasses and coyote brush to the burn shall be of particular interest. Data collected
before, during, and after the burn, and the observations made during the evaluation of the burn shall be compiled into a report within 1 year
following the burn. Upon completion, the report shall be submitted to USFWS.
MM Biology-17: Sensitive Natural Communities
• Before a Program activity is implemented, a Midpen approved botanist shall: (1) assess the site- and Program-specific threats to each
sensitive natural community that might be impacted by the Program activity; and (2) recommend spatial buffers or other management
actions that shall reduce potentially significant impacts on the sensitive natural community to less than significant levels. The botanist’s
recommendations shall be site-specific, and shall consider the specific Program activity being proposed, the resiliency of the community,
and its susceptibility to potentially significant impacts associated with the Program activity. Midpen shall implement the botanist’s
recommendations, to the extent feasible. If Midpen is unable to implement the botanist’s recommendations, or if there is uncertainty
regarding the effects of a Program activity on the community, Midpen shall monitor the treatment areas after treatment at an interval
determined appropriate by the qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist. If the monitoring indicates the
Program activity has negatively impacted the community by resulting in substantial loss or degradation of the community, the terms of
MM Biology-18 shall apply.
• To the extent feasible, VMAs, fire management logistics areas, and firefighting infrastructure improvements shall be configured to
minimize habitat fragmentation, especially in areas with unique structural components or habitat elements and frequency of treatment
shall be carefully defined to reduce or minimize the likelihood of type conversion. If conversion is occurring, conditions of MM Biology-18
for compensatory mitigation shall be applied.
• All vegetation removal within tidal marsh or in uplands within 50 feet of tidal marsh shall be conducted with hand tools only. No heavy
equipment is permitted.
• Vegetative debris (e.g., slash, chips) shall not be placed on top of vegetation in sensitive communities, unless prescribed in the VMP or
PFP and determined by a qualified biologist or biological monitor working under a qualified biologist to not have negatively affect the
community.
• Personnel shall not walk through wetlands or other vegetation communities susceptible to trampling.
• Prior to approving an off-road travel route, Midpen shall survey the route to ensure avoidance of sensitive biological resources, including
special-status species and sensitive natural communities (or habitats).
• If it is not feasible to locate staging areas in previously disturbed areas, they shall be located outside of sensitive communities (or
habitats) that could suffer long-term impacts due to staging activities. Staging areas shall not be located in riparian or wetland
communities, nor in any of the Group 1 sensitive communities identified for avoidance.
• Burn piles shall be placed in areas away from any live vegetation that might be damaged by the burn.
• Grazing shall be carefully managed, should it occur in or near a sensitive natural community, to limit the grazing duration and to ensure
that erosion and sedimentation of waterways and riparian areas does not occur (in accordance with MM Geology-1).
Midpen biological
monitor or qualified
biologist and
Contractor
Midpen Where Program
activities are
proposed within
sensitive natural
communities.
Before Activity: (1) Assess site-
and Program-specific threats to
sensitive natural communities, (2)
recommend spatial buffers or
management actions to reduce
potential impacts on the sensitive
natural communities, and (3)
survey off-road travel route.
During Activity: Implement
sensitive natural communities
protection measures.
After Activity: N/A
MM Biology-18: Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Sensitive Natural Communities
Midpen shall provide compensatory mitigation for Program impacts to Group 1 and Group 2 communities. The baseline ratio for impacts to
Group 1 communities shall be 3:1 (e.g., 3 acres compensation for each acre impacted). The baseline ratio for impacts to Group 2
communities shall be 2:1. Several factors may dictate the need for a higher ratio (Clement et al. 2014, USACE 2015, USFWS 2016, State
Water Resources Control Board 2019). They are:
Midpen Midpen Where Program
activities
permanently affect
any Group 1 and
Group 2
communities.
Before Activity: Determine the
appropriate mitigation ratio for
project (e.g., treatment).
During Activity: Document
compliance with the
compensatory mitigation
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-23
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
1. Mitigation Strategy: The baseline ratio applies to mitigation projects that entail creation or restoration of the impacted community.
One half point shall be added to any mitigation project that involves only enhancement of an existing community as recommended
by a Midpen-approved biologist (e.g., seed within native species, removal of human-made infrastructure such as fences or
hardscape, treatment of invasive species).
2. Temporal Loss: The baseline ratio assumes there shall be no temporal loss of the community. Therefore, the baseline ratio only
applies to mitigation projects that are completed within a year after impacts occur. If the mitigation project is not initiated within a
year after impacts occur, the ratio shall be increased by 0.2 for each year of lag time between the time of impacts, and the start of
mitigation. For example, if mitigation for a Group 2 community is not expected to be initiated until two years after the impacts
occur, the mitigation ratio shall be 2.2:1.
3. Uncertainty: There is inherent uncertainty in whether a mitigation project will fully replace the functions that are lost from the
impact site. As a result, the mitigation ratio must be commensurate with the risk that a mitigation project will not achieve the
designated goal, which is generally to replace the functions that are lost from the impact site. The baseline ratios account for the
uncertainty inherent in all mitigation projects because they shall achieve “no net loss” of sensitive community functions even if
some (relatively small) portions of the mitigation site fail to achieve the desired conditions. However, the baseline ratios assume a
relatively high probability of success. Due to Midpen’s expertise and experience with mitigation projects, Midpen assumes the
mitigation project shall succeed if: (a) Midpen has successfully completed comparable mitigation projects, or (b) scientific
literature supports the inference that the mitigation project is likely to be successful (e.g., due to its simplicity). If the proposed
mitigation project does not satisfy either criterion, one point shall be added to the baseline ratio (e.g., the ratio for a Group 2
community shall be increased to 3:1).
4. Distance: Compensatory mitigation ratios are generally dependent on the distance of the mitigation site from the impact site. To
the extent feasible, Midpen shall mitigate on Midpen property, and within the same watershed as the impact site.
5. Kind: The baseline ratios assume “in-kind” mitigation (i.e., the mitigation site replaces the same sensitive natural community or
wetland type as the one impacted by the Program). In some instances, there may be ecological benefits to “out-of-kind”
mitigation. There shall be no increase in the mitigation ratio for mitigation projects that restore, create, or enhance a Group 1
community as compensation for impacts to a Group 2 community. Midpen shall document the scientific justification for all
proposed out-of-kind mitigation projects. No out-of-kind mitigation shall be allowed for impacts on wetland or riparian
communities unless authorized by the regulatory agency(ies) with jurisdiction over the impacted resource.
6. Other Impacts: A mitigation ratio greater than 1:1 may be needed to account for a project’s indirect impacts, and for its
contribution to cumulative impacts.1 The baseline ratios account for these impacts.
To determine the appropriate mitigation ratio for a given project (e.g., treatment), Midpen shall apply the factors described above, in the
order listed.
Midpen shall maintain a ledger that documents:
1. Impacts on sensitive communities, including type of community impacted, acreage impacted, year(s) impacts occurred, and
activity that caused the impact.
2. The mitigation ratio applied to each Program activity, and the rationale for that ratio. The rationale shall include a formula that
incorporates the variables outlined above.
3. Any additional mitigation requirements imposed by the regulatory agencies (e.g., in a Streambed Alteration Agreement from
CDFW) beyond what is already described above.
4. Mitigation projects, including the mitigation strategy, type, location, acreage, and date completed.
requirements and provide ledger
to the regulatory agencies.
After Activity: Monitor the site in
accordance with Midpen’s
monitoring program.
1 Under CEQA, mitigation must be roughly proportional to the level of impacts.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-24
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
The ledger shall be used to document compliance with the compensatory mitigation requirements. A copy of the ledger shall be made
available to the regulatory agencies.
Any plants or seeds needed for a mitigation project shall be derived from sources determined appropriate by the Midpen-approved
botanist. Dependent upon the species, plants or seeds shall be sourced from locally-appropriate genetic material and comply with best
management measures intended to exclude Phytophthora and other plant pathogens to the extent possible.
Performance Standards. Projects designed to mitigate significant impacts to sensitive natural communities shall be considered successful
once they achieve the membership rules described in the most current version of the Manual of California Vegetation. A District Approved
botanist shall implement the Relevé and Rapid Assessment (RA) vegetation sampling techniques (CDFW and CNPS 2019) to monitor
sensitive natural community development at mitigation sites until the site achieves the membership rules (e.g., percent relative cover)
described in the most current version of the Manual of California Vegetation, after which the site shall be monitored in accordance with
Midpen’s monitoring program.
MM Biology-19: Wetlands and Other Potential Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
Wetlands and other potential jurisdictional waters that may be impacted by the Program shall be formally delineated by a biologist with
expertise in wetland science. In addition to conducting the delineation, and in accordance with the recommendations provided by Castelle
et al. (1994), the biologist shall assess the following criteria to determine the buffer size needed to protect the jurisdictional resource from
indirect impacts: (1) resource functional value, (2) intensity of adjacent land use, (3) buffer characteristics, and (4) specific buffer functions
required. The biologist shall document the results of this assessment and the buffer recommendations in a report to Midpen.
Midpen shall not conduct any Program activities that might directly or indirectly impact jurisdictional wetlands and waters unless it
possesses permits from the appropriate State and federal regulatory agencies. Midpen shall make every attempt to avoid direct and
indirect impacts to wetlands and other jurisdictional waters. If complete avoidance is not possible, a biologist with expertise in wetland
science shall document baseline conditions according to the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) prior to any potential impacts.
According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2015):
• CRAM is a standardized, cost-effective tool for assessing the health of wetlands and riparian habitats. The overall goal of CRAM is to
provide a rapid, scientifically defensible, and repeatable assessment method that can be used routinely for wetland monitoring and
assessment. CRAM consists of assessing aquatic resources with respect to four overarching “attributes,” i.e., buffer/landscape context,
hydrology, physical structure, and biotic structure. A number of “metrics” address more specific aspects of aquatic resource condition
within each of these attributes. Each metric is assigned a numeric score based on either narrative or schematic descriptions of condition
or thresholds across continuous values. Metric descriptions are based on characteristics of aquatic resources observed across a range
of conditions, such that the highest score for each metric represents the theoretical optimum condition obtainable for the aquatic
resource feature being evaluated.
• The baseline CRAM assessment shall be used in two ways: (1) to monitor the effectiveness of the buffer in preventing indirect impacts to
the wetland community; and (2) to ensure compensatory mitigation replaces the wetland functions impacted by the Program.
Compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetland and other jurisdictional waters shall be provided in accordance with USACE guidelines,
including: (1) Guidelines for Preparing a Compensatory Mitigation Plan; (2) Attachment 12501.6 – SPD Mitigation Ratio Checklist; (3)
Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines, and (4) 2501-SPD Regulatory Program Standard Operating Procedure for
Determination of Mitigation Ratios (USACE 2010, 2012, 2015, 2017). If possible, compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands and other
jurisdictional waters shall restore a comparable aquatic feature within the same watershed as the impact.
Midpen shall adopt performance standards consistent with the USACE’s Uniform Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation
Requirements (USACE 2012). Mitigation monitoring shall adhere to the Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines
(USACE 2015).
Midpen Midpen Where Program
activities are
proposed within
wetlands and other
potential
jurisdictional aquatic
resources.
Before Activity: (1) Delineate
wetlands and other potentially
jurisdictional waters, (2)
document baseline conditions of
the wetland or other jurisdictional
waters if complete avoidance is
not possible, (3) obtain necessary
permits from the appropriate
agencies.
During Activity: Avoid impacts on
jurisdictional waters.
After Activity: N/A
MM Biology-20: Significant and Heritage Tree Ordinances
Prior to conducting any work that involves tree removal, biologist or other personnel qualified in tree identification shall identify if any
County or local protected and heritage tree ordinances are relevant to the area of work. If an ordinance would apply to the area of work,
the area of work shall be investigated by the biologist or personnel qualified in tree identification to identify if any trees subject to the
ordinance are found in the project area. If a tree subject to the ordinance is in the area of work, the tree shall be clearly marked as a
Midpen and
Contractor
Midpen Where tree removal
occurs.
Before Activity: (1) Identify
County and local protected and
heritage tree ordinances, (2)
identify trees that are subject to
the ordinance, (3) mark trees for
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-25
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
“Leave Tree” so that it is not accidentally damaged or removed during work. If a tree that qualifies as a protected or heritage tree must be
removed, the appropriate steps shall be implemented to obtain the appropriate permits for tree removal. If trees within the CalTrans right-
of-way must be removed, the tree removal must be part of the Encroachment Permit, to be reviewed by CalTrans, which may require tree
replacement in its permit terms.
avoidance, and (4) obtain
necessary permit to remove
protected and heritage trees or
trees within Caltrans right-of-
way.
During Activity: Avoid impacts on
trees that are marked for
avoidance.
After Activity: N/A
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
MM Cultural-1: Pre-Activity Surveys and Avoidance of Impacts to Cultural Resources
Prior to conducting any work associated with the WFRP that could disturb the ground surface or subsurface, the work areas shall be
compared against Midpen’s GIS data to determine if the area has been previously surveyed and, if it has been surveyed, if any historic or
archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources are found in the work area. Any resources that have not been evaluated shall be
assumed eligible for listing in the CRHR and assumed significant.
If the GIS data shows that the proposed areas where soil disturbance below the surface via heavy equipment or burning (i.e., for VMP
activities involving heavy equipment, prescribed fires under the PFP, and any work that involves grading under the Wildland Fire Pre-Plans)
have not been previously surveyed, then a discretionary archival-records search at the California Historical Resources Information System,
Northwest Information Center, can be completed. If the area is still not found to have been previously surveyed, a pre-activity cultural-
resources survey shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist or cultural resources specialist in accordance with industry standards
prior to performing work unless vegetation is too dense, making a survey impossible. In the event vegetation is too dense, making a pre-
activity survey challenging or impossible, the training conducted under IPMP BMP 26 shall be sufficient to permit work to be conducted
using only manual techniques accessed on foot.
New resources noted during the field survey shall be recorded and mapped on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation
523 forms. In the case of a previously recorded resource, an updated California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 form detailing
current condition shall be completed, as appropriate.
Any historical or archaeological resources (not including built-environment historic features) located in the work area (as identified in
either previous surveys, in a discretionary records search, or during pre-activity surveys) plus a 50-foot buffer shall be identified on any
activity plans. The boundaries around the resource/buffer shall be temporarily marked, such as with fencing or flagging. If work must
commence in the sensitive area, it can only be performed using hand tools or hand- powered tools, cannot include ground disturbance
below the topsoil layer, and can only be accessed on foot. Alternatively, the resource can be evaluated for eligibility under the CRHR. If
found ineligible and not a tribal cultural resource, work could proceed as normal. If found eligible or to be a tribal cultural resource,
impacts on the resource must be avoided (through total avoidance of the area or through use of hand methods only in the area of the
resource, as described here). If not avoidable, MM Cultural-2 shall be implemented. After work is completed, all cultural resource
delineators (e.g., flags or fencing) shall be removed in order to avoid potential vandalism, unauthorized excavation(s), etc.
Midpen shall contact and consult with local Native American groups identified by the Native American Heritage Commission and request
input on Tribal Cultural Resources within the project areas if any prehistoric resources are identified during pre-activity surveys and
impacts to these resources cannot be avoided or minimized (such as through the use of hand tools). The Midpen Project Manager shall
have the discretion to consult, depending on the potential impacts anticipated from the Program activity. Information on the proposed
activity, the results of the information review(s) and field inventory, and any Native American input shall be reported in a Memo to the File
with the implemented mitigation measures based on anticipated impacts.
Midpen and qualified
archaeologist or
cultural resources
specialist or Native
American groups
Midpen All work areas prior
to conducting
Program activities.
Before Activity: Consult the GIS
cultural-resources layer for the
presence of recorded sites.
During Activity: 1) Avoid
recorded resources or impacts
on resources or use only hand
methods in resource areas and
(2) examine area where piles are
proposed for resources.
After Activity: Remove resource
delineators, add any newly
discovered resources to GIS
database.
MM Cultural-2: Treatment of Unavoidable Resources
For any resources either discovered during implementation of activities (per IPMP BMP 26) or found during pre-activity surveys under MM
Cultural-1 and that cannot be avoided, recordation, additional archaeological testing, Native American consultation (if pre-historic), and
Midpen and qualified
archaeologist or
Midpen Any area where
cultural resources
Before Activity: Determine if
resource cannot be avoided and
prepare Treatment Plan and data
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-26
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
data recovery shall be implemented. Data recovery for any significant cultural resources that cannot be avoided or preserved in place shall
be guided by a Treatment Plan, to be submitted to Midpen for approval and completion.
Impacts shall be assessed for the installation of new permanent infrastructure under the Wildland Fire Pre-Plans near a built-environment
historic feature, landscape, or district. The new infrastructure shall either be relocated if an effect is likely or data recovery implemented in
accordance with a Treatment Plan (as previously discussed).
A report of the findings and resource interpretation, disposition of any recovered cultural materials, and recommendations for future
resource protection shall be completed and filed with Midpen, interested Native Americans, the California Historical Resources
Information System (if pre-historic), and the Northwest Information Center.
cultural resources
specialist
impacts cannot be
avoided.
recovery as well as consult tribes
if pre-historic.
During Activity: For resources
found during work that cannot be
avoided, prepare Treatment Plan
and data recovery.
After Activity: Notify appropriate
parties and agencies.
MM Cultural-3: Human Remains
If human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects are exposed during vegetation management, work within 50 feet of the
discovery shall be halted and the find protected from further disturbance in accordance with Midpen protocols for resource protection.
The County Coroner or Medical Examiner shall be notified immediately and, in the event of the determination that the human remains are
Native American remains, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be undertaken to obtain a most likely descendant
(MLD) (PRC § 5097.98) for treatment recommendations. Midpen, the archaeological consultant, and the MLD shall make all reasonable
efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment of human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects with appropriate
dignity (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[d]). The agreement shall take into consideration the appropriate removal, recordation, analysis,
custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects.
Implementation of the Treatment Plan shall be undertaken by Midpen, and any findings shall be submitted in a report to the MLD and filed
with the California Historical Resources Information System, NWIC.
Midpen and qualified
archaeologist or
cultural resources
specialist or Native
American groups
Midpen All Program areas, if
applicable.
Before Activity: N/A
During Activity: (1) Avoid known
location of human remains, (2)
cease activity if human remains
are uncovered, (3) appoint an
MLD, (4) protect human remains
until a decision is reached, and
(5) if avoidance is not possible,
Midpen, a professional
archaeologist, and an MLD shall
be consulted and human remains
and associated or unassociated
funerary objects shall be
removed from the location and
relocated to selected location in
accordance to decision reached.
Once remains are moved, then
the activity can commence again
in this area.
After Activity: N/A
Geology and Soils
MM Geology-1: Prescribed Herbivory Land and Trail Control
Livestock will be used for vegetation management to reduce the use of chemical herbicides, to control invasive vegetation, and to promote
the growth of native vegetation. Methods shall be implemented to reduce the potential creation of prescribed herbivory trails and erosional
features, including the following:
• Limit or prohibit prescribed herbivory within 100 feet of lakes/reservoirs, creeks, streams, riparian corridors, and wetlands, using fencing
or natural features to prevent livestock from entering streams and riparian areas, depending upon a qualified professional’s assessment.
The following measures would be considered by the qualified professional and implemented where appropriate:
- In riparian areas, livestock shall be excluded from the top of bank of a defined channel by installing fencing on the edge of riparian
canopy where topography does not naturally exclude access.
- Water and feed troughs shall be installed away from natural water sources.
- In wetlands, livestock shall be excluded only where the percent cover of vegetation is low.
• Implement methods, which could include rotating or providing multiple feeding areas to minimize excessive congregation of animals in
any one location for too long, as determined by a qualified professional.
• Limit the number of animals in a particular-sized area using the stocking-rate equation taking into account days assumed to graze, slope,
yield of the land, number of animals, weight of animals, and other appropriate factors.
Midpen and/or
Contractor
Midpen Prescribed herbivory
areas.
Before Activity: Install fencing as
needed.
During Activity: (1) Limit number
of animals in an area based on
appropriate calculations, and
minimize congregation of animals
in any one location, (2) repair
damaged fencing or erosion
control features, and (3) conduct
surveys during prescribed
herbivory to identify problem
areas.
After Activity: (1) Permit
appropriate rest periods after
prescribed herbivory, and (2)
remediate any bare areas.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-27
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
• Conduct surveys of the prescribed herbivory area during active grazing; identify if trails or other erosion features are forming.
• Ensure there are appropriate rest periods between active prescribed herbivory in any one area to allow regrowth of plants and
appropriate amounts of residual dry matter (RDM) to remain on the ground to achieve desired vegetation-management objectives.
• If prescribed herbivory trails or damaged areas form, the bare area shall be remediated by decompacting the soil and discontinuing
prescribed herbivory in the area until the trails are revegetated, as determined by a qualified professional.
• Excessive livestock grazing on steep slopes (generally slopes with more than 35 percent grade) shall be discouraged or avoided using
the methods described above (e.g., water and feed trough locations, stocking-rate equation) or fencing where determined appropriate by
a qualified professional.
• During surveys of active prescribed herbivory, conduct ongoing surveillance of installed erosion control features around riparian areas
and any fences installed.
• Repair damaged fencing or erosion-control features as necessary.
MM Geology-2: Erosion Control and Slope Stability Measures
In addition to Midpen’s erosion-control measures (IPMP BMP 28), control measures shall be implemented to ensure vegetation
management does not result in erosion, loss of topsoil, or slope instability in areas where work could expose bare soils or create loss of
root-soil matrix strength. General erosion-control measures are identified that apply to all projects.
Generally, if groundcover or native mulch/organic matter is determined to be less than 70 percent following work or if work is proposed to
occur on steep slopes (over 35 percent slope), then specific control measures, as identified here, shall be implemented as determined
appropriate by the qualified personnel. Other site conditions, such as unconsolidated soils or evidence of landslides, or the scale of project
proposed may trigger the need for the qualified personnel to determine that the control measures shall apply.
Prior to conducting work in any given area under any management action that could result in erosion or slope instability (e.g., prescribed
burns, tree removal, weed removal, or forest treatments that could reduce the groundcover and expose soil, or for infrastructure creation
such as new roads, pipelines, or water storage tanks) a review of site conditions shall be conducted. The review of site conditions may
include but is not limited to a desktop review of slope, LiDAR, historic evidence of landslides (e.g., Wentworth et al. 1997), local hazard
mapping and safety plans, proximity to infrastructure, and modeling of landslide susceptibility GIS data (e.g., Wills et al. 2011) as well as a
site visit for existing signs of erosion or slope instability (e.g., rills, slumped soil). Depending on the slope and the downslope resources that
could be impacted by slope failure (e.g., roads, waterbodies, or habitat), erosion-control and slope-stabilization measures shall be
determined prior to implementation of work, based on the list below. Generally, if an action would expose soils (leaving groundcover or
native mulch/organic matter less than 70 percent), then measures to protect soils, minimize erosion, and prevent slope instability shall be
implemented. In addition, management actions may be adjusted to achieve similar results.
The measures to be implemented shall depend on the site’s specific characteristics and the type and extent of vegetation management
work to be performed. The inspection and determination of appropriate measures shall be made by qualified personnel with knowledge and
experience (a qualified SWPPP developer [QSD] or a qualified SWPPP practitioner [QSP]; licensed geologist [P.G. or C.E.G.]; licensed
engineer; Registered Professional Forester [RPF]; etc.) in the application of erosion-control and slope-stabilization measures through
training or field experience with control-measure installation. The qualified personnel shall memorialize in writing their field observations
and corresponding recommendations regarding installation of control measures.
A licensed geologist or RPF shall conduct the site inspection for projects that would involve substantial grading or vegetation removala on
active slide areas, unstable areas, or unstable soils (as defined in the California Forest Practice Rules) if the following applies:
• in previously undisturbed soils; or
• up to 0.5-mile above or 0.25-mile below infrastructure, including potentially occupied structures.
A licensed geologist or RPF shall conduct site inspections for new road additions that are greater than 600 feet, regardless of the proximity
to active slide areas, unstable areas, or unstable soils. The licensed geologist shall identify specific control measures that must be
implemented, which may include but are not limited to the control measures identified in this mitigation measure. In areas that were
previously analyzed by an RPF or qualified geologist, the District shall review the prior recommendations for consistency with the proposed
activity and determine if a new review is warranted.
General Control Measures
Midpen and/or
Contractor
Midpen Any areas where
qualified personnel
determine erosion
and slope stability is
a concern (e.g., the
ground is disturbed
and soils are
exposed through
vegetation
management
activities areas on
steep slopes).
Before Activity: Inspect areas
prior to treatment to assess the
potential for erosion and soil
instability.
During Activity: Implement
protection measures as needed
to avoid or minimize erosion and
slope instability.
After Activity: Conduct
inspections as needed,
depending on the size and nature
of the work and the site, to
ensure that erosion is not
occurring and to remove any
erosion control devices once
they are no longer needed.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-28
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
The following measures shall be considered for implementation and required as determined appropriate by the qualified personnel during
work as applicable:
• Minimize areas to be disturbed to the greatest extent feasible.
• Shut down use of heavy equipment, skidding, and truck traffic when soils become saturated and unable to support the machines.
• No substantial ground disturbing work (e.g., use of heavy equipment, pulling large vegetation) shall occur during rain events and 48 hours
after a rain event, defined as 0.5 inch of rain within a 48-hour or greater period, using the NOAA website as the official record for rain
events.
Reduced Groundcover Control Measures
The following measures shall be considered for implementation and required as determined appropriate by the qualified personnel during
work if the activity may leave less than 70 percent of groundcover or native mulch/organic material as determined to be applicable by
qualified personnel:
• Sow native grasses and other herbs on denuded areas where natural colonization or other replanting will not occur rapidly; use slash or
chips to prevent erosion on such areas.
• Use surface mounds, depressions, logs, rocks, trees and stumps, slash and brush, the litter layer, and native herbaceous vegetation
downslope of denuded areas to reduce sedimentation and erosion, as necessary to prevent erosion or slope destabilization.
• Install approved, biodegradable erosion-control measures and non-filament-based geotextiles (e.g., coir, jute) when:
- Conducting substantial ground-disturbing work (e.g., use of heavy equipment, pulling large vegetation) within 100 feet and upslope of
currently flowing or wet wetlands, streams, lakes, and riparian areas;
- Causing soil disturbance on moderate to steep (10 percent slope and greater) slopes; and
- Removing invasive plants from stream banks to prevent sediment movement into watercourses and to protect bank stability.
• Sediment-control devices, if installed, shall be certified weed-free, as appropriate. Sediment- control devices shall be inspected daily
during active construction to ensure that they are repaired and working as needed to prevent sediment transport into the waterbodies.
Once work is completed, the areas shall be inspected at least annually if accessible, until groundcover exceeds 70 percent and slopes
have stabilized. At that time, erosion-control and slope-stability devices may be removed at the discretion of District staff.
Steep Slopes Control Measures
The following measures, in addition to the ones described above, shall be considered for implementation and required as determined
appropriate by the qualified personnel during work conducted on steep slopes (greater than 35 percent) and as determined to be
applicable by qualified personnel:
• Avoid use of heavy equipment on slopes greater than 35 percent unless qualified personnel determine that the specialized equipment
does not impact slope stability.
• Prescribed and pile burns shall be performed outside of perennial and intermittent streams and of riparian forest/ woodland. A 50-foot
buffer around perennial and intermittent streams shall be maintained when the burn is proposed upslope of the stream on slopes greater
than 35 percent.
• Avoid installation of cleared areas, including spur roads or staging areas, on steep slopes, particularly over 50 percent slope, where
feasible. Where not feasible, a licensed geologist/engineer or RPF shall be consulted, as required above. The licensed geologist/engineer
shall identify and require implantation of appropriate design and control measures including but not limited to those identified in Low-
Volume Roads Engineering (Keller & Sherar, 2003); Handbook for Forest, Ranch, and Rural Roads (Weaver, 2015); latest California Forest
Practice Rules; or other suitable engineering guidance, such as:
- Locate roads on well-drained soils and slopes where drainage moves away from the road
- Provide adequate surface drainage
- Avoid wet and unstable areas (seeps, springs, etc.)
- Use the natural topography to control or dictate the ideal location of road or cleared area (e.g., staging area); use saddles, follow
ridges, use bench areas, etc.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-29
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
Recommendations provided in the assessment shall be implemented as needed to ensure that slope instability does not occur. When a
desktop review or site visit reveals that steep slopes (greater than 35 percent), active slides, unstable areas, or unstable soils (as defined in
the California Forest Practice Rules) are located above infrastructure, sensitive habitat, or structures potentially occupied by people, a
licensed geologist/engineer shall perform an assessment to evaluate whether the proposed intensive tree removal (e.g., removal of
eucalyptus grove/cluster rather than isolated trees), could cause erosion, further slope instability, or a public safety concern. Other
recommendations could include measures such as stabilizing slopes with mats or natural materials after tree removal and replanting to
bind soils.
Note:
a Substantial grading is defined as cuts above 3 feet and fill above 1.5 feet with lengths greater than 20 feet or removal of greater than
20 linear feet of shrubs and trees on an abandoned/little-used road on cross slopes greater than 55 percent. Substantial vegetation
removal is defined as removal of all vegetative cover (both aboveground and belowground root structure for shrubs; aboveground for
trees) for an area with a cross slope greater than 55 percent and in excess of 20 linear feet in any direction.
MM Geology-3: Fire Lines During Prescribed Burns
The following measures shall be implemented during prescribed burns to reduce erosion from fire lines:
• Use existing barriers such as roads, trails, or wet lines as fire lines. If new fire lines must be established for a prescribed burn, fire lines
shall be restored as described below.
• Restore fire lines upon completion of the burn if they are not used again (unless they are existing roads, trails, or other permanent
elements). Utilize erosion-control measures, such as sediment traps, during restoration to reduce sedimentation impacts. Complete
restoration activities within one month after a fire line is created unless the fire line is planned to be used during another burn within one
year. Restore all fire lines that do not use existing infrastructure (i.e., roads, trails, or other permanent elements) within one year of use.
Rehabilitation methods may include use of a hydromulch with locally collected, genetically appropriate, native species; pulling duff, litter,
and cut material back over lines; and/or distribution of locally chipped fuels on the lines.
• Design prescribed burn boundaries to avoid gullies and highly erodible soils to the fullest extent possible.
Midpen and/or
Contractor
Midpen Prescribed burn
sites.
Before Activity: Determine fire
lines.
During Activity: Set up provisions
as specified in the measure.
After Activity: Restore fire lines
that will no longer be used upon
completion of work.
MM Geology-4: Soil Assessment for Construction of New Water-Supply Pipelines
The following soil-assessment measures shall be implemented to ensure significant risks to life or property do not occur as a result of
water-supply pipeline construction in an expansive soil in Ravenswood OSP or Stevens Creek Shoreline Nature Area:
1. Consult appropriate GIS data (e.g., USDA, 1991; USDA, 2015) to determine if expansive soils may be present within the proposed
construction site.
2. Conduct a field assessment using a proven scientific test or method, such as a soil expansion index test, to verify presence of
expansive soils on the site.
3. If verified to be present, determine if the expansive soils can be avoided through design specifications. If appropriate design
measures cannot be utilized to avoid expansive soils, no excavated soil shall be used for fill during construction; instead, clean fill
soils with a low expansion potential shall be used.
Midpen and/or
Contractor
Midpen Locations of new
water-supply
pipeline construction
in Ravenswood OSP
or Stevens Creek
Shoreline Nature
Area.
Before Activity: (1) Obtain
permits if appropriate and (2)
prepare plans and design
specifications according to
results of soil assessment.
During Activity: Monitor
construction and ensure proper
construction practices are
implemented.
After Activity: Verify appropriate
soils were used during
construction.
Hazards, Hazardous Materials, and Wildland Fire
MM Hazards-1: Avoidance of Contaminated Sites
To prevent exposure of workers to hazards or release of contamination into nearby waterways or clean soils, the following shall be
conducted prior to any work within the boundary of any known contaminated sites or contaminated sites listed on government databases
(e.g., the former Almaden AFS, Madonna Creek Ranch):
• Existing data and reports on the areas of contamination and remediation, or the SFBRWQCB, shall be consulted and a map prepared
identifying any areas with residual contamination (e.g., lead paint, asbestos, petroleum) that are still present after remediation. This map
shall be updated at least annually if any fire management activity is proposed in the area.
Midpen and/or
Contractor
Midpen Known
contaminated sites
(e.g., Former
Almaden AFS within
Sierra Azul OSP,
Madonna Creek
Ranch within
Miramontes OSP).
Before Activity: Review data and
reports and prepare or update
map of contaminated areas.
During Activity: Consult map and
avoid areas of residual
contamination or avoid ground
disturbing activities, depending
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-30
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
• The areas identified on the map as containing residual contamination shall be avoided either entirely (e.g., no cutting or entrance into
site) or ground disturbing activities avoided (e.g., vegetation cutting allowed), depending upon a determination made by qualified
personnel.
on determination made by
qualified personnel.
After Activity: N/A
MM Hazards-2: Fire Risk Reduction for Stockpiling and Pile Burning
The following measures shall be implemented to reduce hazards associated with pile burning:
• Pile burning shall only be allowed on days when fire is less likely to spread (e.g., wind speeds are less than 15 mph).
• Piles shall not be constructed in areas where burning cannot be safely controlled, such as bottoms of steep, vegetated hills.
• Piles shall be set back from roads and trails at a distance specified by Midpen to minimize risk to recreationalists and other users.
• All requirements of CAL FIRE or the BAAQMD or MBARD shall be met, including any permit, notification, burn bans, and reporting
requirements.
• Public notification shall be provided at least 24 hours in advance of less than 10 pile burns (defined as 10-foot-wide by six-foot-high) to
immediately adjacent residents (within 1,000 feet), and at trailheads and access roads leading to the area with piles proposed for burning.
For 10 or more piles (defined as 10-foot-wide by six-foot-high), noticing shall extend to residents within 1 mile. The public notification shall
include current contact numbers to the appropriate burn coordinator.
Midpen and
Contractor
Midpen Wherever stockpiles
of slash are made
and piles burned.
Before Activity: Notify public and
obtain all permits and make all
necessary notifications as
required by BAAQMD and
MBARD.
During Activity: (1) Ensure that
piles are located appropriately
and (2) ensure proper weather
conditions during pile burning.
After Activity: N/A
MM Hazards-3: Safety Around Prescribed Burns
Trails and Midpen-Owned or Managed Roads
Midpen-owned or managed roads and trails shall be closed to public recreational and other unaffiliated private vehicle (e.g., County or
private landowner vehicles on Midpen managed but not owned land) access within at least 500 feet of the outermost edges of a prescribed
burn (or less with Burn Boss and Midpen concurrence). Midpen-owned or managed roads and trails shall be posted and blockaded with
temporary fencing or the like. Notices of closures shall be posted at the trail heads or road entrances and on Midpen’s website. Additional
measures, such as staffing trail head closures, can be implemented as needed.
Public Roads
If possible, public roads within 500 feet of the outermost edges of a prescribed burn shall be closed in coordination with the appropriate
agency (e.g., Caltrans). In the event this is not feasible due to volume of traffic or lack of alternative routes, a Traffic Control Plan shall be
prepared and adopted in coordination with the appropriate agency. The Traffic Control Plan shall be designed to allow safe passage along
roads adjacent to a prescribed burn and shall include the following at a minimum:
• Requirement to coordinate with local law enforcement (e.g., County Sheriff, California Highway Patrol).
• Installation of temporary signage at intervals ahead of and adjacent to the prescribed burn indicating that a prescribed burn is in
progress.
• Use of flaggers to slow traffic during the burn or stop traffic if wind conditions shift, resulting in smoke crossing the road.
Midpen and
Contractor
Midpen Within 500 feet of the
outer edges of a
prescribed burn.
Before Activity: (1) Post notices
of closures at trailheads and
online and (2) prepare a Traffic
Control Plan, if required.
During Activity: (1) Place
blockades along Midpen-owned
or managed roads and trails, (2)
staff closures of Midpen-owned
or managed roads and trails, if
needed, and (3) implement a
Traffic Control Plan for public
roads adjacent to prescribed
burns, if needed.
After Activity: Remove blockades
and signage.
Hydrology and Water Quality
MM Hydrology-1: Water Quality Protection During Waterway Crossing or Work Near Waterbodies
Vehicles and heavy equipment shall avoid new instream crossings. On rare occasions, such as to perform work to create or maintain FRAs,
equipment may need to access off an existing road into a treatment area through a waterbody. If instream (waterway) crossings must
occur because no other options for access are reasonably available, the crossing shall be performed when the stream is dry and soils are
not saturated. The crossing shall be performed in a way that does not result in any permanent alteration of the stream bank or bed (e.g.,
choosing areas with stable soils and the least slope or with vegetation to protect the bed and bank). If water is flowing or the stream has
flow or saturation, temporary plates or the equivalent shall be installed from bank to bank for equipment access across the waterway.
Increased use of existing stream crossings may require upgrades and/or re-engineering of the existing road or water crossing structure. If
a new instream crossing or refurbishment of an existing crossing that could impact the bank or bed or riparian vegetation is needed, the
crossing shall only be performed after and in accordance with the appropriate 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW and
Midpen and
Contractor
Midpen Anywhere vehicles
and heavy
equipment must
cross streams or
creeks (waterways).
Before Activity: (1) Obtain
permits and (2) install plates or
record vegetative conditions, as
appropriate.
During Activity: Minimize soil or
vegetation disturbance, as
appropriate.
After Activity: Restore crossing
area.
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-31
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
Section 404 and 401 Clean Water Act permits. All soils shall be restored after the instream crossing and banks revegetated, as needed,
after the work is completed, in accordance with permits.
Noise
MM Noise-1: Noise Restrictions
Construction Noise Standards
Midpen shall determine the jurisdiction(s) within which an activity is proposed and identify the applicable noise standards. For activities in
unincorporated areas, the specific buffers identified in this measure shall apply. For activities in incorporated areas, Midpen shall
determine if the standards have a numeric limit and calculate adequate buffers between noise-generating activities and specified land
uses (e.g., residential) as appropriate.
Construction Hours
All construction hours identified in the local noise ordinances shall be followed.
Buffer Zones (Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties)
Buffer zones shall be established to reduce noise at sensitive receptors to the maximum extent feasible to reduce noise to the conditional
limits identified by Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties’ noise ordinances.
The buffer zone distances are shown below that identify the distances needed for noise levels to remain below 75 dBA L eq for work
occurring less than 10 days, and below 60 dBA L eq for work occurring for 10 days or longer in Santa Clara County and below 75 dBA Leq for
Santa Cruz County. These distances do not need to be implemented where it is not technically feasible to implement them per the
applicable noise ordinances that requires that noise must only be reduced where it is possible to do so (i.e., Santa Clara County Noise
Ordinance, or considering the necessity of the work in Santa Cruz County).
A violation of the noise ordinances would only occur where the noise exceeded the conditional limits set by the jurisdiction, but there is a
feasible way to reduce that noise (e.g., placing a chipper within 50 feet of a receptor when it could feasibly be placed 100 feet away is a
violation, but using a chainsaw to cut a large hazard tree within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor would not be a violation assuming no other
feasible methods to remove that tree are available).
Equipment Approximate Buffer Between Equipment and
Sensitive Receptors (feet) – for Work Occurring in
One Location for Less Than 10 Days (Not to Exceed
75 dBA L eq ) in Santa Clara County or for any work
duration in Santa Cruz County
Approximate Buffer Between Equipment and
Sensitive Receptors (feet) – for Work Occurring in
One Location for 10 Days or Longer (Not to Exceed
60 dBA L eq ) in Santa Clara County
Chipper 100 568
Tractor 90 506
Generator/ water pump 71 402
Chainsaw/ excavator 64 358
Skid steer -- 284
Backhoe/ brushcutter -- 254
Fire engine/ crane -- 226
Leaf blower -- 201
Pickup truck -- 179
Power pole saw -- 80
Midpen and/or
Contractor
Midpen Midpen lands near
sensitive receptors.
Before Activity: Notify affected
parties one week before, if
applicable.
During Activity: (1) A designated
coordinator shall ensure that
either setbacks or other
conditions are implemented or
affected parties are properly
notified (if setbacks are not
feasible) and (2) a buffer shall be
maintained between receptor
and equipment, if needed and
appropriate.
After Activity: N/A
EXHIBIT A
4 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
4-32
Mitigation Measure Implementation
Responsibility
Monitoring
Responsibility
Applicable
Locations
Timing and Performance
Standards
Compliance
Verification
Minimization Measures and Disturbance Coordinator
If these restrictions are not implementable between the receptors and a given location, Midpen shall notify the resident or contact at the
sensitive receptor within one week of conducting the activity to schedule the activity. Activities shall be coordinated to minimize
disturbance to the receptor, such as conducting the work when no one is there. Engineering controls could also be used, if feasible, to
keep noise levels below 75 dBA Leq for work occurring in one location for less than 10 days or 60 dBA Leq for work occurring in one
location for 10 days or longer. Midpen shall designate a disturbance coordinator to address any noise complaints under these
circumstances. The noise coordinator can be the person performing the work.
Transportation
MM Transportation-1: Emergency Responders and Access
The following measures shall be implemented to ensure emergency access is maintained:
1. At least one week prior to temporary lane or full closure of a public road, Midpen shall contact the appropriate emergency
response agency/agencies with jurisdiction (e.g., CalTrans, County, City) to ensure that each agency is notified of the closure and
any temporary detours in advance.
2. In the event of an emergency, roads (public roads, and Midpen-owned or managed roads) or access trails blocked or obstructed
by activities shall be cleared to allow emergency vehicles to pass.
3. During temporary lane or road closures on public roads, Midpen shall use flaggers equipped with two-way radios. During an
emergency, flaggers shall radio to the crew to cease operations and reopen the public road to emergency vehicles.
4. In work areas, all vehicles and equipment shall be parked so the road is not blocked or obstructed when there is no operator
present to move the vehicle.
Midpen and/or
Contractor
Midpen All locations where
roads or access
trails may be
blocked to perform
activities.
Before Activity: Inform
emergency responders of public
road closures.
During Activity: (1) Ensure
flaggers and crew are equipped
with two-way radios on public
roads, (2) clear roads and access
trails in the event of an
emergency, and (3) park vehicles
and equipment so as not to
obstruct the roadway.
After Activity: N/A
EXHIBIT A
5 DOCUMENT PREPARATION
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
5-1
5 Document Preparation
5.1 Report Preparation
This section lists those individuals who either prepared or participated in the preparation of this
Program EIR.
5.1.1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Midpen was the CEQA lead agency for preparation of this Program EIR. The following
individuals listed in Table 5.1-1 were involved in the preparation of this Program EIR.
Table 5.1-1 Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Team
Contributor Title
Coty Sifuentes-Winter Senior Resource Management Specialist
Aaron Hebert Senior Resource Management Specialist
Aaron Peth Planner III
Ana Ruiz General Manager
Brian Malon Assistant General Manager
Craig Beckman Area Manager
Hilary Stevenson General Counsel
Jane Mark Planning Manager
Julie Andersen Senior Resource Management Specialist
Kirk Lenington Natural Resource Manager
Leigh Ann Gessner Public Affairs Specialist II
Meredith Manning Senior Planner
Michael Gorman Area Manager
Michael Jurich Land and Facilities Manager (Retired)
Nathan Greig Data Analyst II
5.1.2 Consultant Team
Panorama Environmental, Inc., prepared this Program EIR for and under the direction of
Midpen. The following staff listed in Table 5.1-2 contributed to this Program EIR.
EXHIBIT A
5 DOCUMENT PREPARATION
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
5-2
Table 5.1-2 Consultant Team
Contributor Title Role/Resource Section
Tania Treis Project Manager Project Management, Quality Control/Document Review and
Revision of all Resource Sections, Project Description,
Alternatives
Caitlin Gilleran Deputy Project Manager Project Description, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological
Resources, Energy Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards
and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Recreation, Transportation
Rita Wilke Senior Environmental
Scientist
Hydrology and Water Quality, Geology and Soils, Other CEQA
Considerations
Whitney Broeking Senior Environmental
Scientist
Cumulative Impacts, Technical Editing
Corey Fong GIS Specialist/
Cartographer
GIS, Graphics
Madeleine Jones Environmental Analyst Cultural/Tribal Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils,
Hydrology and Water Quality, Cumulative Impacts, Document
Production, Technical Editing
Kathleen Cuschieri Environmental Analyst Technical Editing
Yingying Cai Environmental Planner Technical Editing
Carol Rice Fire Management
Specialist
Pile and Prescribed Burn Modeling
Subconsultant Authors
The following subconsultants listed in Table 5.1-3 contributed to the preparation of the Program
EIR.
Table 5.1-3 Subconsultants
Contributor Firm Resource Section Support
Mike Ratte RCH Group
Rancho Cordova, California
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Heath Bartosh Nomad Ecology
Martinez, California
Biological Resources
Scott Cashen Nomad Ecology
Martinez, California
Biological Resources
Dana Terry Nomad Ecology
Martinez, California
Biological Resources
Colin Busby Basin Research Associates
San Leandro, California
Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources
EXHIBIT A
5 DOCUMENT PREPARATION
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
5-3
Contributor Firm Resource Section Support
Melody Tannam Basin Research Associates
San Leandro, California
Cultural Resources, Tribal Cultural Resources
Jared Lewis Applied Technology & Science
San Francisco, California
Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water
Quality
Paul Studemeister, PhD Applied Technology & Science
San Francisco, California
Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water
Quality
5.2 Agencies, Organizations, and Tribes Consulted
The following parties and agency representatives listed in Table 5.2-1 were contacted during
preparation of this Program EIR.
Table 5.2-1 Parties Consulted During Preparation of Program EIR
Parties Consulted
Agencies and Organizations
• California Air Resources Board
• California Coastal Commission (North Central Coast
and Central Coast District)
• California Department of Conservation
• California Department of Fish and Wildlife Region 3
• California Department of Food and Agriculture
• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
• California Department of Parks and Recreation
• California Department of Pesticide Regulation
• California Department of Toxic Substances Control
• California Department of Transportation District 4 & 5
• California Highway Patrol
• California Native American Heritage Commission
• California Natural Resources Agency
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Regions 2 & 3
• California State Water Resources Control Board
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• United States Army Corps of Engineers
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Tribes
• Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
• Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan
Bautista
• Costanoan Ohlone Rumsen-Mutsun Tribe
• Costanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
• Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
• Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the San Francisco
Bay Area
• North Valley Yokuts Tribe
• Ohlone Indian Tribe
EXHIBIT A
5 DOCUMENT PREPARATION
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
5-4
This page is intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT A
6 REFERENCES
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
6-1
6 References
Chapter 2: Responses to Comments
CalTrans. (2018, July). Encroachment Permits Manual.
CDFW. (2018, March 20). Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status
Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities .
CDFW. (2021). CESA to the Federal Endangered Species Act. Retrieved from
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA/FESA
California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). (2018). California's Fourth Climate Change
Assessment. Statewide Summary Report.
County of Santa Clara. (2017, October 15). Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
Hurteau, M. D., & Brooks, M. L. (2011). Short- and long-term effects of fire on carbon in US dry.
Bioscience, 139-146.
Hurteau, M. D., Koch, G. W., & Hungate, B. A. (2008). Carbon protection and fire risk reduction:
Toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment,, 493-498.
Hyde, J., & Strand, E. K. (2019, May). Comparing Modeled Emissions from Wildfire and
Prescribed Burning of Post-Thinning Fuel: A Case Study of the 2016 Pioneer Fire.
Department of Forest, Rangeland, and Fire Sciences, College of Natural Resources,
University of Idaho.
Moghaddas, J. J., Roller, G. B., Long, J. W., Saah, D. S., Mortiz, M. A., Stark, D. T., . . . Gunn, J. S.
(2018, August). Fuel Treatment for Forest Resilient and Climate Mitigation: A Critical
Review for Coniferous Forests of California. California Natural Resources Agency.
Reinhardt, T. E., Ottmar, R. D., & Hanneman, A. J. (2000, October). Smoke Exposure Among
Firefighters at Prescribed Burns in the Pacific Northwest. USDA.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (1989, February). A Guide for Prescribed Fire
in Southern Forests.
EXHIBIT A
6 REFERENCES
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
6-2
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2020, October 1). Revised Transmittal of
Guidance: Estimating the Effects of Auditory and Visual Disturbance to Northern
Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets in Northwestern California.
USFWS. (Revised 2020, July). Supplemental Materials 1a. for the Monarch (Danaus plexippus
plexippus) Species Status Assessment Report.
Wentworth, C. G. (1997). Summary distribution of slides and earth flows in the San Francisco
Bay Region, California. Open-file Report 97-745 C. U.S. Geological Survey.
Chapter 4: Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
Castelle A.J., Johnson A.W., Conolly, C. (1994). Wetland and Stream Buffer Size Requirements—
A Review. J. Environ. Qual. 23:878-882.
CDFW. (2018, March 20). Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status
Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities .
CDFW and California Native Plant Society (CNPS). (2019). CDFW-CNPS Protocol for the
Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevé Field Form. Available at:
<https://www.cnps.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/veg-releve-field-protocol.pdf>.
(Accessed June 29, 2020).
CNPS. (2020). Field Protocols and Guidelines. Sacramento, CA. Available from
http://rareplants.cnps.orghttps://www.cnps.org/plant-science/field-protocols-guidelines
Clement, J.P., Belin, A., Bean M.J., Boling, T.A., Lyons, J.R. (2014, April). A strategy for
improving the mitigation policies and practices of the Department of the Interior. A
report to the Secretary of the Interior from the Energy and Climate Change Task Force,
Washington, D.C., 25 pp.
Keller, G., & Sherar, J. (2003). Low-Volume Roads Engineering: Best Management Practices
Field Guide. USDA Forest Service.
State Water Resources Control Board. (2019). State Wetland Definition and Procedures for
Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Staff Report Including the
Substitute Environmental Documentation. 234 pp.
The Xerces Society. (2017). Protecting California’s Butterfly Groves: Management Guidelines for
Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Habitat. 32+vi pp. Portland, OR: The Xerces Society
for Invertebrate Conservation.
The Xerces Society. (2019). Western Monarch Count Instructions.
https://www.westernmonarchcount.org/downloads/
EXHIBIT A
6 REFERENCES
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
6-3
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2010). Guidelines for Preparing a
Compensatory Mitigation Plan. USACE, Charleston District.
USACE. (2012). Uniform Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation Requirements.
12505-SP. Regulatory Program, South Pacific Division USACE.
USACE. (2015). Final 2015 Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for
South Pacific Division USACE.
USACE. (2017). Standard Operating Procedure for Determination of Mitigation Ratios.
Regulatory Program, South Pacific Division USACE.
USFWS. (2016). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Act
Compensatory Mitigation Policy. 81 FR 61031.
EXHIBIT A
6 REFERENCES
Final Program EIR for the Wildland Fire Resiliency Program ● April 2021
6-4
This page is intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT A
APPENDIX A PROJECT SPECIFIC REVIEW
EXHIBIT A
A PROJECT-SPECIFIC REVIEW
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
1-1
1 Project-Specific Review
1.1 Introduction
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Midpen) proposes to implement a Wildland Fire
Resiliency Program (WFRP or Program), which would serve as a planning and implementation
document to manage vegetation and infrastructure on Midpen lands as well as to guide
planning, response, and monitoring to reduce wildland fire risks. The Program Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) evaluated the environmental impacts of the WFRP. The WFRP is described
in Chapter 3: Project Description of the Program EIR and within the WFRP that is incorporated
into the Program EIR by reference. The Program EIR was prepared under the direction of the
CEQA Lead Agency, Midpen, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.), and as a Program EIR in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 for streamlining of CEQA review of later
activities consistent with the Program EIR.
Midpen will implement vegetation management actions consistent with the WFRP. Midpen will
prepare Annual Work Plans identifying the vegetation management actions proposed for each
upcoming year. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the lead agency must document
evaluation of later activities to determine whether the environmental effects of the activities are
within the scope of the Program EIR (Section 15168(4)). The vegetation management activities
proposed by Midpen each year constitute “later activities” in the context of the CEQA
Guidelines. This document functions to aid Midpen in determining and documenting whether
the later activities proposed by Midpen are within the scope of the WFRP analyzed in the
Program EIR or if additional environmental review is required. This document also serves to
guide the identification of the Midpen Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Mitigation
Measures (MMs) applicable to WFRP actions taken, as required under the Program EIR.
1.2 Determining Whether Annual Projects are within the Scope of the
WFRP Program EIR
The following table provides a summary of maximum annual acreages of activities to be
implemented under the Program, which was analyzed in the WFRP Program EIR.
EXHIBIT A
A PROJECT-SPECIFIC REVIEW
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
1-2
Table 1 Maximum Annual Treatments
Activity Treatment Type Create New or
Maintain Existing
Maximum Annual
Treatments (Acres)
Vegetation Management Plan
Shaded Fuelbreaks Manual, mechanical, herbicide,
pile burn, prescribed herbivory
New 50
Maintain 100
Non-Shaded Fuelbreaks Mechanical, herbicide, pile burn,
prescribed herbivory
New 5
Maintain 80
Evacuation Routes, Critical
Infrastructure, Fire
Management Logistics
Fuelbreaks
Manual, mechanical, herbicide,
pile burn, prescribed herbivory
New 400
Maintain 400
Target Hazards Fuelbreaks Manual, mechanical, herbicide,
pile burn, prescribed herbivory
New 20
Maintain 20
Fire Agency New
Recommended Fuelbreaks
Manual, mechanical, herbicide,
pile burn, prescribed herbivory
New 100
Maintain N/Aa
Ingress/Egress Route
Fuelbreaks
Mechanical, herbicide, pile burn,
prescribed herbivory
New 25
Maintain 25
Disclines Mechanical, herbicide New 10
Maintain 60
Midpen Structures and
Facilities Defensible Space
Manual, mechanical, herbicide,
pile burn
New As needed
Maintain 175
Fire Management Logistics
Areas
Manual, mechanical New 100
Maintain 30
Eucalyptus and Acacia Removal Manual, mechanical, herbicide New 20 b
Maintain 10
Fuel Reduction Areas Manual, mechanical, herbicide,
pile burn, prescribed herbivory
New 500
Maintain 500
Prescribed Fire Plan
Prescribed Burn (upon
completion of a detailed PFP
tiered off the programmatic
description provided here)
Manual, mechanical, prescribed
burn
New 500
Wildland Fire Pre-Plan
Spur Road and Access Road Manual, mechanical, herbicide New 1.5 c
Staging and Landing Areas Manual, mechanical, herbicide New 5
EXHIBIT A
A PROJECT-SPECIFIC REVIEW
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
1-3
Activity Treatment Type Create New or
Maintain Existing
Maximum Annual
Treatments (Acres)
Water Storage Tanks Manual, mechanical, herbicide New 0.1
Water Supply Pipelines,
Hydrants, and Pumps
Manual, mechanical, herbicide New 0.1
Total New 1,737
Maintain 1,400
Notes:
a Fire agency recommended fuelbreaks are maintained under the applicable category.
b An average of 55 trees and a maximum of 105 trees over 8 inches DBH per acre could be removed.
c Assumes up to 1 mile of 12-foot-wide roads.
An additional 50 hazard trees (generally >10 inches dbh) could be removed under the Program, outside of the fuel
treatments described in this table.
In most circumstances, work can be implemented without additional CEQA review. The
specific actions, including locations and extent of prescribed burns and new infrastructure, that
may occur under the PFP and Wildland Pre-Fire Plans, have not been identified to the same
level of detail as the VMP. Prescribed fire under the PFP and the infrastructure improvements
identified in the Wildland Pre-Fire Plans are addressed at a programmatic level. Midpen
continues to acquire new lands for preservation as open space. The analyses in the Program EIR
of these two plans and Midpen lands was conducted using the data available at the time of
preparation of the EIR. Additional environmental review may be needed in the future. When
specific activities are proposed for either plan (the PFP or the Wildland Pre-Fire Plans) or on
lands purchased or gifted after preparation of this Program EIR, Midpen will perform project-
level environmental review. Prior to approving site-specific activities under these plans or on
newly acquired lands, Midpen will evaluate the selected site against the analysis included in
this Program EIR to determine whether additional environmental review is needed.
For any activities proposed under the Program, an initial screening review will be used to
determine whether the environmental effects of the work were adequately analyzed in the
Program EIR. Midpen will compare the proposed work against the activities, locations, and
types of tools and techniques in the Program EIR. If the proposed activities do not fall within
the scope of the analyzed management actions, Midpen will conduct an evaluation under a
Project Environmental Checklist (PEC) (Chapter 2) to determine whether any new impacts
could occur. Identification of new impacts will require further environmental review under
CEQA. The type of review will be dependent upon the severity of the new impact. The
flowchart in Figure 1 guides the process. The Project-Specific Screening Results Form and the
Determination will be completed and saved with the Annual Work Plan. The PEC will be
attached, if applicable. If the work is determined to be within the scope of the management
actions proposed under the WFRP, the appropriate Midpen best management practices (BMPs)
and Program-specific mitigation measures (MMs) will be identified and implemented (from
Chapter 3 of the Final Program EIR).
EXHIBIT A
A PROJECT-SPECIFIC REVIEW
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
1-4
Figure 1 Flow Chart for Determining a Within the Scope of the WFRP Finding or if Additional Environmental Review is Required
EXHIBIT A
2 PROJECT-SPECIFIC SCREENING REVIEW
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
2-1
2 Project-Specific Screening Results Form
What activities (e.g., shaded fuelbreak creation) would be involved?
List activities
Are the methods proposed addressed in the Program EIR? Yes No
List methods
Would the work be performed in areas covered under the Program EIR? Yes No
List locations of work
Does the work fall within the acreage or units allowed for the year? Yes No
Identify units/acreages
If the activities proposed are under the Vegetation Management Plan and the answers to all questions above are
“yes” – the actions are within the scope of the WFRP Program EIR – go to the Determination Form
If the action involves activities under the Prescribed Fire Plan or Wildland Fire Pre-Plan or the answer to any of
the above questions is “no” – Complete the PEC and then complete the Determination Form
EXHIBIT A
2 PROJECT-SPECIFIC SCREENING REVIEW
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
2-2
Determination Form
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that all of the effects of the proposed project (a) have been analyzed
adequately in the WFRP Program EIR, (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant
to the WFRP Program EIR, and (c) all applicable mitigation measures and BMPs
identified in the WFRP Program EIR will be implemented. The proposed project is
therefore WITHIN THE SCOPE of the WFRP Program EIR. NO ADDITIONAL
CEQA DOCUMENTATION is required.
I find that the proposed project will have effects that were not examined in the
WFRP Program EIR. These effects are less than significant without any mitigation
beyond what is already required pursuant to the WFRP Program EIR. A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project will have effects that were not examined in the
WFRP Program EIR. Although these effects might be significant in the absence of
additional mitigation beyond what is already required pursuant to the BFIPP
Program EIR, additional mitigation measures have been identified that would
avoid or reduce the effects so that clearly no significant effects would occur. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that the proposed project will have environmental effects that were not
examined in the WFRP Program EIR. Because these effects are or may be significant
and cannot be clearly mitigated, an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT will
be prepared.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Land and Facilities Manager Signature Date
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Printed Name Title
EXHIBIT A
2 PROJECT-SPECIFIC SCREENING REVIEW
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
3-1
3 Applicable Environmental Protection Measures
The section identifies the surveys and GIS review and the environmental protection measures
that are applicable to the proposed activities. These measures take the form of Midpen-BMPs
and Program-specific MMs. Some BMPs and MMs apply to all projects, while others only apply
to projects that include specific treatment types, treatment activities, or locations. Table 2,
below, provides a comprehensive list of BMPs and MMs applicable to each project type.
Midpen shall verify that all applicable BMPs and MMs will be implemented. Refer to the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan in the Final Program EIR for entity responsible for
implementing and verifying or enforcing each measure. The applicable measures are shown
with a checkmark. The form identifying the mitigation measures should be completed for each
activity identified in the Annual Work Plan.
EXHIBIT A
3 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
3-2
This page is intentionally left blank.
EXHIBIT A
3 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
3-3
Table 2 Applicable Environmental Protection Measures Matrix
Manual and Mechanical
Cutting Pulling
Mowing and
Discing Masticating Chipping
Pile
Burning
Propane
Flaming Planting
Construction
(Wildland
Fire Pre-
Plan)
BMPs and MMS
Access and
Vehicle
Travel
Prescribed
Burning
(PFP)
heavy
equipment
power hand
tools
non-power
hand Tools
heavy
equipment
by hand or
with non-
power tools
Chemical
Application
Prescribed
Herbivory Manual
Heavy
Equipment
All Midpen Lands
IPMP BMP 1 √
IPMP BMP 2 √
IPMP BMP 3 √
IPMP BMP 4 √
IPMP BMP 5 √
IPMP BMP 6 √
IPMP BMP 7 √
IPMP BMP 8 √
IPMP BMP 9 √
IPMP BMP 10 √
IPMP BMP 11 √
IPMP BMP 12 √
IPMP BMP 13 √
IPMP BMP 14 √
IPMP BMP 15 √
IPMP BMP 16 √
IPMP BMP 17 √
IPMP BMP 18 √
IPMP BMP 19 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
IPMP BMP 21 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
IPMP BMP 25 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
IPMP BMP 26
IPMP BMP 28 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
EXHIBIT A
3 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
3-4
Manual and Mechanical
Cutting Pulling
Mowing and
Discing Masticating Chipping
Pile
Burning
Propane
Flaming Planting
Construction
(Wildland
Fire Pre-
Plan)
BMPs and MMS
Access and
Vehicle
Travel
Prescribed
Burning
(PFP)
heavy
equipment
power hand
tools
non-power
hand Tools
heavy
equipment
by hand or
with non-
power tools
Chemical
Application
Prescribed
Herbivory Manual
Heavy
Equipment
IPMP BMP 32 √
IPMP BMP 33 √
IPMP BMP 34 √
IPMP BMP 35 √
IPMP BMP 36 √
LU Regulations Section
404.2
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
LU Regulations Section
500.1
√
MO Manual Section
07.005
√
MO Manual Section
08.008
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MO Manual Section
08.016
√ √ √ √ √
MO Manual Section
08.017
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MO Manual Section
13.005
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MO Manual Section
13.008
√ √
MO Manual Section
13.010
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MO Manual Section
14.005
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MO Manual Section
14.006
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MO Manual Section
17.005
√
EXHIBIT A
3 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
3-5
Manual and Mechanical
Cutting Pulling
Mowing and
Discing Masticating Chipping
Pile
Burning
Propane
Flaming Planting
Construction
(Wildland
Fire Pre-
Plan)
BMPs and MMS
Access and
Vehicle
Travel
Prescribed
Burning
(PFP)
heavy
equipment
power hand
tools
non-power
hand Tools
heavy
equipment
by hand or
with non-
power tools
Chemical
Application
Prescribed
Herbivory Manual
Heavy
Equipment
MO Manual Section
17.006
√
RM Policy WF-1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Safety Manual Section
1.6.5
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Safety Manual Section
1.6.5.15
√ √ √ √ √
Safety Manual Section
1.6.5.16
√ √ √ √ √
Safety Manual Section
1.6.6
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Safety Manual Section
1.7.0.0
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Safety Manual Section
1.11.1
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Safety Manual Section
1.11.2
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MM Air Quality-4 √ √ √
MM Biology-1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MM Biology-4 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MM Biology-5 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MM Biology-16 √
MM Cultural-1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MM Cultural-2 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MM Cultural-3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MM Geology-1 √
MM Geology-2 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MM Geology-3 √
EXHIBIT A
3 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
3-6
Manual and Mechanical
Cutting Pulling
Mowing and
Discing Masticating Chipping
Pile
Burning
Propane
Flaming Planting
Construction
(Wildland
Fire Pre-
Plan)
BMPs and MMS
Access and
Vehicle
Travel
Prescribed
Burning
(PFP)
heavy
equipment
power hand
tools
non-power
hand Tools
heavy
equipment
by hand or
with non-
power tools
Chemical
Application
Prescribed
Herbivory Manual
Heavy
Equipment
MM Hazards-2 √
MM Hydrology-1 √ √ √ √ √ √
MM Noise-1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
SFBAAB Area
MM Air Quality-2 √
NCCAB Area
MM Air Quality-2 √ √
Construction Area
MM Air Quality-1 √ √
MM Geology-4 √
Known Contaminated Sites
MM Hazards-1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Serpentine Soils and Rock Formation Area
MM Air Quality-3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Sensitive Natural Communities
MM Biology-17 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MM Biology-18 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Special-Status Plants Habitat
MM Biology-2 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MM Biology-3 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Aquatic Resources
MM Biology-19 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Steelhead and Coho Salmon Critical Habitat
MM Biology-14 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
EXHIBIT A
3 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
3-7
Manual and Mechanical
Cutting Pulling
Mowing and
Discing Masticating Chipping
Pile
Burning
Propane
Flaming Planting
Construction
(Wildland
Fire Pre-
Plan)
BMPs and MMS
Access and
Vehicle
Travel
Prescribed
Burning
(PFP)
heavy
equipment
power hand
tools
non-power
hand Tools
heavy
equipment
by hand or
with non-
power tools
Chemical
Application
Prescribed
Herbivory Manual
Heavy
Equipment
Special-Status Butterflies and Moths Habitat (Except Monarch)
MM Biology-13 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Monarch Butterfly Habitat
MM Biology-13 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MM Biology-15 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Special-Status Salamanders and Newts Habitat
MM Biology-10 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
California Red-Legged Frog Habitat
MM Biology-7 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
California Yellow-Legged Frog Habitat
MM Biology-8 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Western Pond Turtle Habitat
MM Biology-9 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
San Francisco Garter Snake Habitat
MM Biology-6 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Special-Status Bird Species and Nesting Birds Habitat (Except Marbled Murrelet)
MM Biology-11 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Marbled Murrelet Habitat
MM Biology-12 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
Special-Status Bat Species
Midpen Bat BMPs √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat
Midpen Woodrat
BMPs
√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
IPMP BMP 21 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
EXHIBIT A
3 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
3-8
Manual and Mechanical
Cutting Pulling
Mowing and
Discing Masticating Chipping
Pile
Burning
Propane
Flaming Planting
Construction
(Wildland
Fire Pre-
Plan)
BMPs and MMS
Access and
Vehicle
Travel
Prescribed
Burning
(PFP)
heavy
equipment
power hand
tools
non-power
hand Tools
heavy
equipment
by hand or
with non-
power tools
Chemical
Application
Prescribed
Herbivory Manual
Heavy
Equipment
MM Biology-16 √
Roads and Trails
MM Transportation-1 √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √
MM Hazards-3 √
Existing Midpen BMPs
MO Manual – Maintenance Operations Manual
LU Regulations – Regulations for Use of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Lands
RM Policies – Resource Management Policies
IPMP – Integrated Pest Management Program
Safety Manual
Species-Specific BMPs
EXHIBIT A
3 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
3-9
List of Mitigation Measures Applicable to Action or Activities
Activity to be performed
Tools/techniques to be utilized
Locations of work
EXHIBIT A
3 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
3-10
List of Applicable BMPs and MMs
EXHIBIT A
3 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
3-11
Results of surveys and GIS review, if applicable and location specific considerations
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-1
4 Project Environmental Checklist
If any portion of the project or activities proposed (tools and techniques, locations, and activity)
is not within the scope of the Program EIR, per the flowchart in Figure 1 and as indicated on the
Project-Specific Screening Results Form, Midpen will complete a PEC, the template for which is
provided below.
The environmental resource areas included in the PEC are the same environmental resource
areas analyzed in Chapter 4 of the Draft Program EIR. Midpen will review the environmental
analysis and mitigation measures in the Draft and Final Program EIR for each corresponding
resource area in the PEC. Midpen will consider whether required BMPs and MMs would be
effective in reducing or mitigating environmental impacts of the project considering the specific
activities and site-specific characteristics of the project area. Written explanations supporting all
conclusions should be provided in the sections of the checklist available for discussion
following the checklist questions presented for each resource area.
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-2
4.1 Project Information
Project Title/Year of Implementation:
Contact Person and Phone Number:
(Provide phone number and email address)
Project Location(s):
Total Area to be Treated (acres):
Description of Project: (Describe the whole
action involved, including but not limited to
later phases (e.g., maintenance) of the project,
and any secondary, support, or off-site
features necessary for its implementation.
Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Treatment Tools and Techniques:
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly
describe the Project’s surroundings)
Other public agencies whose approval is
required: (note status of any required
approvals [permits])
Native American Consultation. Pursuant to
PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, and
21082.3, lead agencies undertaking CEQA
review must, upon written request of a
California Native American tribe, begin
consultation before the release of an
environmental impact report, negative
declaration, or mitigated negative
declaration. For treatment projects that
require additional CEQA review and
documentation, have California Native
American tribes traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the project area requested
consultation pursuant to Public Resources
Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan
for consultation that includes, for example,
the determination of significance of impacts
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-3
to tribal cultural resources, procedures
regarding confidentiality, etc.? Note: For
treatment projects that are within the scope
of this PEIR, AB 52 consultation has been
completed. The Board of Forestry and Fire
Protection and CAL FIRE completed
consultation pursuant to Public Resources
Code section 21080.3.1 in preparation of the
PEIR.
Applicable Environmental Protection
Measures. (Refer to Section 4)
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-4
4.2 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers. Answers should consider whether
the proposed project would result in new or more substantial environmental
effects than described in the WFRP Program EIR, after incorporation of applicable
Environmental Protection Measures required by the WFRP Program EIR.
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as
well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and
short-term as well as long-term impacts.
3. Refer to the applicable resource analysis section in the WFRP Program EIR for
each environmental topic. If, after considering the specific location and
characteristics of the proposed project, the project proponent determines that the
proposed project would not result in new or more substantial environmental
effects, then the checklist should indicate “No New Impact”.
4. Once the project proponent has determined that a new or more substantial
environmental effect may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether
the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less
than significant without the need for mitigation. “Potentially Significant Impact”
is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the
determination is made, an EIR would be required.
5. Where a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration is required, the
environmental review would be guided by the directions for use of the Program
EIR with later activities in Section 15168. Where an EIR is required, the
environmental review would be guided by Sections 15162 and 15163. When
preparing any environmental document, the environmental analysis may
incorporate by reference the analysis from the WFRP Program EIR and focus the
environmental analysis solely on issues that were not addressed in the WFRP
Program EIR.
6. Project proponents should incorporate into the environmental checklist references
to information sources for potential impacts. Include a list of references cited in
the environmental checklist and make copies of such references available to the
public upon request.
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-5
4.3 Aesthetics
Impact Statement New Impact
that is
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
New Impact
that is Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Impact
that is Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Impact Aesthetics-1: Substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista, or substantial
degradation of the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Aesthetics-2: Substantial damage
to scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a State scenic
highway.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Aesthetics-3: New source of
substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4.3.1 Discussion
The discussion should identify which impacts from the Program EIR would occur from implementation of
the proposed vegetation management project, describe the significance of each relevant impact and
identify each mitigation measure from the Program EIR that is relevant to the proposed project.
Additionally, this discussion should describe how each measure will address site-specific conditions and
reduce impacts of the proposed vegetation management project.
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-6
4.4 Air Quality
Impact Statement New Impact
that is
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
New Impact
that is Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
New Impact
that is Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Impact Air Quality-1: Conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the
applicable air-quality plan.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Air Quality-2: Net increase of
any criteria pollutant for which the
Program region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or State
ambient air-quality standard.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Air Quality-3: Exposure of
sensitive human receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Air Quality-4: Emissions (such
as those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of
people.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4.4.1 Discussion
The discussion should identify which impacts from the Program EIR would occur from implementation of
the proposed vegetation management project, describe the significance of each relevant impact and
identify each mitigation measure from the Program EIR that is relevant to the proposed project.
Additionally, this discussion should describe how each measure will address site-specific conditions and
reduce impacts of the proposed vegetation management project.
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-7
4.5 Biological Resources
Impact Statement New Impact
that is
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
New Impact
that is Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Impact
that is Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Impact Biological Resources-1: Substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Biological Resources-2: Substantial
adverse effect on riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in
local or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the CDFW or USFWS, or State or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Biological Resources-3: Substantial
interference 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.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Biological Resources-4: Conflict with
local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance, or adopted
HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan
(NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or
State HCP.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4.5.1 Discussion
The discussion should identify which impacts from the Program EIR would occur from implementation of
the proposed vegetation management project, describe the significance of each relevant impact and
identify each mitigation measure from the Program EIR that is relevant to the proposed project.
Additionally, this discussion should describe how each measure will address site-specific conditions and
reduce impacts of the proposed vegetation management project.
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-8
4.6 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact Statement New Impact
that is
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
New Impact
that is Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Impact
that is Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Impact Cultural Resources-1: Substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
historical or archaeological resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Cultural Resources-2: Disturbance of
human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Cultural Resources-3: Substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource that is listed, or eligible for
listing in, the California Register of Historical
Resources or in a local register of historical
resources, as defined in PRC § 5020.1(k), or a
resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC § 5024.1.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4.6.1 Discussion
The discussion should identify which impacts from the Program EIR would occur from implementation of
the proposed vegetation management project, describe the significance of each relevant impact and
identify each mitigation measure from the Program EIR that is relevant to the proposed project.
Additionally, this discussion should describe how each measure will address site-specific conditions and
reduce impacts of the proposed vegetation management project.
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-9
4.7 Geology and Soils
Impact Statement New Impact
that is
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
New Impact
that is Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
New Impact
that is Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Impact Geology and Soils-1: Directly or
indirect substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault; ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking; iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction; or iv) Landslides.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Geology and Soils-2: Substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Geology and Soils-3: Instability of a
geologic unit or soil that could potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Geology and Soils-4: Impacts from
expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code (1994), or
corrosive soil, creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Geology and Soils-5: Soils incapable
of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste-water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of wastewater.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Geology and Soils-6: Direct or
indirect impacts on a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-10
4.7.1 Discussion
The discussion should identify which impacts from the Program EIR would occur from implementation of
the proposed vegetation management project, describe the significance of each relevant impact and
identify each mitigation measure from the Program EIR that is relevant to the proposed project.
Additionally, this discussion should describe how each measure will address site-specific conditions and
reduce impacts of the proposed vegetation management project.
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-11
4.8 Greenhouse Gases
Impact Statement New Impact
that is
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
New Impact
that is Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Impact
that is Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Impact GHG-1: Generation of GHG
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the
environment.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4.8.1 Discussion
The discussion should identify which impacts from the Program EIR would occur from implementation of
the proposed vegetation management project, describe the significance of each relevant impact and
identify each mitigation measure from the Program EIR that is relevant to the proposed project.
Additionally, this discussion should describe how each measure will address site-specific conditions and
reduce impacts of the proposed vegetation management project.
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-12
4.9 Hazardous Materials and Fire Hazards
Impact Statement New Impact
that is
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
New Impact
that is Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Impact
that is Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Impact Hazards-1: Significant hazard to the
public or the environment through emission of
or exposure to hazardous materials.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Hazards-2: Hazard to the public or the
environment related to project area located on
a site that is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code § 65962.5.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Hazards-3: Safety hazard or noise
related to project area located within an area
covered by an airport land-use plan, or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public-use airport,
affecting people residing or working in the
project area.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Hazards-4: Impairment of
implementation or physically interference with
an adopted emergency-response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Hazards-5: Exposure of people or
structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Hazards-6: Exacerbation of wildland fire
risks due to slope, prevailing winds, or other
factors that could expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildland fire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildland fire.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Hazards-7: Installation or maintenance
of roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines, or other utilities that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-13
Impact Statement New Impact
that is
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
New Impact
that is Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Impact
that is Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Impact Hazards-8: Exposure of people or
structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4.9.1 Discussion
The discussion should identify which impacts from the Program EIR would occur from implementation of
the proposed vegetation management project, describe the significance of each relevant impact and
identify each mitigation measure from the Program EIR that is relevant to the proposed project.
Additionally, this discussion should describe how each measure will address site-specific conditions and
reduce impacts of the proposed vegetation management project.
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-14
4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact Statement New Impact
that is
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
New Impact
that is Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Impact
that is Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Impact Hydrology-1: Violate water-quality
standards or waste-discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality or
substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river
or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on or off
site.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Hydrology-2: Substantially
decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the Program may
impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Hydrology-3: Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
ii) Create or contribute runoff water
that would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
iii) Impede or redirect flood flows.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Hydrology-4: Risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation in
flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
EXHIBIT A
4 PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-15
Impact Statement New Impact
that is
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
New Impact
that is Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Impact
that is Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Impact Hydrology-5: Conflict with or
obstruct implementation of a water-quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4.10.1 Discussion
The discussion should identify which impacts from the Program EIR would occur from implementation of
the proposed vegetation management project, describe the significance of each relevant impact and
identify each mitigation measure from the Program EIR that is relevant to the proposed project.
Additionally, this discussion should describe how each measure will address site-specific conditions and
reduce impacts of the proposed vegetation management project.
EXHIBIT A
4 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-16
4.11 Noise
Impact Statement New Impact that
is Significant or
Potentially
Significant
New Impact
that is Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
New Impact
that is Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Impact Noise-1: Generate a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the program in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance or in the applicable
standards of other agencies.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Noise-2: Generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Noise-3: For a program located
within the vicinity of a private airstrip or
an airport land-use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within 2
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, expose people residing or
working in the project area to
excessive noise levels.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4.11.1 Discussion
The discussion should identify which impacts from the Program EIR would occur from implementation of
the proposed vegetation management project, describe the significance of each relevant impact and
identify each mitigation measure from the Program EIR that is relevant to the proposed project.
Additionally, this discussion should describe how each measure will address site-specific conditions and
reduce impacts of the proposed vegetation management project.
EXHIBIT A
4 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-17
4.12 Recreation
Impact Statement New Impact that
is Significant or
Potentially
Significant
New Impact
that is Less
than Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
New Impact
that is Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Impact Recreation-1: Increase the use
of existing recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be
accelerated or necessitate
construction or expansion of
recreational facilities.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4.12.1 Discussion
The discussion should identify which impacts from the Program EIR would occur from implementation of
the proposed vegetation management project, describe the significance of each relevant impact and
identify each mitigation measure from the Program EIR that is relevant to the proposed project.
Additionally, this discussion should describe how each measure will address site-specific conditions and
reduce impacts of the proposed vegetation management project.
EXHIBIT A
4 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES
WFRP Project Environmental Review and Checklist
4-18
4.13 Transportation and Traffic
Impact Statement New Impact
that is
Significant or
Potentially
Significant
New Impact
that is Less
than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
New Impact
that is Less
Than
Significant
Impact
No New
Impact
Impact Transportation-1: Substantially
increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment) or conflict with
a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadways, or bicycle and
pedestrian facilities.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Transportation-2: Conflict with or
be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Impact Transportation-3: Inadequate
emergency access.
☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
4.13.1 Discussion
The discussion should identify which impacts from the Program EIR would occur from implementation of
the proposed vegetation management project, describe the significance of each relevant impact and
identify each mitigation measure from the Program EIR that is relevant to the proposed project.
Additionally, this discussion should describe how each measure will address site-specific conditions and
reduce impacts of the proposed vegetation management project.
EXHIBIT A