Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.D._Biological_ResourcesIV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION This section of the Draft EIR describes the existing biological resources in the project area and the surrounding area and evaluates the potential for biological resource impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. Where appropriate, this section provides project level analysis for the Phase 1 Precise Plan, and program level analysis for the remainder of development proposed by the Gateway Business Park Master Plan. A regulatory framework is also provided in this section describing applicable agencies and regulations related to biological resources No comment letters related to biological resources were received in response to the June 16, 2008 Notice of Preparation (NOP) or the October 22, 2008 Revised NOP circulated for the project. The NOP and comment letters are included in Appendix A of this Draft EIR. Information Sources CAJA conducted a reconnaissance level site survey for sensitive biological resources within the project site on the afternoon of June 10, 2008. The description of biological resources on the project site, as well as the project impact analysis were determined from the site survey as other sources included California’s 12 Wildlife, Volumes I, II, and III, California Natural Diversity Data Base, List of Endangered and 3 Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Annual Report on the Status of California State Listed Threatened and 4 Endangered Animals and Plants, The California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and 5 Endangered Vascular Plants of California, and Tree Survey Report for the Gateway Precise Plan Phase I 6 (Appendix D to this Draft EIR). 1 Zeiner DC., Laudenslayer W.F,Mayer K.E, White M. Ed. 1988. California’s wildlife, volume I, amphibians and reptiles. Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 272 pp. Zeiner DC., Laudenslayer W.F,Mayer K.E, White M. Ed. 1988. California’s wildlife, volume II, birds. Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 731 pp. Zeiner DC., Laudenslayer W.F,Mayer K.E, White M. Ed. 1988. California’s wildlife, volume III, mammals. Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 407 pp. 2 California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. California natural diversity database. The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. 3 California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. California fish and game code. Gould Publications. Binghamton, N.Y. 4 California Department of Fish and Game. 2004. Annual report on the status of California state listed threatened and endangered animals and plants. The Resources Agency, Sacramento, CA. 204 pp. 5 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2008. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-08b). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on Mon, Jun. 16, 2008 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-1 City of South San Francisco October 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Regional and Local Setting The project site is located within the City of South San Francisco, along the western shoreline of Central San Francisco Bay, a mile north of the San Francisco International Airport, and ten minutes south of downtown San Francisco. South San Francisco is built upon the Bay plain and the northern foothills of the coastal range. The region has a Mediterranean climate with most annual rain falling between October and March. Past and on-going human activities (e.g., residential development and the associated roads), in the region have altered natural vegetative patterns or otherwise limited large expanses of most natural communities. The results of these processes are evident on the project site. Existing Conditions The entire project site has been developed. As a result, natural habitat conditions have been altered and the project site consists of buildings, paved areas, and landscaping with mostly non-native ornamental trees, shrubs, lawn and other ground cover vegetation. No natural plant communities are present as the site has been landscaped which involves heavily managed shrubs, hedges, lawns and potted plants. However, three plant communities are present on the site and are described below: developed, landscaped and ruderal. Developed The developed area of the site is completely covered with impervious surfaces such as roads, surface parking lots, and structures. Buildings may provide nesting habitat for some bird and bat species, but in general, few biological resources occur within the developed areas. Landscaped Landscaping is interspersed between roads, surface parking lots and structures and is laid out along roads, sidewalks and promenades. The landscape vegetation consists of flowering plants, shrubs, and ornamental Eucalyptus trees. Various non-native tree species observed in the landscaped areas include eucalyptus ( sp.PopulusRhododendron sp.Hedera helix ), popular (sp.), rhododendron (), English ivy (), wild oats Avena fatuaFoeniculum vulgareCortaderia selloana (), wild fennel (), and pampas grass (). The landscaping could provide shelter, foraging opportunities and nesting sites for small birds (passerines), reptiles and rodents such as rats, mice, voles, ground squirrels, and gophers. Although a tree survey was not conducted on the project site during the reconnaissance level survey, CAJAs’ biologist estimates there are over 200 landscaped trees present on the site which included, but are Arbutus spPopulus spHibiscus sp. not limited to: Madrone (.), poplar or cottonwood (.), and hibiscus (). 6 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates. 2008. Tree Survey Report for the Gateway Precise Plan Phase I. September 2008. Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-2 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Many of these trees may be subject to the Protected Tree Ordinance, Chapter 13.30 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC). However, a tree survey of the Precise Plan Phase I area was 78 conducted on September 5, 2008. The tree survey report identified 19 trees within the 8.91-acre project site as being protected, which are defined in the Protected Tree Ordinance as trees with a circumference of at least 48 inches at 54 inches above natural grade or other significant or historic trees (see Regulatory Framework discussion below). Ruderal Areas that are not covered by roads, surface parking lots, structures, or landscaped vegetation contain upland ruderal species. This habitat consists of mostly weedy non-native forbs, largely of European origin Brassica sp.Chenopodium albumTropidocarpum (i.e. mustard [], common goosefoot [], slender keel fruit [ gracile ],). Additional species found on the berm which is located on the western boundary of the project Fragaria vescaHirschfeldia incana site included California strawberry () hoary mustard (), and soft chess Bromus hordeaceus (). These ruderal areas are found on the relatively steep slope of the berm, and it is not likely to support sensitive plant or animal species, as it is considered low quality habitat due to its highly disturbed nature. Special Status Species Several species of plants and animals within the state of California have low populations, limited distributions, or the combination of the two. Such species may be considered “rare” and are vulnerable to extirpation as the state’s human population grows and the habitats these species occupy are converted to agricultural and urban uses. State and federal laws have provided the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), with a mechanism for conserving and protecting the diversity of plant and animal species native to the state (see Regulatory Framework below). A sizable number of native plants and animals have been formally designated as threatened or endangered under state and federal endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as “candidates” for such listing. Still others have been designated as “species of special concern” by the CDFG. The CNDDB also includes a Global rank (G rank), describing the rank for the plant or animal species over its entire distribution and a State rank (S rank), describing the rank for the taxon over just its state distribution. We did not include any G or S species in Table IV.D-1 due to the lack of potential habitat for special status species, the highly developed nature of the site and the lack of sensitive habitats. These species were considered and then determined to have no potential to occur within the project site and were not discussed further. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed its own set of lists of native plants considered rare, threatened or endangered. Collectively, these plants and animals are referred to as “special status species.” A more detailed discussion of the regulations governing special status species is presented in the 7 Ibid. 8 Some trees present within the Precise Plan Phase I project site were not accessible and therefore, additional protected trees may be on the project site. Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-3 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Regulatory Framework section below. A number of special status plants and animals occur in the vicinity of the study area. These plant and animal species, and their potential to occur in the project site, are listed in Table IV.D-1 on the following pages. A six U.S.G.S quadrangle search of the CNDDB and the CNPS on-line electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California was conducted. This comprised of Hunters Point, Montara, Oakland West, Point Bonita, San Francisco South, and San Mateo. These quadrangles were searched so as to develop a list of special status plants and wildlife that have the potential to occur within the project site. Information on sensitive species and habitats occurring in the vicinity of the proposed project was obtained from the CNDDB Rarefind database (information dated June 10, 2008). To determine the potential for any of the 35 special status species to occur on the project site, any one of the following criteria were applied: Habitat for the species has been identified within the vicinity. The proposed project has potential to affect special status species on or adjacent to the project site. Application of the above criteria to the list of 35 special status species reveals that habitat in the proposed project vicinity is not suitable for many of these species. All special status species that were identified as having potential to occur onsite are presented in Table IV.D-1. Regulatory Framework The following discussion identifies federal, state and local environmental regulations that serve to protect sensitive resources relevant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process. Federal Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973, as amended, provides the regulatory framework for the protection of plant and animal species (and their associated critical habitats), which are formally listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as endangered or threatened under the FESA. The FESA has four major components: provisions for listing species, requirements for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), prohibitions against “taking” of listed species, and provisions for permits that allow incidental “take.” The FESA also discusses recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species. Both the USFWS and the NOAA Fisheries share the responsibility for administration of the FESA. During the CEQA review process, each agency is given the opportunity to comment on the potential of the project to affect listed plants and animals. Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-4 City of South San Francisco October 2009 defined in Title 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) and include a range of wet environments such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds. The lateral limits of jurisdiction in those waters may be divided into three categories – territorial seas, tidal waters, and non-tidal waters – and is determined depending on which type of waters is present (Title 33 CFR Part 328.4(a), (b), (c)). Activities in waters of the United States regulated under Section 404 include fill for development, water resource projects (such as dams and levees), infrastructure developments (such as highways and airports) and mining projects. Section 404 of the CWA requires a federal license or permit before dredged or fill material may be discharged into waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt from Section 404 regulation (e.g., certain farming and forestry activities). Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States to obtain a certification from the state in which the discharge originates or would originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the affected waters at the point where the discharge originates or would originate, that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. A certification obtained for the construction of any facility must also pertain to the subsequent operation of the facility. The responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. Sections 661-667e, March 10, 1994, as amended 1946, 1958, 1978, and 1995) requires that whenever waters or channel of a stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized to be modified by a public or private agency under a federal license or permit, the federal agency must first consult with the USFWS and/or NOAA Fisheries and with the head of the agency exercising administration over the wildlife resources of the state where construction will occur (in this case the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)), with a view to conservation of birds, fish, mammals and all other classes of wild animals and all types of aquatic and land vegetation upon which wildlife is dependent. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act & Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 10, prohibits taking, killing, possessing, transporting, and importing of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, and their eggs and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. As used in the act, the term “take” is defined as meaning, “to pursue, hunt, capture, collect, kill or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.” With a few exceptions, most birds are considered migratory under the MBTA. Disturbances that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort or loss of habitat upon which these birds depend would be in violation of the MBTA. Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-5 City of South San Francisco October 2009 The Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668) was passed in 1940 to protect bald eagles and was later amended to include golden eagles. Under the act it is unlawful to import, export, take, sell, purchase, or barter any bald eagle or golden eagle, their parts, products, nests, or eggs. Take includes pursuing, shooting, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, collecting, molesting, or disturbing eagles. State California Endangered Species Act The State of California enacted similar laws to the FESA, the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for plants, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. To align with the FESA, CESA created the categories of “threatened” and “endangered” species. It converted all “rare” animals into the CESA as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal framework for protection of California-listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. The CDFG implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch maintains the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), a computerized inventory of information on the general location and status of California’s rarest plants, animals, and natural communities. During the CEQA review process, the CDFG is given the opportunity to comment on the potential of the project to affect listed plants and animals. Fully Protected Species & Species of Special Concern The classification of “fully protected” was the CDFG’s initial effort to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish, amphibian and reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most of the species on these lists have subsequently been listed under CESA and/or FESA. The Fish and Game Code sections (fish at §5515, amphibian and reptiles at §5050, birds at §3511, and mammals at §4700) dealing with “fully protected” species states that these species “…may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take any fully protected species,” although take may be authorized for necessary scientific research. This language makes the “fully protected” designation the strongest and most restrictive regarding the “take” of these species. In 2003, the code sections dealing with fully protected species were amended to allow the CDFG to authorize take resulting from recovery activities for state-listed species. Species of special concern are broadly defined as animals not listed under the FESA or CESA, but which are nonetheless of concern to the CDFG because are declining at a rate that could result in listing or historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. This designation is intended to result in special consideration for these animals by the CDFG, land managers, consulting biologist, and others, and is intended to focus attention on the species to help avert the need for costly listing under FESA and CESA and cumbersome recovery efforts that might ultimately be required. This designation also is intended to stimulate collection of additional information on the biology, distribution, and status of poorly known at-risk species, and focus research and management attention on Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-6 City of South San Francisco October 2009 them. Although these species generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under the CEQA during project review. California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 & 3513 According to Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird (except English sparrows (Passer domesticus) and European starlings (Sturnus vulgaris). Section 3503.5 specifically protects birds in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3513 essentially overlaps with the MTBA, prohibiting the take or possession of any migratory non-game bird. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by the CDFG. California Native Plant Society The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) publishes and maintains an Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California in both hard copy and electronic version (www.cnps.org/rareplants/inventory/6thedition.htm). The Inventory assigns plants to the following categories: 1A – Presumed extinct in California 1B – Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2 – Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 – Plants for which more information is needed 4 – Plants of limited distribution Additional endangerment codes are assigned to each taxa as follows: 1 – Seriously endangered in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened/high degree of immediacy of threat). 2 – Fairly endangered in California (20-80 percent occurrences threatened). 3 – Not very endangered in California (<20 percent of occurrences threatened or no current threats known). Plants on Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 of the CNPS Inventory consist of plants that may qualify for listing, and are given special consideration under CEQA during project review. Although plants on List 3 and 4 have little or no protection under CEQA, they are usually included in the project review for completeness. Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-7 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act “Waters of the State” are defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The RWQCB protects all waters in its regulatory scope, but has special responsibility for isolated wetlands and headwaters. These water bodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and may not be regulated by other programs, such as Section 404 of the CWA. Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program, which regulates discharges of dredged and fill material under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Corps permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact waters of the State are required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification Program. If a proposed project does not require a federal license or permit, but does involve activities that may result in a discharge of harmful substances to waters of the State, the RWQCB has the option to regulate such activities under its State authority in the form of Waste Discharge Requirements or Certification of Waste Discharge Requirements. California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 Streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation as habitat for fish and other wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by the CDFG under Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. Any activity that will do one or more of the following: 1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; 2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake; generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term “stream”, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as follows: “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they 9 support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. Riparian is defined as, “on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream;” therefore, riparian vegetation is defined as, “vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream 10 itself.” Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFG. Sensitive Vegetation Communities Sensitive vegetation communities are natural communities and habitats that are either unique, of relatively limited distribution in the region, or of particularly high wildlife value. These resources have been defined 9 California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division (ESD). 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code. 10 California Department of Fish and Game. Environmental Services Division (ESD). 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code. Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-8 City of South San Francisco October 2009 by federal, state, and local conservation plans, policies or regulations. The CDFG ranks sensitive communities as “threatened” or “very threatened” and keeps records of their occurrences in its CNDDB. Sensitive vegetation communities are also identified by CDFG on its List of California Natural Communities Recognized by the CNDDB. Impacts to sensitive natural communities and habitats identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by federal or state agencies, must be considered and evaluated under the CEQA (CCR: Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Local Tree Preservation Ordinance According to Title 13, Chapter 13.30 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC), pruning or removal of a protected tree requires a permit. A “protected tree” is defined as any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measures at 54 inches above the natural grade; a tree or stand of trees so designed based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location or historical significance; or a stand of trees whereby each tree is dependent upon the other for survival. “Pruning” means the removal of more than one third of the crown or existing foliage of the tree or more than one third of the root system, while “trimming” means the removal of less than one third of the crown or existing foliage of the tree or less than one third of the root system. Trimming of a protected tree is allowed without a permit. Table IV.D-1 Potentially-Occurring Special Status Plant and Animal Species SpeciesStatusHabitat Potential to Occur Plants Acanthomintha FE,Restricted to serpentine soils of No potential. No serpentine duttonii CEchaparral and valley and foothill soils occur onsite. grasslands. Therefore no suitable CNPS habitat exists for this 1B.1 San Mateo thorn- species on the project Site mint and it would not occur. Arctostaphylos FE,This species is restricted to No potential. No serpentine hookeri ssp. ravenii CEslightly acidic serpentine soils. In soils occur onsite and the addition, the only known wild site is not close to the only CNPS plant of this species is maintained known surviving 1B.1 Presidio manzanita in an area on the Presidio Army population. Base in San Francisco, CA. This species would not occur on the project site. Arctostaphylos CEShallow soils derived from No potential. This species imbricata Franciscan sandstone, is reportedly present in the CNPS greywacke, or shale, on outcrops San Bruno Mountain 1B.1 in exposed areas such as open Reserve. The project site San Bruno ridges within coastal scrub or does not posses any mountain manzanita manzanita scrub suitable habitat for this species and it would therefore not occur on the project site. Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-9 City of South San Francisco October 2009 CE Arctostaphylos This species is only known from No potential. The scarcity pacifica San Bruno Mountain in San of populations of this CNPS Mateo County. Only a few plants species and in view of the 1B.2 near the summit area of the geographic distance from Pacific manzanita mountain survive, this is near the the only known population, main ridge of the San Bruno this species has no potential Mountain. to occur on the project site. Arenaria paludicola FE,Grows in wetlands and No potential. Neither CEfreshwater marshes in a wetlands nor freshwater Marsh sandwort Mediterranean climate. The marshes are present on the CNPS species grows from sea level to project site. Suitable 1B.1 450 meters (1476 feet). The habitat for this species is plant can grow in saturated acidic not present and this species bog soils and soils that are sandy would not occur. with a high organic content. Chorizanthe FEThis species is restricted to sandy No potential. Sandy soils robusta var. soils along the coast and near-are absent from the site and CNPS robusta coastal areas in Santa Cruz the site is not along the 1B.1 County, California from Santa coast or near natural coastal Robust spineflower Cruz south to Sunset State Beach. areas. This species would not occur on site. Cirsium andrewsii 1B.2 Is commonly found in wet or No potential .No serpentine marshy soils along streams and soils are present on the seeps, sometimes on serpentine project site. Additionally Franciscan thistle soils. the highly disturbed nature of the site preclude the presence of this species Cirsium fontinale FE,This species occurs only in the No potential. The site does var. fontinale CEextremely restricted serpentine not possess any serpentine seeps of the Crystal Springs seeps and is not within the Crystal springs CNPS region, San Mateo County. Crystal springs region of fountain thistle1B.1 San Mateo. This species would not occur on site. Clarkia franciscana FE,This species is restricted to No potential. The site does CEgrassland communities on not possess any serpentine Presidio clarkia serpentine soils in San Francisco soils or the associated CNPS and Alameda counties. grassland communities. 1B.1 This species would not occur on site. Eriophyllum FE,This species occurs on No potential. The site does latilobum CEshaded/moist sites, grassy or not possess any serpentine sparsely wooded slopes of soils and this species would San Mateo woolly CNPS serpentine-influenced soil. not occur onsite. sunflower1B.1 Hesperolinon FT,This plant occurs chiefly on No potential. The site does congestum CTserpentine soils, especially in dry not possess any serpentine native bunch grasses, chaparral or soils and the associated Marin western flaxCNPS other grasslands at elevations less plant community is also 1B.1 than 200 meters. absent. This species would not occur on site. Holocarpha FT,Grasslands and prairies found on No potential. The site is macradenia CEcoastal terraces below 100 meters highly disturbed and does (m) not contain any natural Santa Cruz tarplantCNPS plant communities. This Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-10 City of South San Francisco October 2009 1B.1 (330 feet (ft)) in elevation lack of grassland and/or prairie habitat, infer this species would not occur on site. Layia carnosa FE,Coastal sand dunes (0-100 feet), No potential. The site does CEmostly in open and low not possess coastal sand Beach layia vegetation such as the sand-dune habitat. This species CNPS verbena. Also occurs in lower would not occur onsite. 1B.1 densities along margins of lupine scrub, herbaceous hollows, and open areas with moving sand. LessingiaFE,This species occurs only in the No potential. The site is not germanorum CESan Francisco dunes. This located within the San extensive dune complex is now Francisco dune complex. San Francisco CNPS almost entirely covered over by This species would not lessingia1B.1 pavement and weeds, but in a few occur onsite. places the dunes provide habitat for remnant patches of native vegetation. Pentachaeta FE,This species occurs only at No potential. The project bellidiflora CEaltitudes less than 620 meters. It site does not possess is found chiefly on rocky, grassy serpentine, valley or Whiterayed CNPS areas of serpentine grassland as foothill grassland. Due to pentachaeta1B.1 well as valley and foothill the developed nature of the grassland. site and the lack of suitable habitat, this species would not occur. Plagiobothrys CEThis species occurs in meadows, No potential. The project diffusus coastal prairie habitat of site is not located near the CNPS California. coast and does not possess San Francisco 1B.1 meadows or coastal prairie popcorn flower habitat. This species would not occur on the project site. Potentilla hickmanii FE,This species is restricted to No potential. The project CEmeadows, freshwater-marsh, and site does not contain any of Hickman's coastal habitats. the essential habitat cinquefoil1B.1 elements for this species. The species would not occur on the project site. Suaeda californica FE,This species occurs and is No potential. The project restricted to salt-marsh and site is highly developed and California seabliteCNPS coastal habitat. does not contain any 1.B natural vegetation communities. No salt marsh or coastal habitat are present on the site and therefore, this species would not occur. Invertebrates Callophrys mossii FEInhabits rocky outcrops and cliffs in No potential. This species bayensis coastal scrub on the San Francisco has specific habitat peninsula in California. requirements that are San Bruno elfin lacking from the site. This butterfly species would not occur on Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-11 City of South San Francisco October 2009 the project site. Euphydryas editha FTFound on serpentine soils from sea No potential. The project bayensis level to tree line through diverse site does not contain any habitats including coastal chaparral, serpentine soils and does Bay checkerspot meadows, fields, foothills, open not posses either of the butterfly woods, alpine fell fields. The Bay primary host plants for this checkerspot depends upon plants in species. This species would two different genres as a larva. The not occur on the project primary host plant is of the genus site. Plantago while the secondary host plants occur in the genus Castilleja. Plebejus icarioides FEThis species occurs in forest No potential. The site doe missionensisclearings and edges, prairie, not possess any suitable sagebrush, chaparral, and coastal habitat for this species. No dunes where the host plant (lupine) lupines were observed Mission blue occurs.onsite. This species would butterfly not occur on the project site. FE Speyeria callippe This species occurs in sagebrush, No potential. This species callippe chaparral, dry woodland, and requires the Viola species prairie hill habitat. Additionally, for an essential part of its this species is restricted to areas life cycle. Due to the sites Callippe silverspot where Viola pedunculata grows. developed nature and lack butterfly of specific habitat, this species would not occur on the project site. Speyeria zerene FEThis species occurs in grasslands, No potential. The project myrtleae sand dunes, shrubland, chaparral, site does not contain any of and woodlands that are dominated the habitat elements for this by conifers. species. This species Myrtle's silverspot would not occur on the project site. Amphibians and Reptiles FT Ambystoma This stenotopic species frequents No potential.The project californiense upland areas with grassland, oak site does not contain the savannas, edges of mixed necessary habitat elements woodland, and lower elevation to support this species. No California Tiger coniferous forest. Because it vernal pool or similar water Salamander depends on water for reproduction, bodies are present on the its habitat is limited to the vicinity site that constitutes of large, fishless vernal pools or essential aestivation habitat. similar water bodies. This species would not occur on the project site. Rana draytonii FTThis species is found in humid No potential. The project forests, woodlands, grasslands, and site does not contain California Red- stream sides with plant cover. Most essential habitat elements Legged Frog common in lowlands or foothills. for this species. This Breeding habitat is in permanent species would not occur on water sources; lakes, ponds, the project site. reservoirs, slow streams, marshes, bogs, and swamps. From sea level to 8,000 ft. (2,440 m.) Thamnophis sirtalis FE,This species prefers grasslands or No potential. The project tetrataenia CEwetlands near ponds, marshes and site does not support sloughs.grassland or wetland San Francisco Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-12 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Garter Snakehabitat. This species would not occur on the project site. Fish FE Eucyclogobius This species inhabits coastal No potential. No suitable newberryi lagoons and brackish bays at the habitat exists on the project mouth of freshwater streams. site to support this species. Tidewater Goby Oncorhynchus FE,Streams, small freshwater No potential. No suitable kisutchCEtributaries; estuarine and marine habitat exists on the project waters of the Pacific Ocean site to support this species. Coho Salmon - Central California Coast ESU Oncorhynchus FTFresh waters (not higher than No potential. No suitable mykiss irideus 53.6°F in summer). Although they habitat exists on the project can be found in cold lakes, they site to support this species. Steelhead - central require moderate-to-fast flowing, California coast well-oxygenated waters for ESU breeding. Birds Charadrius FTThe Pacific Coast population nests No potential. No suitable alexandrinus on barren to sparsely vegetated habitat exists on the project nivosus sand beaches, dry salt flats in site to support this species. lagoons, dredge spoils deposited on Although it could Western snowy beach or dune habitat, levees and potentially pass over the plover flats at salt-evaporation ponds, and site during foraging river bars. activities, it would not breed or nest on the site. There would be no potential for this species to occur on the project site. Laterallus CTThis species inhabits tidal salt No potential. The project jamaicensismarshes, where associated site does not support the coturniculus characteristically with heavy necessary pickleweed plant growths of pickleweed (Salicornia community that is California black rail virginica), but also occurs in necessary for foraging and brackish and fresh water marshes.î breeding. The project site lacks suitable habitat for this species and it is not expected to occur on site. Rallus longirostris FE,This species typically inhabits salt No potential The project obsoletus CEmarshes dominated by pickleweed site is not at an elevation (Salicornia virginica) and Pacific nor proximity to salt marsh California Clapper cordgrass (Spartina foliosa).habitat. This species would Rail not occur on the project site. Riparia riparia CTThis species nests in steep sand, Low potential. Although no dirt, or gravel banks, where it dugs suitable nesting habitat is burrows near the top of the bank. present on the site, it is Bank swallow possible that this species could pass over the site during foraging activities. It would not be expected to be a resident on the site. Sternula antillarum FE, This species prefers open beaches No potential This species Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-13 City of South San Francisco October 2009 browni CE kept free of vegetation by the tide. would not occur on the project site as it lacks suitable habitat in the form California least tern of an open beach. Mammals Enhydra lutris FTThis species inhabits temperate No potential. No suitable nereis coastal waters with rocky or soft habitat exists onsite for this sediment ocean bottoms less than 1 species. km from shore. Kelp forest Southern sea otter ecosystems are characteristic of otter habitats Reithrodontomys FE,This species occurs in tidal No potential No suitable raviventrisCEwetlands often taking refuge in salt habitat exists onsite for this marsh vegetation communities such species. It would not occur as Salicornia sp. on the project site. Salt-Marsh Harvest Mouse Federal; Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) Endangered = Any species, including subspecies, in danger of extinction through all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened = Any species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Species of Concern = Federal Designations FE =Listed as Federally Endangered FT = Listed as Federally Threatened CNPS (California Native Plant Society); Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, Special Publication No. 1/ Sixth Edition / August 2001. 1B = List 1B – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. 2= List 2 – Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere (.1 = seriously endangered in CA, .2 = fairly endangered in CA, .3 = not very endangered in CA) State Designations: CE = Listed as Endangered CR = Listed as Rare CT = Listed as Threatened CPE = Proposed for listing as Endangered CSC = CDFG California Special Concern Species CFP =Fully protected under the Cal. Fish and Game Code. Potential Occurrence on Site: Present = Reported or observed. High Potential = Suitable habitat present, although no individuals observed or reported. Low potential = Suitable habitat either marginal or absent, and likelihood of occurrence on the site is low No potential = Absent due to lack of habitat and natural resources Source: CNDDB database search of the USGS Quadrangles, May 2008. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Analytical Methodology Potential impacts to the existing biological resources within the project site, as discussed previously in the setting, from the proposed project were compared to the thresholds of significance presented below. The Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-14 City of South San Francisco October 2009 first four of the criteria indicate that a significant impact could occur when a “substantial effect” occurs. To evaluate the potential for the proposed project to impact biological resources, it is necessary to define the term substantial. The following definitions were used in this analysis. Threshold of Significance 1: Substantial effect on species. Substantial effect here would be a “take” of a state or federally listed species, habitat and even a single individual. For those species that are not officially listed, complete removal of the habitat they use within the project site is considered a substantial reduction if there is not an abundance of similar habitat in the vicinity. Direct loss of eggs or unfledged chicks of special status bird species is also considered a substantial adverse effect Threshold of Significance 2Substantial effect on sensitive habitats :. For sensitive habitats (coastal salt marsh), reduction of over 25 percent of similar habitat within the vicinity of the proposed project would be considered a substantial reduction. Threshold of Significance 3: Substantial effect on wetlands. As both the state and federal regulatory agencies have no net loss policies any reduction in wetland areas is considered a substantial adverse effect. Threshold of Significance 4: Substantial effect on migration or movement. Fragmentation of existing habitats or creation of barriers between two undeveloped area where the barrier blocks more than half of the corridor is considered a substantial interference to migratory movements of wildlife. Thresholds of Significance In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant impact related to biological resources if it would: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS; Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS; Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish and wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; Conflict with any local polices or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-15 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Project Impacts The project consists of a Master Plan and Phase 1 Precise Plan that would involve the phased removal and replacement of existing buildings on the 22.6 acre project site and construction of new office buildings and parking structures. The project would be constructed in five construction phases from 2011 to 2020; each phase would require approximately 12 to 15 months to complete. The Precise Plan would define the first phase of the project, while implementation of the Master Plan would be accomplished through four subsequent phases. Phase 1 includes demolition of 900, 850, and 800 Gateway and construction of 900 and 850 Gateway and a parking structure. Phases 2 through 5 of the project are conceptual in nature at this point, but would also involve demolition of existing structures and the construction of new buildings. This section evaluates potential project-level impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of the Precise Plan and program-level impacts associated with future Master Plan phases. Implementation of all phases of the project could result in impacts to biological resources on-site, including: Temporary impacts during grading and construction activities, such as vegetation removal in areas that would be re-vegetated, noise, vibration, dust, and increased human presence from construction crews; Permanent impacts from grading and construction activities, such as the removal of vegetation (including trees), construction of buildings and roads; Permanent impacts from post-construction, operational activities including increased noise and disturbance levels from the new development, increased common wildlife mortality from additional traffic, and increased impacts from lighting associated with new development and roads. These impacts to biological resources on-site are discussed in more detail below according to the thresholds of significance given above, and recommendations for avoiding, minimizing, or compensating for potentially significant impacts. Impact IV.D-1: The proposed project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S Fish and Wildlife Services. Of the thirty-five (35) special status species that have potential to occur on the project site, as determined by habitat and the aforementioned criteria, only one (1) has a low potential to occur, the bank swallow. This California threatened species would not be expected to nest on site as suitable nesting habitat is not present, but it is possible the species would be transient through the site during foraging activities; however, the proposed project will not result in a significant impact to this species as it would avoid construction areas during potential foraging. Project construction activities associated with implementation of the Precise Plan and Master Plan build out have potential to result in the destruction of active bird nests during removal of vegetation or grading, Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-16 City of South San Francisco October 2009 or may potentially result in the abandonment of active nests due to noise and increased activity. These potential impacts to nesting birds may be considered significant. The applicant shall require that the construction contractor implement mitigation measure MM IV.D-1, which requires avoiding ground disturbing activities during nesting season or conducting pre-construction bird surveys prior to each project phase and avoiding nests during the nesting season, thereby reducing the possibility of disturbing or destroying active bird nests. With implementation of this mitigation measure, this potential impact will less-than-significant. be reduced to Mitigation Measure IV.D-1.1 Candidate, Sensitive, or Special Status Species In order to avoid impacts to nesting birds, special-status birds and/or raptors during Phase 1 Precise Plan and Master Plan development, the following shall be implemented prior to commencement of each phase of the proposed project: Project development activities (disturbances to vegetation, structures and substrates) shall take place outside of the breeding bird season which generally runs from March 1 – August 31 (as early as February 1 for raptors) to assist in the avoidance of take (including disturbances which would cause abandonment of active nests containing eggs and/or young). OR If project activities cannot feasibly avoid the breeding bird season, weekly bird surveys shall begin 30 days prior to disturbance of suitable nesting habitat to detect any protected native birds in the habitat to be removed and any other such habitat within 300 feet of the construction work area (within 500 feet for raptors) as access to adjacent property allows. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys. The surveys shall continue on a weekly basis with the last survey being conducted no more than three days prior to the initiation of clearance/construction work. If a protected native bird is found, the project proponent shall delay all clearance/construction disturbance activities in suitable nesting habitat or within 300 feet of nesting habitat (within 500 feet for raptor nests) until August 31 or continue the surveys in order to locate any nests. If an active nest is located, clearing and construction within 300 feet of the nest (within 500 feet for raptor nests) or as determined by a biological monitor shall be postponed until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged and when there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid a nest shall be established in the field with flagging and stakes or construction fencing. Construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of the area. The results of the recommended protective measures described above shall be recorded to document compliance with the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Fish and Game Code protecting nesting birds. Impact IV.D-2: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game, or the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-17 City of South San Francisco October 2009 No riparian habitat is present on the project site and therefore the project would not impact any riparian areas. Additionally, no natural habitat exists onsite and no sensitive communities would be adversely no impact impacted as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, there would be to any riparian habitat, or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game, or the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service. No mitigation measures are required. Impact IV.D-3: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. No federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal habitat), are present on the project site. Therefore, there would be no impact to federally protected wetlands as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation would not be required. Impact IV.D-4: The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident of migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Habitat loss and associated species loss are primarily a result of the acceleration of land-use change and is considered the root cause of the biodiversity crisis. Habitat loss involves reducing the size of habitat and may result in the breaking habitat into patches; the latter process is referred to as fragmentation. After consideration of the type of corridors that could potentially be impacted as a result of the project, it was determined that no wildlife corridor will be adversely affected by the proposed project. This determination is based upon the lack of sensitive or natural habitats on the project site, and the amount of development on and around the site. The site does not offer common or special status species with regionally significant habitat and the habitat on site is of poor ecological quality. Therefore, there would no impact be to the movement of any native resident of migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation would be required. Impact IV.D-5: The proposed project would conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. A tree survey for the 8.91-acre Phase I Precise Plan was conducted in September 2008, and identified at 11 least 19 trees within landscaped areas that would be considered protected under the South San Francisco 12 Tree Preservation Ordinance, Title 13, Chapter 13.30. In particular, the popular trees along the site boundaries, which extend from the Oyster Point access driveway behind 180 and 200 Oyster Point 11 Some trees present within the Precise Plan Phase I project site were not accessible and therefore, additional protected trees may be on the project site 12 Christopher A. Joseph & Associates. 2008. Tree Survey Report for the Gateway Precise Plan Phase I , September, 2008. Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-18 City of South San Francisco October 2009 Boulevard, are considered protected as their circumference would be greater than 48 inches at 54 inches above natural grade. All of the 19 protected trees would be removed by implementation of the Precise Plan, which would be considered a significant impact, as it would conflict with the protected tree ordinance. Detailed tree surveys have not yet been conducted within remaining portions of the 22.6-acre Gateway Business Park Master Plan due to the fact that trees would need to be surveyed prior to each phase to account for tree growth. Development activities associated with future project phases could involve “removal” or “pruning” of additional protected trees that exceed 48 inches in circumference. Prior to the start of construction, a qualified biologist or arborist will conduct a tree survey, for the identification of protected trees, followed by permit application to determine requirements for removal and replacement of such trees, thereby reducing the impact to protected trees. Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.D-2, as described further below, would reduce any significant project-level and program-level impacts less-than-significant associated with Precise Plan and Master Plan development to a level. Mitigation Measure IV.D-5.1 Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources In order to minimize impacts to protected trees, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist or arborist to conduct preconstruction surveys of trees within the project site and provide a map to the applicant and the City prior to initiation of future Master Plan phases.. Each protected tree identified that will be directly impacted by removal or pruning shall require a Tree Pruning/Removal Permit per Title 13, Chapter 13.30 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC). This permit application shall be submitted to the City and its approval must be a condition of issuance of any grading or building permit. The following outlines the procedures for obtaining a tree removal permit, and procedures for the subsequent tree replacement pursuant to the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 13.30). Owners, or their authorized representative, of protected trees shall obtain a permit to remove or prune a protected tree. The application shall be on a form furnished by the department and shall state, among other things, the number and location of the tree(s) to be removed or pruned by type and the reason for removal or pruning of each. The application shall also include a photograph with correct botanical identification of the subject tree(s). When removal or pruning of a protected tree is proposed as part of or in conjunction with new development the application shall also include: (1) a site plan showing the location of buildings, structures and proposed site disturbances; (2) the location of all protected trees on the site; and (3) the protected trees on the site that would be removed or pruned. An authorized representative of the department shall make an inspection of any protected tree or site subject to this section and shall file a written report and his recommendations to the director. Prior to removal of trees to be conducted during Precise Plan and Master Plan development, the required replacement of protected trees shall be determined as set forth in SSFMC Section 13.30.080. Any protected tree that is removed shall be replaced as follows, and the method of replacement shall be approved as part of the protected tree removal permit process: Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-19 City of South San Francisco October 2009 (a)Replacement shall be three 24-inch box size or two 36-inch box minimum size landscape trees for each tree removed as determined below. However, the director maintains the right to dictate size and species of trees in any new developments. (b)Any protected tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two 36-inch box minimum size landscape trees for each tree so removed, as determined below. (c)The director can waive replacement of a protected tree, if a sufficient number of trees exist on the property to meet all other requirements of the tree preservation ordinance. (d) If replacement trees, as designated in subsection (b)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable, cannot be planted on the property, payment of twice the replacement value of the tree as determined by the International Society of Arboriculture Standard shall be made to the City. Such payments shall be deposited in the tree planted fund to be drawn upon for public tree purchase and planting. (Ord 1271 Section (part), 2000:Ord 1060 Section 1 (part) 1989). CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The geographic context for the analysis of cumulative biological resources impacts consists of San Mateo County. All future development that may occur in this geographic region would be subject to existing federal, state and local regulations. Land uses and development consistent with the proposed project and additional twenty cities and cumulative projects, could result in a significant loss of populations and/or essential habitat for special-status plant and animal species, loss of sensitive natural communities, and wildlife habitat and result in the obstruction of wildlife movement opportunities. The proposed project does not involve the loss of existing natural habitat and future development of such habitat in the area would be very limited. However, the project many involve the removal of trees and/or impacts to nesting birds, but with the implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.D-1.1 and IV.D-5.1 these impacts will be less than significant. reduced to Therefore cumulative biological impacts of the proposed project would less than significant. be LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of Mitigation Measures IV.D-1.1 and IV.D-5.1 identified in this section would adequately mitigate all potential impacts related to biological resources. These impacts would also be less-than-significant reduced to a level. Gateway Business Park Master Plan IV.D. Biological Resources Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-20