4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - California

Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan EIR AECOM City of Fairfield 4.4-1 Biological Resources

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section addresses biological resources known or with potential to occur the Specific Plan Area and potential changes in condition of those resources as a result of implementing the Specific Plan. The analysis includes a description of the existing environmental conditions, the methods used for assessment, the impacts associated with implementing the Specific Plan, and the mitigation measures necessary to address potentially significant impacts.

Findings and recommendations are based primarily on biological resources investigations conducted by LSA Associates, Vollmar Consulting, and PBS&J. Biological investigations conducted by LSA include special-status plant surveys conducted in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; focused surveys for vernal pool crustaceans conducted on March 10 and April 3, 2009; California tiger salamander larvae surveys conducted on April 1, 2008 and April 3, 2009; California tiger salamander upland habitat (rodent burrow) surveys conducted on June 4, 2009; and incidental wildlife observations made by LSA biologists during focused surveys. Vollmar Consulting conducted biological investigations on the Biggs site,1 including special-status plant surveys in 2003 and 2004, branchiopod surveys in 2003 and 2006, and California tiger salamander larvae surveys in 2006. Additional information for the development of this section was obtained by researching biological databases, reviewing information contained in the draft Solano Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (Solano County Water Agency 2009) and in the Jepson Parkway Project DEIR/DEIS and the biological opinion for the Jepson Parkway Project, reviewing aerial photographs of the Specific Plan Area, and field reconnaissance surveys conducted by AECOM biologists in October 2009.

4.4.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS

The Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas are located at the base of the Inner North Coast Range foothills, just east of the current City limits of the city of Fairfield in Solano County.

The topography within the Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas is flat in some areas and gently rolling in other areas. Slopes up to 30% are present in some areas. Elevations range from approximately 60 feet to 180 feet above mean sea level.

Much of the site was historically used for cattle ranching and large portions of the Specific Plan Area still are used for grazing. All of the Specific Plan Area has been subjected to some level of agricultural disturbance and much of the area has been extensively leveled for agricultural use, which has resulted in substantial disturbance and alteration of natural habitats on the site, including historic vernal pools and vernal pool grassland. The natural mound and swale micro topography that existed historically has been virtually eliminated from the Specific Plan Area and the vegetation has been largely converted from vernal pool endemic plant communities to communities dominated by nonnative annual grasses, such as Italian ryegrass and Mediterranean barley. In most cases, the surface topography has been altered sufficiently to result in major hydrological changes, such as shortened hydroperiod. However, seasonal wetland depressions remain and biological resources typically associated with vernal pool grasslands are still present in portions of the Specific Plan Area, primarily east of Vanden Road and south of Canon Road. The off-site improvement areas are primarily within existing roads and roadway rights-of-way and consist of bare gravel or ruderal vegetation that is regularly mowed; however, some off-site improvements would extend into adjacent undeveloped grasslands that support generally the same types of biological resources as those found within the Specific Plan Area, as described below.

The majority of the Specific Plan Area is within the Union Creek watershed. However, some of the west–central portions of the Specific Plan Area are part of the McCoy Creek and McCoy Basin watershed. The southeastern portion of Noonan Ranch drains to the Denverton Creek watershed and the northeastern portion of Noonan North is part of the Barker Slough watershed.

1 Please refer to Exhibit 4.4-3 later in this section, which maps the Specific Plan using property owner names.

AECOM Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan EIR Biological Resources 4.4-2 City of Fairfield

PLANT COMMUNITIES

The predominant plant community in the Specific Plan Area is annual grassland, but wetland plant communities are present within vernal pools and swales, drainage channels, and other depressional features on-site. Vegetation within the vernal pools in the Specific Plan Area is characterized by hydrophytic plants and typically dominated by common spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya) and smooth goldfields (Lasthenia glaberrima). On-site ponds and some of the drainage channels support freshwater marsh dominated by cattails (Typha sp.). Occasional willow trees or shrubs (Salix spp.) are encountered in these areas, as well. Trees exist along fencerows, roadsides, and home sites, as well as some other scattered locations. Trees in the Specific Plan Area include blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), fruit trees in remnant orchards, and willow and cottonwood trees. Exhibit 4.4-1 shows the plant communities and other habitats, including developed areas, within the Specific Plan Area.

Annual Grassland

This community type covers nearly all of the Specific Plan Area except for wetlands and existing developed areas, and is characterized by dense cover of nonnative annual grasses interspersed with numerous species of nonnative annual forbs and native wildflowers. This herbaceous cover is contiguous and fairly homogeneous across the Specific Plan Area landscape. Dominant nonnative species include ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), filarees (Erodium spp.), burr clover (Medicago polymorpha), and subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum). Although nonnative species dominate this community, there are a number of native wildflowers present, including California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. capitatum), harvest brodiaea (Brodiaea elegans), butter ’n’ eggs (Triphysaria eriantha ssp. eriantha), valley tassels (Castilleja attenuata), and blue-eyed grass (Sisyryinchium bellum).

Perennial Grassland

Perennial grassland communities found in the Specific Plan Area consist of one patch of purple needlegrass grassland located on the Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank site and three patches of creeping rye grass turfs located on the North Kelley and Solano Irrigation District sites. Purple needlegrass grasslands have greater than 5% absolute cover of purple needlegrass (Nasella pulchra) in the herbaceous layer and creeping rye grass turfs are contain greater than 50% relative cover of creeping wild rye (Leymus triticoides) in the herbaceous layer (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens 2009). Additional grassland patches containing these species are present in the Specific Plan Area; however, these patches do not meet the minimum cover requirements that define these plant community types according to A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf, and Evens 2009) and the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). However, portions of the Specific Plan Area were not surveyed for these communities (e.g., McAvenia, Burke, Ewings sites) and additional patches of purple needlegrass grassland or rye grass tufts may be present in these areas.

Vernal Pool, Swale, and Seasonal Wetland Herbaceous Communities

Vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands are scattered throughout the Specific Plan Area, but occur in higher concentrations east of Vanden Road. Most of these wetlands have been disturbed by past agricultural activities, such as plowing and grading, and may therefore have drastically altered size, depth, and hydrologic characteristics compared to what existed on the site historically. A particularly large, playa-type pool is present on the Biggs property north of Markeley Lane and south of Vanden Road. This vernal pool was artificially created in the 1940s or 1950s as a groundwater recharge basin (Vollmar Consulting 2009).


Source: LSA 2010a, adapted by AECOM 2010

Habitat Exhibit 4.4-1


Vernal pools are natural ephemeral wetlands that form in shallow depressions underlain by an impervious or restrictive soil layer near the surface that reduces the percolation of water. Vernal pools in the Specific Plan Area are classified as Northern Claypan Vernal Pools. These vernal pools occur on neutral to alkaline, silica-cemented hardpan soils that are often saline. Vernal pools are supported by direct precipitation and surface runoff. They pond during the wet season and typically become dry by late spring. Vernal pools are typically characterized by a high percentage of native plant species, many of which may be endemic (restricted) to vernal pools. The vernal pool vegetation in the Specific Plan Area is characterized by moderate to dense cover of annual herbs, many of which are endemic to vernal pool habitats, such as coyote thistle (Eryngium vaseyi), woolly-marbles (Psilocarphus brevissimus), annual hairgrass (Deschampsia danthonioides), slender popcorn-flower (Plagiobothrys stipitatus), and smooth tidy-tips (Layia chrysanthemoides). Although common spikerush is found in many types of wetland habitats, it is very common in vernal pools, especially in deeper pools that are inundated for relatively long periods of time. This species is commonly dominant in the Specific Plan Area vernal pools. Additional species observed in the pools include common semaphore grass (Pleuropogon californicus), rabbit’s-foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), tarweed (Centromadia sp.), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), and alkali mallow (Malvella leprosa). The presence of saltgrass and alkali mallow indicate that some of the vernal pool soils are slightly alkaline.

Similar plant associations are found in swales on the Specific Plan Area. Swales are somewhat linear, concave depressions formed between grassland mounds. They have a drainage pattern and commonly connect to vernal pools, but typically do not have a well-defined channel. Swales are characterized by soil and hydrological conditions similar to vernal pools, and both swales and vernal pools are typically distinguished by a unique host of species adapted to the extreme conditions created by the cycles of inundation and drying.

Most of the historic vernal pools in the Specific Plan Area have been substantially degraded through past land use activities. Consequently, these wetlands support vegetation adapted to the altered hydrology and disturbance regime and are typically dominated by nonnative generalist wetland species and introduced grasses rather than vernal pool indicator species. These degraded depressional wetlands and vernal pool relicts are referred to in this report as seasonal wetlands, consistent with the terminology used in the wetland delineations submitted to USACE. Other seasonal wetlands occur within constructed drainages and borrow pits along the raised railroad berms. Seasonal wetlands support varying plant communities not typically characteristic of vernal pools. Depending on the depth and duration of inundation, disturbance history, soils, and other factors, dominant plants in seasonal wetlands include nonnative species, such as Italian ryegrass, hood canarygrass (Phalaris paradoxa), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), and hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolium) and fewer native species, such as common spikerush. Although the seasonal wetlands in the Specific Plan Area are disturbed and generally dominated by nonnative species, they still have the potential to support special-status plant and animal species that are typically associated with vernal pools.

Freshwater Marsh

Freshwater marsh is an emergent wetland plant community occurring in areas that are permanently or nearly permanently inundated or saturated. In the Specific Plan Area, this community type is present within drainage channels and in some depressional features. The largest stand of freshwater marsh vegetation in the Specific Plan Area is in a large pond created for detention as part of the North Bay Water Treatment Plant. This pond is located southwest of the treatment plant on the east side of Peabody Road. Dominant plant species identified in the freshwater marsh include cattail and tule (Scirpus sp.). This pond also supports woody riparian vegetation as discussed below.

Riparian Scrub and Woodland

Riparian scrub and woodland communities are present in the Specific Plan Area within the large created pond southwest of the North Bay Regional Water Treatment Plant property and in some linear, pond-like depressions along the toe of the old railroad berm southeast of Vanden Road in the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area.


At the treatment plant pond wetland, the riparian vegetation is characterized primarily by black willow (Salix gooddingii) trees with cattails in the understory. In the linear depressions, the riparian community is characterized by a mix of willow shrubs and cottonwood (Populus fremontii) trees.

WILDLIFE COMMUNITIES

The Specific Plan Area supports an abundant and diverse fauna. The large and contiguous open spaces on-site are important to native wildlife species associated with grassland and seasonal wetland habitats. The Specific Plan Area provides habitat for raptors that prefer large tracts of open grassland for foraging. The combination of open grassland with available seasonal and perennial water sources is attractive to many of the common wildlife species found in Solano County, as well as a few special-status wildlife species, which are discussed separately below under “Sensitive Biological Resources.”

LSA biologists conducted surveys during 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, and observed numerous common wildlife species within the annual grassland habitat on-site. Songbird species observed during these surveys include western kingbird (Tyrannis verticalis), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), cliff and barn swallows (Hirundo pyrrhonata and H. rustica), horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus) and northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos). Birds of prey species found in the site’s grasslands include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura). Common reptile species associated with the on-site grassland habitat include gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), racer (Coluber constrictor), and western fence lizard (Sceloperus occidentalis). Common mammal species include deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), California vole (Microtus californicus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and coyote (Canis latrans). California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) were observed at the edges of the Specific Plan Area in the existing and old raised railroad rights-of-way.

In addition to the grassland species described above, several wildlife species were observed in association with aquatic habitats of Union Creek and the irrigation ditches, ponds, and vernal pools on the Specific Plan Area. These species include red-winged blackbird (Ageliaeus phoeniceus), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), mosquito fish (Gambusia sp.), western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), and larvae of Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris sierra).

SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Sensitive biological resources addressed in this section include those that are afforded consideration or protection under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Fish and Game Code, California Endangered Species Act (CESA), Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act).

Special-status Species

Special-status species include plants and animals in the following categories:

► species officially listed by the State of California or the Federal government as endangered, threatened, or rare;

► candidates for state or Federal listing as endangered, threatened, or rare;

► taxa (i.e., taxonomic categories or groups) that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15380 of the State CEQA Guidelines;


► species identified by the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) as species of special concern;

► species listed as Fully Protected under the California Fish and Game Code;

► species afforded protection under local or regional planning documents; and

► taxa considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California.” The CNPS includes five lists for categorizing plant species of concern, which are summarized as follows:

• List 1A—Plants presumed to be extinct in California; • List 1B—Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; • List 2—Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere; • List 3—Plants about which more information is needed (a review list); and • List 4—Plants of limited distribution (a watch list).

Plant inventories prepared by CNPS provide one source of substantial evidence that is used by lead agencies to determine what plants meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened species, as described in CCR Section 15380 of the State CEQA Guidelines. All plants listed in the CNPS Inventory (CNPS 2008) are considered “special plants” by DFG. The term “special plants” is a broad term used by DFG to refer to all of the plant taxa inventoried by the CNDDB, regardless of their legal or protection status. Notation as a List 1B or 2 plant species does not automatically qualify the species as endangered, rare, or threatened within the definition of State CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15380. Rather, CNPS designations are considered along with other available information about the status, threats, and population condition of plant species to determine whether a species warrants evaluation as an endangered, rare, or threatened species under CEQA. Plants on Lists 1A, 1B, and 2 of the CNPS Inventory may qualify for listing and some List 3 species may also qualify. DFG recommends—and lead agencies may require—that these species be addressed during CEQA review of proposed projects. However, a plant species need not be in the CNPS Inventory to be considered a rare, threatened, or endangered species under CEQA. List 3 and 4 plants may be evaluated by the lead agency on a case by case basis to determine significance criteria under CEQA.

The term “California species of special concern” is applied by DFG to animals not listed under the Federal ESA or the CESA, but that are nonetheless declining at a rate that could result in listing, or historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. DFG’s fully protected status was California’s first attempt to identify and protect animals that were rare or facing extinction. Most species listed as fully protected were eventually listed as threatened or endangered under CESA, however some species remain listed as fully protected but do not have simultaneous listing under CESA. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no take permits can be issued for these species except for scientific research purposes, including recovery efforts for fully protected, threatened, or endangered species; or for relocation to protect livestock.

Tables 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 below provide lists of special-status species known to occur or with potential to occur in the Specific Plan Area. These lists were developed through review of biological studies previously conducted in the Specific Plan Area and in the vicinity, including species surveys and habitat evaluations conducted by LSA Associates and Vollmar Consulting. The CNDDB (CNDDB 2010) and CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2009) were also reviewed for specific information on previously documented occurrences of special-status species in the Elmira and eight surrounding U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles. Exhibit 4.4-2 shows all of the CNDDB occurrences within 3 miles of the Specific Plan Area. Exhibit 4.4-3 provides a key map for the references to specific biological study sites throughout this EIR section.


Table 4.4-1 Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur or with Potential to Occur on the Specific Plan Area

Species Status1

Habitat and Blooming Period Potential for Occurrence 2 USFWS DFG CNPS

Other Ferris’ milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. ferrisiae

_ _ 1B.1 Subalkaline flats and mesic sites in valley and foothill grassland, meadows and seeps; 15 to 250 foot elevation; blooms April-May.

Could occur, suitable habitat is present and there are known occurrences within 5 miles of the Specific Plan Area, including one at Travis Air Force Base.

Alkali milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. tener

_ _ 1B.2 Alkali flats and playas, alkaline vernal pools, or seasonally flooded, alkaline clay soils in valley and foothill grassland; 3 to 550 foot elevation; blooms March-June.

Could occur; alkaline vernal pools and other vernally mesic areas in the Specific Plan Area provide suitable habitat and this species has been documented in the immediate project vicinity.

Heartscale Atriplex cordulata

_ _ 1B.2 Saline or alkaline flats or scalds in chenopod scrub, desert scrub, or meadow, and grassland habitats in sandy soils; 1 to 500 foot elevation; blooms April-October.

Could occur; suitable alkaline grassland habitat is present and this species has been documented in the immediate project vicinity.

Brittlescale Atriplex depressa

_ _ 1B.2 Alkaline clay soils in chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, valley and foothill grassland, or vernal pools; occasionally found in riparian marshes; 3-1,050 foot elevation; blooms May-October.

Could occur; alkaline vernal pools and other vernally mesic areas in the Specific Plan Area provide suitable habitat and this species has been documented in the immediate Specific Plan Area vicinity.

San Joaquin spearscale Atriplex joaquiniana

_ _ 1B.2 Seasonal alkaline wetlands in chenopod scrub, and valley and foothill grassland, meadows and seeps, and playas; 3 to 2,750 foot elevation; blooms April-October.

Could occur; alkaline vernal pools and other vernally mesic areas in the Specific Plan Area provide suitable habitat and this species has been documented in the immediate Specific Plan Area vicinity.

Vernal pool smallscale Atriplex persistens

_ _ 1B.2 Alkaline vernal pools; 30–400 foot elevation; July-October.

Could occur in alkaline vernal pools in the Specific Plan Area. There are known occurrences within 5 miles of the Specific Plan Area.

Mt. Diablo fairy lantern Calochortus pulchellus

_ _ 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland; 650 to 2,600 foot elevation; blooms April-June.

Unlikely to occur, species is endemic to the Diablo Range in Contra Costa County and Specific Plan Area is below the species’ known elevation range.

Pappose tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi

_ _ 1B.2 Vernally mesic, often alkaline sites in coastal prairie, coastal salt marsh, valley and foothill grassland, and meadows and seeps; 6 to 1,400 foot elevation; blooms May-November.

Could occur, vernal pools and other vernally mesic areas in the Specific Plan Area provide suitable habitat and there are known occurrences of this species immediately adjacent to the Specific Plan Area.

Parry’s red tarplant Centromadia parryi ssp. rudis

_ _ 4.2 Vernal pools and other vernally mesic, often alkaline sites in valley and foothill grassland; 0 to 325 foot elevation; blooms May-October.

Known to occur, found in numerous vernal pools and other vernally mesic areas in the Specific Plan Area.



Species Status1


Other Suisun thistle Cirsium hydrophilum var. hydrophilum

E _ 1B.1 Salt marsh; 0 to 5 foot elevation; blooms July-September.

Unlikely to occur; no suitable habitat is present.

Hispid bird’s beak Cordylanthus mollis ssp. hispidus

_ _ 1B.1 Alkaline meadows, seeps, vernal pools, and playas; below 500 foot elevation; blooms June-September.

Could occur, suitable habitat is present in the on-site vernal pools and there is a known occurrence within 5 miles at Dozier Vernal Pools, however, it is the only known occurrence in Solano County.

Soft bird’s beak Cordylanthus mollis ssp. mollis

E _ 1B.2 Coastal salt marsh; 0 to 10 foot elevation; blooms July-November.


Subalpine cryptantha Cryptantha cymophila

_ _ 1B.3 Subalpine coniferous forest on rocky, volcanic soils; 9,000 to 9,500 feet elevation; blooms July-August.

Unlikely to occur; no suitable habitat is present and the Specific Plan Area is lower than the species’ known elevation range.

Recurved larkspur Delphinium recurvatum

_ _ 1B.2 Alkaline soils in cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grassland, often in vernally moist or inundated areas; 10-2,500 feet elevation; blooms March-May.

Could occur in vernally mesic alkaline soils in the Specific Plan Area. There are known occurrences within 5 miles.

Dwarf downingia Downingia pusilla

– – 2.2 Vernal pools or other seasonal wetlands in annual grasslands; below 1,500 foot elevation; blooms March–May.

Known to occur; this species was found in vernal pools on the Noonan South site during 2008 and 2010 special-status plant surveys.

Mt. Diablo buckwheat Eriogonum truncatum

– – 1B.2 Dry, exposed, clay or sandy substrates in chaparral, coastal scrub, 300 to 2,000 foot elevation; blooms April-November.

Unlikely to occur; no suitable habitat is present and the only record of this species in the encompassing quadrangles is from 1888. Only known extant occurrences are on Mt Diablo.

Fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea

_ _ 1B.2 Generally in heavy clay soils (often serpentine) in cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; 10 to 1,400 foot elevation; blooms February-March.

Could occur, suitable habitat is present and there are known occurrences within 5 miles of the Specific Plan Area at Jepson Prairie Preserve.

Adobe lily Fritillaria pluriflora

_ _ 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, and foothill grassland, usually on heavy clay soils, sometimes serpentine; 180 to 2,700 foot elevation; blooms February-April.

Could occur in grassland habitat in the Specific Plan Area.

Woolly-headed gilia Gilia capitata ssp. tomentosa

_ _ 1B.1 Rocky outcrops in coastal bluff scrub; 50 to 500 foot elevation; blooms May-July.




Species Status1


Other Bogg’s Lake hedge hyssop Gratiola heterosepala

– E 1B.2 Lake margin marshes and swamps, vernal pools, and other seasonal wetlands, primarily in clay soils; 30 to 8,000 foot elevation; blooms April–August.

Could occur; suitable habitat is present and there are known occurrences within 5 miles of the Specific Plan Area at Jepson Prairie Preserve.

Hogwallow starfish Hesperevax caulescens

_ _ 4.2 Shallow vernal pools in valley and foothill grassland; 0-1,700 foot elevation; blooms March-June.

Known to occur; found in several pools in the Specific Plan Area.

Brewer’s western flax Hesperolinon breweri

_ _ 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland, often in rocky serpentine soils; 100 to 3,000 foot elevation; blooms May-July.

Unlikely to occur; although not a strict serpentine endemic, 65-74% of known occurrences are on serpentine soils, which do not occur in the Specific Plan Area.

Carquinez goldenbush Isocoma arguta

– – 1B.1 Alkaline soils in valley and foothill grassland, often on low benches near drainage channels and on mounds in mound swale topography; 3 to 65 foot elevation; blooms August-December.

Could occur; alkaline grassland sites provide suitable habitat and this species has been documented in the immediate Specific Plan Area vicinity.

Contra Costa goldfields Lasthenia conjugens

E _ 1B.1 Vernal pools, swales, and seasonally wet depressions in valley and foothill grassland or cismontane woodland; 1 to 1,500 foot elevation; blooms March-June.

Known to occur; this species has been documented in numerous vernal pools in the Specific Plan Area. Critical habitat for this species has been designated in the Specific Plan Area.

Delta tule pea Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii

– – 1B.1 Freshwater and brackish marshes; 0 to 15 foot elevation; blooms May-September.


Greene’s legenere Legenere limosa

– – 1B.1 Relatively deep and wet vernal pools (Witham 2006:39); below 3,000 foot elevation. Blooms April–June.

Known to occur; this species was found in vernal pools on the Noonan South site during 2008 and 2010 special-status plant surveys.

Heckard’s peppergrass Lepidium latipes var. heckardii

_ _ 1B.2 Alkaline soils in valley and foothill grassland, sometimes at the edges of vernal pools; 10 to 100 foot elevation; blooms March-May.

Could occur in alkaline soils in the Specific Plan Area. There is one occurrence within 5 miles of the Specific Plan Area near Haas Slough.

Mason’s lilaeopsis Lilaeopsis masonii

_ R 1B.1 Muddy or silty alluvium in freshwater or brackish marshes and riparian scrub; 0 to 35 foot elevation; blooms April-November.


Delta mudwort Limosella subulata

_ _ 2.1 Mudflats in freshwater and brackish marshes and riparian scrub; 0 to 10 foot elevation; blooms May-August.




Species Status1


Other Robust monardella Monardella villosa ssp. globosa

_ _ 1B.2 Openings in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub; 600 to 2,000 foot elevation; blooms June-July.

Unlikely to occur; no suitable habitat is present and the Specific Plan Area is lower than species’ elevation range.

Baker’s navarretia Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri

– – 1B.1 Vernal pools and swales with adobe or alkaline soils; 15 to 3,000 foot elevation; blooms May-July.

Could occur; alkaline vernal pools in the Specific Plan Area provide suitable habitat and this species has been documented in the immediate project vicinity.

Colusa grass Neostapfia colusana

_ _ 1B.1 Large or deep vernal pools, playas, and lakes with saline/alkaline adobe clay soils; 15 to 400 feet elevation; blooms May-August.

Unlikely to occur, although potentially suitable vernal pool habitat is present, this species was not found during focused surveys targeting grasses of the Orcuttieae tribe conducted on the Biggs, Burke, Noonan Conservation Bank, Noonan South, South Kelley, and Church sites.

San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass Orcuttia inaequalis

T E 1B.1 Vernal pools, generally in larger pools with alkaline soils; 100 to 2,500 foot elevation; blooms April-September.

Unlikely to occur, although potentially suitable vernal pool habitat is present, this species was not found during focused surveys targeting grasses of the Orcuttieae tribe conducted on the Biggs, Burke, Noonan Conservation Bank, Noonan South, South Kelley, and Church sites.

Bearded popcorn-flower Plagiobothrys hystriculus

_ _ 1B.1 Vernal pools or mesic grassland sites; 30 to 150 foot elevation; blooms April-May.

Could occur in vernal pools and other vernally mesic areas in the Specific Plan Area.

Rayless ragwort Senecio aphanactis

_ _ 2.2 Alkaline flats in chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub; 50 to 3,000 foot elevation; blooms January-April.


Suisun Marsh aster Symphiotrichum lentum

– – 1B.2 Brackish and freshwater marshes and swamps; 0-10 foot elevation; blooms May–November.

Unlikely to occur, marsh habitat is very limited in the Specific Plan Area and of marginal quality. This species is restricted to the Suisun Marsh and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and the Specific Plan Area is higher than the known elevation range of this species.

Showy rancheria clover Trifolium amoenum

E _ 1B.1 Valley and foothill grassland and coastal bluff scrub, sometimes on serpentine soils; 15 to 1,800 foot elevation; blooms April-June.

Could occur in grassland habitat in the Specific Plan Area. There are historic occurrence records in the immediate project vicinity, but the species has not been seen at these locations since 1902.



Species Status1


Other Saline clover Trifolium depauperatum var. hydrophilum

_ _ 1B.2 Mesic, alkaline sites in valley and foothill grasslands, vernal pools, and salt marshes; 0 to 1,000 foot elevation; blooms April-June.

Known to occur; this species was found at the Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank during 2009 floristic monitoring.

Solano grass Tuctoria mucronata

E E 1B.1 Drying bottoms of alkaline playa type vernal pools with alkaline-saline clay or silty clay soils and large surface area; 15 to 35 foot elevation; blooms April-August.

Unlikely to occur; this species is known from only three occurrences, two in Solano County and one in Yolo County. One of the Solano County occurrences (Olcott Lake) is believed to be extirpated. This species was not found during focused surveys targeting grasses of the Orcuttieae tribe conducted on the Biggs, Burke, Noonan Conservation Bank, Noonan South, South Kelley, and Church sites.

Notes: USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; DFG = California Department of Fish and Game; CNPS = California Native Plant Society;

CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database; ESA = Federal Endangered Species Act; CESA = California Endangered Species Act 1 Legal Status Definitions

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

E Endangered (legally protected)

T Threatened (legally protected)

California Department of Fish and Game:


California Native Plant Society Categories: 1B Plant species considered rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (protected under

CEQA, but not legally protected under ESA or CESA) 2 Plant species considered rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere

(protected under CEQA, but not legally protected under ESA or CESA)

CNPS Extensions: 1 Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences are threatened and/or high

degree and immediacy of threat) 2 Fairly endangered in California (20 to 80% of occurrences are threatened)

2 Potential for Occurrence Definitions

Unlikely to occur: Species is unlikely to be present in the Specific Plan Area due to poor habitat quality, lack of suitable habitat features, or

restricted current distribution of the species.

Could occur: Suitable habitat is available in the Specific Plan Area; however, there are little to no other indicators that the species might be

present.

Likely to occur: Habitat conditions, known occurrences in the Specific Plan Area vicinity, or other factors indicate a relatively high likelihood that

the species would occur in the Specific Plan Area.

Sources: Solano County Water Agency 2009, LSA Associates 2010a, Vollmar Consulting 2009, CNDDB 2010; CNPS 2010; data compiled by

AECOM in 2010

Special-status Plants

Protocol-level (according to USFWS and DFG guidelines) special-status plant surveys have been conducted on the Jepson Parkway, Biggs, Noonan North, Noonan South, Noonan Conservation Bank, North Kelley, South Kelley, Solano Irrigation District, City of Fairfield, and Church sites (Exhibit 4.4-3) within the Specific Plan Area (LSA 2010a, LSA 2010b, and Vollmar Consulting 2009). Surveys for Contra Costa goldfields have been conducted on the Burke site. Special-status plants documented during the various surveys are Contra Costa goldfields, dwarf downingia, Greene’s legenere, and saline clover. Two CNPS List 4 (watch list) species, Parry’s red tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. rudis) and hogwallow starfish (Hesperevax caulescens), were also found during special-status plant surveys. Special-status plant surveys have not been conducted on the remainder of the


Specific Plan Area. Exhibit 4.4-3 provides a key to all of the sites within the Specific Plan Area and shows which have been surveyed for special-status plants and which have not. The plant surveys conducted and their results are described in the following paragraphs. Habitat occupied by Contra Costa goldfields and locations of other special-status plant observations are depicted in Exhibit 4.4-4.

Vollmar Consulting conducted protocol-level special-status plant surveys on the Biggs site during peak spring and summer blooming periods in 2003 and 2004 (Vollmar Consulting 2009). Contra Costa goldfields were found in the large pool, as well as several small wetlands on the Biggs site. No other special-status plants were found on the Biggs site. LSA Associates conducted surveys for Contra Costa goldfields on the Noonan North, Noonan South, and Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank sites during spring 2007 and 2008. During spring 2009, LSA Associates conducted protocol-level surveys for Contra Costa goldfields on the North Kelley, South Kelley, Solano Irrigation District, City of Fairfield, Church, and Burke sites. In July 2009, LSA Associates conducted protocol-level surveys for Orcutt grasses (Colusa grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass, and Solano grass) in suitable habitat on the Noonan Conservation Bank, Noonan South, South Kelley, and Church sites. Colusa grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass, and Solano grass were not found during these focused surveys, but Contra Costa goldfields were identified within the existing Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank, as well as on the Noonan North, Noonan South, and Burke sites. Suitable habitat for the Orcutt grasses (i.e., pools that remain inundated long enough for them to complete their life cycle) are not present on the Noonan North, North Kelley, Solano Irrigation District, and City of Fairfield sites. During spring and summer 2010, LSA conducted protocol-level surveys on the Noonan Conservation Bank, Noonan North, Noonan South, North Kelley, South Kelley, Solano Irrigation District, City of Fairfield, and Church sites for all potentially occurring special-status plant species (LSA 2010a). Special-status plant surveys were conducted on the Jepson Parkway site between May 1999 and August 2002 and no special-status plants were found (Caltrans 2008).

During the spring 2008 surveys, dwarf downingia and legenere were found on the Noonan South site and these two species were identified in wetlands along the North Gate Road alignment on the Noonan South site in spring 2010. During 2009 and 2010 surveys, saline clover was identified in several pools at the Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank. Dwarf downingia and saline clover are identified as special management species in the Solano Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (SMHCP), which is currently under development. Parry’s red tarplant was found in wetlands and moist grasslands throughout the Noonan North, Noonan South, North Kelley, South Kelley, City of Fairfield, and Church sites. Hogwallow starfish was identified in vernal pools and moist grassland habitats on the Noonan North and Noonan South sites, one pool in the Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank, and in a large pool on the South Kelley site. While CNPS List 4 species are not tracked in the CNDDB or CNPS inventories and are not included in Table 4.4-1, potential impacts on these species should be evaluated in CEQA documents if they are known to be present and are locally rare or unique. Furthermore, hogwallow starfish is identified as a special management species in the SMHCP currently under development. Potentially suitable habitat for each of the species discussed above, except for the Orcutt grasses, is present on the MacAvenia, Burke, COF2, Eden Bridge, and Ewings sites. Protocol-level special-status plant surveys have not been conducted on these sites and these species could be present in suitable habitat. In addition, seven other CNPS List 1B species, Alkali milk-vetch, heartscale, brittlescale, San Joaquin spearscale, pappose tarplant, Carquinez goldenbush, and Baker’s navarretia, could also occur in unsurveyed portions of the Specific Plan Area because suitable habitat conditions are present and there are known occurrences in the immediate vicinity (i.e., within 1 mile). Other sites within the Specific Plan Area that have not been surveyed for special-status plants are comprised of commercial and residential development and fields that are regularly plowed. With these existing uses and activities, these sites do not provide suitable habitat conditions for special-status plants. While the Kemp, Eden Bridge, and Ewings sites contain wetlands, these wetland habitats are unlikely to support Colusa grass, San Joaquin Valley Orcutt grass, and Solano grass because they are small and shallow and do not stay inundated long enough for these species to complete their life cycles. The large created vernal pool on the Biggs and Burke sites is suitable for these Orcutt grasses, but this pool was surveyed for these species as part of the Markeley Lane Subdivision project and these species were not found (Vollmar Consulting 2009). The large ponds on the McAvenia and COF 2 sites are inundated or saturated nearly year round; therefore, these grasses are also unlikely to occur in these ponds because they are adapted to wetlands that dry out seasonally. Other wetlands on the Burke and McAvenia sites do not pond long enough to support the Orcutt grasses.


Table 4.4-2 Special-Status Wildlife with Potential to Occur in the Specific Plan Area

Species Listing Status1

Habitat Potential for Occurrence2 Federal State

Invertebrates

Conservancy fairy shrimp Branchinecta conservatio

E – Vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands in valley and foothill grasslands.

Could occur. The large pools in the southeast area of the Specific Plan Area could provide suitable habitat. This species was documented in the CNDDB as occurring approximately 2.75 miles southeast of the Specific Plan Area.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi

T – Vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands in valley and foothill grasslands.

Known to occur. Documented on the Specific Plan Area during surveys in 2009 and critical habitat for this species has been designated in the Specific Plan Area.

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus

T/PD – Below 3,000 feet in elderberry shrubs, especially in elderberry within riparian habitats.

Unlikely to occur; no elderberry shrubs are present in the Specific Plan Area.

Delta green ground beetle Elaphrus viridis

T – Margins of large vernal pools in grassland.

Could occur in large vernal pools in the Specific Plan Area, known only from Jepson Prairie.

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi

E – Vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands in valley and foothill grasslands.

Likely to occur. Suitable habitat present on all parcels, and there is a CNDDB record of several individuals found in pools close to the intersection of Walters Road and Air Base Parkway, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the Specific Plan Area. Critical habitat for this species has been designated in the Specific Plan Area.

Amphibians and Reptiles

Western pond turtle Actinemys marmorata

– SC Forage in ponds, marshes, slow-moving streams, sloughs, and irrigation/drainage ditches; nest in nearby uplands with low, sparse vegetation.

Known to occur. Documented by LSA in 2009 in a small pond on Parcel 4 (the Solano Irrigation District parcel).

California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii

T SC Foothill streams with dense shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation, minimum 11–20 weeks of water for larval development, and upland refugia for aestivation.

Unlikely to occur; Specific Plan Area is outside this species currently known occupied range. Suitable habitat and known locations are greater than 10 miles southwest of the Specific Plan Area. This species is not known to disperse at distances over 2.25 miles.

Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii

– SC Partly shaded shallow streams, requires cobble-sized substrate for eggs and minimum 15 weeks of water for larval development.

Unlikely to occur. No suitable habitat is present in the Specific Plan Area.

California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense

T C Vernal pools and seasonal wetlands with a minimum 10-week inundation period and surrounding uplands, primarily grasslands, with burrows and other belowground refugia (e.g., rock or soil crevices).

Known to occur. Documented by LSA in six ponds in the Specific Plan Area and at several adjacent locations.





Birds

Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor (nesting colony)

– SC Forages in agricultural lands and grasslands; nests in marshes, riparian scrub, and other areas that support cattails or dense thickets of shrubs or herbs.

Could occur, the annual grassland habitat provides foraging opportunities and nesting habitat is present in marsh and riparian habitat in on-site ponds, canals, and portions of Union Creek.

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos (year round)

– FP Forages in large open areas of foothill shrub and grassland habitats and occasionally croplands.

Likely to forage in the Specific Plan Area, but no suitable nesting habitat is present. Known nest locations in Potrero Hills, south of Fairfield.

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus (breeding)

– SC Nests in tule patches and tall grass in freshwater and salt marshes, meadows, and irrigated alfalfa fields.

Could occur. Limited nesting habitat present in scattered freshwater marsh on site. Closest occurrence to Specific Plan Area is a breeding population at Grizzly Island Wildlife Area.

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia (burrow sites)

– SC Nests and forages in grasslands, agricultural lands, open shrublands, and open woodlands with existing ground squirrel burrows or friable soils.

Known to occur. Documented by LSA on site. Documented CNDDB occurrence on site.

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni (nesting)

– T Forages in grasslands and agricultural lands; nests in riparian forests or woodlands and isolated trees.

Known to forage in the Specific Plan Area. LSA documented a nesting pair in the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area in 2010 and there is a 2005 CNDDB record of a pair nesting in a eucalyptus tree near Vanden Road on the north end of the Specific Plan Area. There are several CNDDB records of nesting pairs in the Specific Plan Area vicinity, including two at Cypress Lakes Golf Course.

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus (wintering)

– SC Found in short grasslands, freshly plowed fields, newly sprouting grain fields, and sometimes sod farms. Needs short vegetation, bare ground, and flat topography. Prefers grazed areas and areas with burrowing rodents.

Likely to occur. Suitable wintering habitat present throughout Specific Plan Area. A regular wintering site is located 10 miles southeast of the Specific Plan Area.

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus (nesting)

– SC Nests and forages in grasslands, agricultural fields, and marshes. Nests on the ground.

Known to occur. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat is present. LSA observed this species foraging on site, but not nesting. The nearest CNDDB occurrence of a nesting pair is 5 miles southwest of the Specific Plan Area in the Suisun Marsh.

White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus (nesting)

– FP Forages in grasslands and agricultural fields; nests in riparian zones, oak woodlands, and isolated trees.

Likely to nest in the Specific Plan Area; suitable habitat is present and this species has been observed foraging in the Specific Plan Area.





Saltmarsh common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa (year round)

– SC Forages in salt marsh in areas with thick continuous cover to the water surface; nests in tall grass, tule patches, and willows.

Unlikely to occur; no suitable habitat present. Although there are CNDDB occurrences within 5 miles, the Specific Plan Area is outside the breeding range of this species.

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens (breeding)

– SC Forages and nests in riparian thickets of willow, blackberry, and wild grape within 10 feet of the ground. Summer resident.

Unlikely to occur; marginal riparian thicket habitat present.

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus (nesting)

– SC Forages and nests in grasslands, shrublands, and open woodlands.

Known to occur. An active nest site was documented by LSA in 2009 in the southeast portion of Parcel 15/20 (the Noonan South parcel). Nest tree is a salt cedar.

California black rail Laterallis jamaicensis coturniculus (year round)

– T Freshwater marshes, wet meadows, and shallow margins of saltwater marshes. Requires consistent water depth of 1 inch and dense vegetation to nest.

Unlikely to occur; sparse, marginal marsh habitat present.

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum (nesting)

– SC Open grasslands; nests on the ground typically at base of grass clumps.

Could occur; suitable nesting and foraging habitat present. LSA observed this species foraging on site, but not nesting.

Modesto song sparrow (Melospiza melodia mailliardi) (year round)

SC Nests and forages primarily in emergent marsh, riparian scrub, and early successional riparian forest habitats in the north-central portion of the Central Valley; infrequently in mature riparian forest and sparsely vegetated ditches and levees.

Could occur; limited nesting habitat present in tule and cattail patches and tall grass in scattered freshwater marsh and riparian scrub. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is 5 miles south of the Specific Plan Area near Suisun Marsh.

California clapper rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus (year round)

E E Associated with dense pickleweed stands in salt marsh and brackish marsh around San Francisco Bay, forages on invertebrates in mud-bottomed sloughs.

Unlikely to occur; no suitable habitat present.





Mammals

Western red bat Lasiurus blossevilli

– SC Roosts primarily in tree foliage, especially in cottonwood, sycamore, and other riparian trees or orchards (Pierson et al. 2004). Prefers habitat edges and mosaics with trees that are protected from above and open below with open areas for foraging, including grasslands, shrublands, and open woodlands.

Maternity and roosting colonies unlikely to occur on-site because of lack of suitable habitat. Could occur during migration; possible foraging habitat as this species forages over wide variety of habitats.

Salt-marsh harvest mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris

E E Nests in pickleweed stands in saline emergent wetlands in San Francisco Bay and tributaries. Requires higher ground for flood escape.


Suisun shrew Sorex ornatus sinuosus

– SC Nests and forages in dense low-lying cover above the mean high-tide line on the northern shores of San Pablo Bay and Suisun Bay.


Fish

Sacramento splittail Pogonichthys macrolepidotus

– SC Slow moving river sections and dead end sloughs in the Delta, Suisun B0ay and associated marshes. Requires flooded vegetation for spawning and foraging for young.


Notes: CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1 Legal Status Definitions

Federal:

PD Proposed for Delisting

D Delisted (no ESA protection)


T Threatened (legally protected)

State:

C Candidate for listing (legally protected)

FP Fully protected (legally protected)

SC Species of special concern (no formal protection other than CEQA consideration)

T Threatened (legally protected) 2 Potential for Occurrence Definitions

Unlikely to occur: Species is unlikely to be present in the Specific Plan Area due to poor habitat quality, lack of suitable habitat features, or

restricted current distribution of the species.

Could occur: Suitable habitat is available in the Specific Plan Area; however, there are little to no other indicators that the species might be

present.

Likely to occur: Habitat conditions, behavior of the species, known occurrences in the Specific Plan Area vicinity, or other factors indicate a

relatively high likelihood that the species would occur in the Specific Plan Area.

Known to occur: The species, or evidence of its presence, was observed at the Specific Plan Area during reconnaissance surveys, or was

reported by others.

Source: CNDDB 2010, LSA Associates 2010a, Shuford and Gardali 2008; USFWS 2010; data compiled by AECOM in 2010


Source: CNDDB 2010

CNDDB Occurrences within a 3-Mile Radius of the Specific Plan Area Exhibit 4.4-2


Source: LSA 2010, adapted by AECOM 2010

Biological Resources Study Sites Exhibit 4.4-3


Source: LSA Associates 2010

Special-Status Plant Locations Exhibit 4.4-4


Special-status Wildlife

Surveys for vernal pool branchiopods were conducted by LSA Associates on the Noonan Conservation Bank, South Kelley, Noonan South, and the Noonan North sites, on March 10 and April 3, 2009. LSA biologists sampled 34 wetland features on the Noonan Conservation Bank site, 37 wetland features on the Noonan South site, 35 wetland features on the Noonan North site, and one feature on the South Kelley site during these branchiopod surveys. Protocol-level large branchiopod surveys were conducted on the Biggs site by Vollmar Consulting in 2003 and 2006. These surveys covered the large playa-type pool on the Biggs and Burke sites and no federally listed branchiopods were found.

LSA biologists sampled all suitable aquatic habitats on the Noonan North, Noonan South, Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank, North Kelley, South Kelley, Solano Irrigation District, City of Fairfield, North Bay Regional Water Treatment sites on April 1, 2008 and April 3, 2009 for California tiger salamander larvae. California tiger salamander larvae sampling was done using a seine in aquatic habitats. In addition to the aquatic habitat sampling, upland habitat for California tiger salamander was assessed by walking 50 meter long by 10 meter wide transects to detect the presence of rodent burrows. Vollmar Consulting conducted protocol-level seine surveys for California tiger salamander on the Biggs property in 2006. California tiger salamander were not identified on the Biggs property during these surveys; however larvae of this species were documented in a pond on the adjacent Burke property in 2006 (CNDDB 2010) so it is assumed they could be present underground on this property and could migrate to the suitable wetland habitat on this property for breeding. Focused surveys for other wildlife species were not conducted in the Specific Plan Area, but all special-status wildlife species observed during the branchiopod and California tiger salamander surveys were documented.

CNDDB records and the special-status species surveys conducted by LSA Associates have documented the presence of vernal pool fairy shrimp, California tiger salamander, western pond turtle, burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, and loggerhead shrike in the Specific Plan Area. Exhibit 4.4-5 shows the locations of special-status wildlife observations made during LSA surveys, with the exception of vernal pool fairy shrimp, as well as the CNDDB documented occurrences in the Specific Plan Area. Potentially occurring special-status wildlife species are listed in Table 4.4-2 along with their listing status, habitat requirements, and comments on the likelihood of the species to occur in the Specific Plan Area.

During LSA surveys, federally listed vernal pool fairy shrimp were identified in two of the 34 wetland features sampled on the Noonan Conservation Bank property and in 12 of the 37 wetland features sampled on Parcel 15/20 (the Noonan South property). No listed branchiopods were found on Parcels 6, 7, and 10 (the Noonan North property) or Parcel 18 (the the South Kelley parcel). Although the other two potentially-occurring listed branchiopods, Conservancy fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp, were not found during the 2009 surveys, the potential for these species to inhabit the wetlands in the Specific Plan Area cannot be ruled out because surveys were not conducted according to USFWS guidelines, which require two wet-seasons or consecutive wet- and dry-season surveys, and because the 2008–2009 rainy season was the third consecutive year of below normal precipitation. Because of the low rainfall, most features in the Specific Plan Area did not stay inundated long enough in 2009 for vernal pool tadpole shrimp, which require at least two months of inundation to complete their life cycle. However, many of these features could be inundated long enough to support vernal pool tadpole shrimp in normal precipitation years. Likewise, Conservancy fairy shrimp, which typically occur in larger, playa-type vernal pools, could be present in years of more favorable rainfall conditions and vernal pool fairy shrimp, which inhabit small to medium-sized pools, could be found in additional pools in wetter years and could occur in smaller pools that were not surveyed in 2009. The Specific Plan Area is within the Jepson Prairie core area identified in the vernal pool recovery plan (USFWS 2005). The Jepson Prairie core area is considered vital to the preservation and recovery of Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp.

Larvae of California tiger salamander, a species that is federally listed as threatened and a candidate for state listing, were found in seven wetlands in the Specific Plan Area during surveys conducted by LSA biologists (Exhibit 4.4-5) and this species has been documented at other wetlands within 1 mile of the Specific Plan Area


(Exhibit 4.4-2). California tiger salamanders breed in seasonal wetlands and other aquatic habitats, but adults spend the majority of their time underground in rodent burrows or crevices within 1.3 miles of breeding habitat (DFG 2010). Therefore, uplands within 1 mile of suitable breeding habitat are also considered habitat for this species. Precipitation was below average in the 2008 and 2009 survey seasons so many wetland features in the Specific Plan Area did not remain inundated long enough for California tiger salamander to complete the wetted phase of their life cycle. California tiger salamander could successfully breed in additional wetlands in the Specific Plan Area during wetter years.

A western pond turtle was observed in a small pond along Union Creek on Parcel 4 (the Solano Irrigation District parcel) (Exhibit 4.4-5) during California tiger salamander surveys conducted in 2009 and suitable habitat is present in other ponds and drainage channels in the Specific Plan Area. Western pond turtle is a California species of special concern.

Swainson’s hawk, a species state-listed as threatened, has been observed foraging in the Specific Plan Area (LSA Associates 2010) and there are several CNDDB nesting records in the Specific Plan Area. There are two CNDDB documented active nest sites on the Cypress Lakes Golf Course adjacent to the northeast of the Specific Plan Area and one in the northern portion of the Specific Plan Area between Vanden Road and the railroad tracks. In addition, LSA Associates identified an active nest in the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area in 2010 (Exhibit 4.4-5).

Western burrowing owl, a California species of special concern has been documented nesting in the Specific Plan Area both historically in the CNDDB (Exhibit 4.4-2), and during California tiger salamander upland habitat surveys conducted by LSA in 2009 (Exhibit 4.4-5).

Focused surveys for nesting special-status birds have not been performed in the Specific Plan Area, but suitable nesting and foraging habitat is present for several species. White-tailed kite, which is fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code, has been observed foraging in the Specific Plan Area (LSA Associates 2010) and is expected to nest there, as well. A loggerhead shrike nest and two fledglings were also discovered in the Specific Plan Area during 2009 biological surveys (Exhibit 4.4-5). Loggerhead shrike is a California species of special concern. Raptors that are California species of special concern that could nest in the Specific Plan Area are northern harrier and short-eared owl. One additional California species of special concern, golden eagle, may forage on site outside of the breeding season. Although there is marginal golden eagle nesting habitat present on the site, nesting is unlikely because of the proximity of existing development and associated human activity. Common raptors that could nest in the Specific Plan Area include red-tailed hawk, great horned owl, American kestrel, and barn owl. Active nests of all native birds are protected under the California Fish and Game Code.

Five additional special-status wildlife species have potential to occur in the Specific Plan Area based on the presence of suitable habitat and known occurrences nearby. These species and their potential for occurrence in the Specific Plan Area are discussed in Table 4.4-2. One of these species, delta green ground beetle, is federally listed as threatened. Vollmar Consulting prepared a habitat analysis for delta green ground beetle on the Biggs property and submitted their results to USFWS in February 2007 (Vollmar Consulting 2009). They determined that the species was unlikely to occur because the site lacks the appropriate soils (i.e., Pescadero soils) and bare to sparsely vegetated habitat conditions in which this species is known to be found. In the biological opinion issued for the Markeley Lane Subdivision project, the USFWS concurred with Vollmar Consulting’s assessment (USFWS 2010). These habitat conditions are lacking from the remainder of the Specific Plan Area, as well. The remaining species: tricolored blackbird, mountain plover, grasshopper sparrow, and Modesto song sparrow are California species of special concern.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is a geographic area containing features determined by USFWS to be essential to the conservation of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Critical habitat does not have to be occupied by that species at the time it is designated, but it may be considered necessary for the recovery of the species.


Source: CNDDB, 2010; LSA Surveys, 2008 and 2009, AECOM 2010

Special-Status Wildlife Species Occurrences Exhibit 4.4-5


Critical habitat has been designated in the Specific Plan Area for Contra Costa goldfields, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. The portion of the Specific Plan Area designated as critical habitat for these three vernal pool associated species consists of the Noonan North site and a portion of the North Kelley site (Exhibit 4.4-6). Although this area is designated critical habitat, it does not support good quality aquatic habitat for these species. Vernal pool fairy shrimp and vernal pool tadpole shrimp have never been documented in this designated critical habitat, but there is a CNDDB record of Contra Costa goldfields occurring here and LSA found Contra Costa goldfields in one pool in this area during the 2009 surveys.

Sensitive Natural Communities

Sensitive natural communities include those that are of special concern to DFG, or that are afforded specific consideration through CEQA, Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, and/or Section 404 of the CWA. Sensitive natural communities may be of special concern to these agencies and to conservation organizations for a variety of reasons, including their locally or regionally declining status, or because they provide important habitat to common and special-status species. Many of these communities are tracked in the CNDDB.

Sensitive natural communities present in the Specific Plan Area include vernal pools and swales, seasonal wetlands, freshwater marsh, purple needlegrass grassland, and creeping rye grass tufts (Exhibit 4.4-1).

Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States

Wetlands and other potential waters of the United States occur in different portions of the Specific Plan Area (Exhibit 4.4-7). Potential waters of the United States have been delineated according to USACE methodology on the Jepson Parkway, Burke, Biggs, Noonan North, Noonan South, Noonan Conservation Bank, North Kelley, South Kelley, Solano Irrigation District, City of Fairfield, North Bay Regional Water Treatment, and Church sites. Potential wetlands and other waters of the United Sates in the remainder of the Specific Plan Area were mapped from aerial photograph interpretation and observations from public access ways. These wetlands and other water features are referred to as ‘potential waters’ because they have not been verified as waters of the United States by USACE. The Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank and North Bay Regional Water Treatment Plant wetland delineations were verified by USACE in March 2009 and the Burke site delineation was verified in January 2010. The Jepson Parkway wetland delineation was verified in 2006. Delineations of wetlands and other waters of the United States on the Biggs site were verified in 2003 and 2004. Delineated waters on the Noonan North, North Kelley, and South Kelley sites were verified in December 2010. The Noonan South, Solano Irrigation District, and City of Fairfield sites have been field checked by USACE, but have not yet been verified. Exhibit 4.4-8 shows which sites have been delineated according to USACE methodology, which sites have verified wetland delineations, and which have not been delineated according to USACE methodology.

A total of approximately 191.67 acres of aquatic resources that may qualify as waters of the United States have been identified in the Specific Plan Area. These waters consist of approximately 167.99 acre of seasonal wetland, including vernal pools and swales, 6.14 acre of freshwater marsh, 0.51 acre of spillway, 17.70 acre of stream channel, 1.21 acres of canal (Putah South Canal and Solano Irrigation District Canals), and 0.21 acre of roadside ditch. Some of these waters within the Biggs and Jepson Parkway sites were determined by USACE to be nonnavigable, isolated, and intrastate waters with no apparent interstate commerce connection and therefore not considered jurisdictional waters of the United States (non-jurisdictional). Some aquatic features delineated in the remainder of the Specific Plan Area may also be determined to be non-jurisdictional by USACE. However, the total amount of jurisdictional waters cannot be determined until all of the Specific Plan Area has been delineated and verified by USACE. Aquatic features in the Specific Plan Area may also be considered waters of the state under California’s Porter-Cologne Act, and therefore be subject to regulation by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The locations and extent of wetlands and other potential waters of the United States, as mapped by the biological consultants, are shown in Exhibit 4.4-7. Protocol level delineation has not been completed on all parcels and many of the areas formally delineated have not been verified by USACE (Exhibit 4.4-8), so the extent and types of waters depicted in exhibits in this EIR is preliminary and subject to change.


Source: USFWS 2006

Critical Habitat Exhibit 4.4-6


Source: LSA 2010 adapted by AECOM 2010

Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States Present in the Specific Plan Area Exhibit 4.4-7



Wetland Delineation Status Exhibit 4.4-8


4.4.2 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

FEDERAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND LAWS

Federal Endangered Species Act

Pursuant to the ESA (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq.), USFWS has regulatory authority over species listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened. USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service have authority over projects that may result in take of a species listed as threatened or endangered under ESA (i.e., a Federally listed species). In general, persons subject to ESA (including private parties) are prohibited from “taking” endangered or threatened fish and wildlife species on private property, and from “taking” endangered or threatened plants in areas under Federal jurisdiction or in violation of state law. Under Section 9 of the ESA, the definition of “take” is to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” USFWS has also interpreted the definition of “harm” to include significant habitat modification that could result in take.

For projects where federal action is not involved and take of a listed species may occur, a project proponent may seek an incidental take permit under section 10(a) of the ESA. Section 10(a) of ESA allows USFWS to permit the incidental take of listed species if such take is accompanied by a habitat conservation plan that ensures minimizing and mitigation of impacts associated with the take.

Section 7 of the ESA outlines procedures for federal interagency cooperation to protect and conserve federally listed species and designated critical habitat. Critical habitat identifies specific areas that have the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of a listed species and that may require special management considerations or protection. Section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to consult with USFWS to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroying or adversely modifying designated critical habitat.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

Section 404 of the Federal CWA requires a project applicant to obtain a permit from USACE before engaging in any activity that involves any discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Fill material is material placed in waters of the United States where the material has the effect of replacing any portion of a water of the United States with dry land, or changing the bottom elevation of any portion of a water of the United States. Waters of the United States include navigable waters of the United States; interstate waters; all other waters where the use, degradation, or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce; tributaries to any of these waters, and wetlands adjacent to these waters. Wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Potentially jurisdictional wetlands must meet three wetland delineation criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil types, and wetland hydrology. Wetlands that meet the delineation criteria may be jurisdictional under Section 404 of CWA pending USACE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review.

As part of the review of a project, USACE must ensure compliance with applicable Federal laws, including EPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. USACE regulations require that impacts to waters of the United States are avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable, and that unavoidable impacts are compensated (33 CFR 320.4(r).

In 2008, USACE and EPA issued regulations governing compensatory mitigation for activities authorized by permits issued by USACE (33 CFR 332). The rule establishes a preference for the use of mitigation banks because they provide established wetland habitats that have already met success criteria thereby reducing some of


the risks and uncertainties associated with compensatory mitigation involving creation of new wetlands that cannot yet demonstrate functionality at the time of project implementation. The rule also establishes a preference for providing compensatory mitigation within the affected watershed. Ideally, compensatory mitigation would take place at a mitigation bank within the same watershed as the waters to be replaced. If mitigation banks are not available within the affected watershed, then compensatory mitigation involving creation or restoration within the affected watershed may be preferable to using a mitigation bank outside the affected watershed.

Section 401 Water Quality Certification

Under Section 401 of the CWA, an applicant for a Section 404 permit must obtain a certificate from the appropriate state agency stating that the intended dredging or filling activity is consistent with the state’s water quality standards and criteria. In California, the authority to grant water quality certification is delegated by the State Water Resources Control Board to the nine RWQCBs.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. Section 703, et seq.), first enacted in 1918, provides for protection of international migratory birds and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds. The MBTA provides that it shall be unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. The current list of species protected by the MBTA can be found in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 10.13 (50 CFR 10.13). The list includes nearly all birds native to the United States.

STATE PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND LAWS

California Endangered Species Act

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game Code Section 2050, et seq.) directs state agencies not to approve projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of a species. Furthermore, CESA states that reasonable and prudent alternatives shall be developed by DFG, together with the project proponent and any state lead agency, consistent with conserving the species, while at the same time maintaining the project purpose to the greatest extent possible. A “take” of a species, under CESA, is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species. The CESA definition of take does not include “harm” or “harass” as is included in the Federal act. As a result, the threshold for a take under CESA may be higher than under ESA because habitat modification is not necessarily considered take under CESA.

Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code

All diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake in California that supports wildlife resources are subject to regulation by DFG under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Under Section 1602, it is unlawful for any person to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by DFG, or use any material from the streambeds, without first notifying DFG of such activity and obtaining a final agreement authorizing such activity.

“Stream” is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and that supports fish or other aquatic life. DFG’s jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways is based on the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife. A DFG streambed alteration agreement must be obtained for any project that would result in an impact on a river, stream, or lake.


Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The Porter-Cologne Act (California Water Code Section 13000, et seq.) requires that each of the nine RWQCBs prepare and periodically update basin plans for water quality control. Each basin plan sets forth water quality standards for surface water and groundwater and actions to control nonpoint and point sources of pollution to achieve and maintain these standards. Basin plans offer an opportunity to protect wetlands through the establishment of water quality objectives. The RWQCB’s jurisdiction includes Federally protected waters as well as areas that meet the definition of “waters of the state.” Waters of the state is defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state. The RWQCB has the discretion to take jurisdiction over areas not Federally regulated under Section 401 provided they meet the definition of waters of the state. Mitigation requiring no net loss of wetlands functions and values of waters of the state is typically required by the RWQCB.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5

Section 3503 of the Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any raptors (i.e., species in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes), including their nests or eggs. Typical violations include destruction of active nests as a result of tree removal and failure of nesting attempts, resulting in loss of eggs and/or young. These violations can be caused by disturbance of nesting pairs by nearby human activity.

REGIONAL AND LOCAL PLANS, POLICIES, REGULATIONS, AND ORDINANCES

City of Fairfield General Plan

The Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element of the City of Fairfield General Plan (2002) outlines several policies and programs to protect natural resources, including special-status plants and animals, oak trees, and other sensitive natural resources, such as vernal pool habitat, that occur or have the potential to occur in the Specific Plan Area. The relevant policies and programs are summarized below.

► Objective OS 7: Identify and protect sensitive resources.

► Policy OS 7.1: Establish policies to protect indigenous wildlife and their habitats. Support the [Solano Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan] (SMHCP), and if approved, implement its requirements.

► Program OS 7.1 B through OS 7.1V: These programs outline the following guidelines to protect sensitive habitats and special-status wildlife species. For each proposed development site containing habitat that could potentially support a special-status plant or wildlife species, the City will require qualified biologists to conduct a reconnaissance survey of the site and identify and map potential sensitive biological resources, including special-status species (as identified in the 2001 EIR for the Comprehensive Amendment to the General Plan), and their habitats, jurisdictional waters of the United States, and any other protected biological resource. If no sensitive biological resources are found during this survey, no further surveys will be necessary. If sensitive biological resources are found, the biologist will conduct additional surveys, as needed, using methods and protocols developed or acceptable by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game, and make recommendations for avoiding sensitive biological resources to the extent feasible. The biologist will also flag or fence sensitive resources to be avoided. This requirement shall apply prior to City’s consideration of any development proposal for the site. Additionally, for aquatic habitat that potentially supports foothill yellow-legged frog or western pond turtle, a minimum 200-foot-wide no-activity buffer shall be established surrounding these habitats.

► Policy OS 7.4: Provide for the permanent protection of wildlife habitat areas.


► Policy OS 7.5: Identify and protect vernal pools located in the entire General Plan Area.

► Policy OS 7.6: Avoid the potential negative impacts of increased human activity on sensitive habitat areas when establishing new recreational facilities or programs

► Policy OS 7.9: Promote the protection of special-status plant populations according to Programs OS 7.9 A-C defined below. These programs should be superseded by strategies in the City’s Habitat Conservation Plan (SMHCP)

► Program OS 7.9 A: The City shall require project proponents within undeveloped lands to retain a qualified botanist to conduct surveys of proposed project sites to identify special-status plant species. If survey results identify potential habitat for special-status plants, blooming period surveys will be conducted for all potentially present special-status plants. All locations of special-status plants will be identified on maps.

► Program OS 7.9 B: Special-status plants, especially federally listed species, will be avoided by construction activities wherever feasible. Prior to beginning construction, the plants and a minimum buffer size to be determined on a case-by-case basis for each project site will be fenced and protected throughout construction.

► Program OS 7.9 C: If complete avoidance of a special-status plant is not feasible, the impact will be reduced to the extent possible and the unavoidable loss will be compensated. The City will require the project proponent to retain a qualified botanist to develop a mitigation plan. Depending on the legal status of the plant species (i.e., listing under the federal ESA or CESA), the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be consulted before preparation of the mitigation plan. The mitigation plan should include a description and map of mitigation sites, methods to be used; management techniques for the sites; and sources of funding to purchase, manage, and preserve the sites. Mitigation could include purchase of an existing off-site area known to support the special-status species to be affected, as well as preserving the site in perpetuity. Transplanting and/or reseeding of special-status plants is not a proven effective compensation method for most species; therefore, project proponents should avoid special-status plants for which transplanting techniques have not been proven or compensate for impacts by preserving another population.

► Objective OS 9: Maintain existing waterways in their natural state if possible.

► Policy OS 9.1: Promote restoration and establish permanent mechanisms to protect wetlands and riparian corridors.

► Policy OS 9.2: Manage all seasonal creeks and other drainage courses so as to protect and enhance the Suisun Marsh.

► Policy OS 9.3: Secure wetlands designation for appropriate lands in the Fairfield/Vacaville Greenbelt and for lands in the Travis AFB/Jepson Prairie Planning Area.

► Policy OS 9.8: Preserve natural water courses through requirements of land dedication and open space improvement imposed during the land development process.

► Policy OS 7.10: Promote preventing the spread of noxious weeds according to Program OS 7.10 A defined below.

► Program OS 7.10 A: The City will require project proponents to hire a qualified botanist to identify and map noxious weed infestation areas before construction activities. The botanist will contact the Solano County Agricultural Commissioner to identify any current noxious weeds of concern in the county. Infestation areas shall be avoided by construction activities, if feasible.


► Policy OS 9.9: The proponents of new development projects along important freshwater marsh, riparian, or open water habitat areas that are not already covered by the City's Creekside Protection Ordinance shall provide an assessment of the habitat. Based on the assessment, an enhancement or restoration plan shall be prepared by a qualified person(s) experienced in developing and implementing riparian restoration and enhancement plans.

Draft Solano Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan

The Specific Plan Area is located within the proposed SMHCP area. The SMHCP is in draft form and is not an approved HCP. The purpose of the proposed SMHCP is to promote the conservation of biological diversity and the preservation of endangered species and their habitats consistent with the recognition of private property rights; provide for a healthy economic environment for the citizens, agriculture, and industries; and allow for the on-going maintenance and operation of public and private facilities in Solano County.

The draft SMHCP establishes a framework for complying with state and federal endangered species regulations while accommodating future urban growth, development of infrastructure, and ongoing operations and maintenance activities associated with flood control, irrigation facilities, and other public infrastructure undertaken by or under the permitting authority/control of the Plan Participants within Solano County over the next 30 years.

The overarching conservation goal of the SMHCP is to preserve contiguous functional landscapes that encompass the full suite of ecological diversity, maintain connectivity among natural communities, and functionally buffer natural communities from direct and indirect impacts from anthropogenic pressures. The Conservation Strategy, if adopted, would provide a comprehensive program for avoiding and minimizing impacts, implementing specific conservation measures designed to preserve, restore, and manage habitats for 37 covered species; and providing long term monitoring and adaptive management to maximize conservation values on established reserves over time. Implementing the current draft Conservation Strategy would result in the establishment of an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 acres of reserves, preserves, open space lands and other cooperative habitat restoration sites.

Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon

The Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon (USFWS 2005) was released by USFWS on December 15, 2005. This plan focuses on 33 species of plants and animals that occur exclusively or primarily within vernal pool ecosystems, including the Federally listed vernal pool fairy shrimp, tadpole shrimp, and Contra Costa goldfields.

The plan outlines recovery priorities and provides goals, objectives, strategies, and criteria for recovery. One of the overall objectives of the recovery plan is to promote natural ecosystem processes and functions by protecting and conserving intact vernal pools and vernal pool complexes. Habitat protection under the recovery plan includes the protection of the topographic, geographic, and edaphic features that support hydrologically interconnected systems of vernal pools, swales, and other seasonal wetlands within an upland matrix that together form hydrologically and ecologically functional vernal pool complexes.

While not regulatory in nature, the Recovery Plan should be taken into consideration when analyzing potential impacts on vernal pools and associated biota to ensure that projects do not prevent or impair the plan’s future long term implementation success. It is also used by the USFWS to determine recommendations and requirements during endangered species consultation for vernal pool dependent species.

The Specific Plan Area is within the Jepson Prairie core area identified in the vernal pool recovery plan (USFWS 2005). Core areas are the specific sites that USFWS has deemed necessary to recover federally endangered and threatened vernal pool species. The Jepson Prairie core area is ranked in Zone 1, meaning that it has the highest priority for recovery. Protection of Zone 1 core areas has been designated as a Priority 1 action by USFWS biologists because they believe that within each Zone 1 core area, species occurrences and suitable vernal pool


habitat must be protected to prevent extinction or irreversible decline of at least one species covered in the recovery plan.

The Jepson Prairie core area is considered vital to the preservation and recovery of Colusa grass, Contra Costa goldfields, Greene’s tuctoria, delta green ground beetle, Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. The vernal pool recovery plan goal is to preserve 85% of the existing vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat and 95% of the existing habitat for and the other listed species within the Jepson Prairie core area. Habitat to be protected includes both occupied and unoccupied suitable habitat that serves as corridors for dispersal, opportunities for metapopulation dynamics, reintroduction/introduction sites, and protection of undiscovered populations.

4.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

METHODOLOGY

This analysis of impacts on biological resources resulting from implementation of the Specific Plan is based on review of existing biological resources documented on or near the Specific Plan Area, including CNDDB and CNPS records, the draft SMHCP, and surveys conducted by LSA biologists, as described previously.

Not all parcels within the Specific Plan Area have been delineated according to USACE methodology and those that have been formally delineated have not all been verified by USACE as of the writing of this section. Potential waters of the United States have been mapped from aerial photograph interpretation and reconnaissance surveys on parcels that have not been formally delineated. Therefore, the analysis of impacts on waters of the United States contained herein provides approximate impact acreage based on the best available information to date and is subject to change pending finalization and verification of delineations on all Specific Plan Area parcels. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that USACE will claim jurisdiction over all waters delineated in the Specific Plan Area.

The Specific Plan includes establishment of approximately 1,500 acres of open space that would preserve most of the highest quality habitats in the Specific Plan Area, including areas identified in the draft SMHCP as medium and high value conservation areas (Exhibit 4.4-9). The Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank has already been established on 206.74 acres in the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area, east of Vanden Road, in a SMHCP high value conservation area. The Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank preserves 3.96 acres of seasonal drainage, 0.15 acre of freshwater marsh, and 23.85 acres of vernal pools in a grassland matrix and supports vernal pool fairy shrimp, California tiger salamander, and a large population (between 12.4 and 17.2 million plants estimated in 2009) of Contra Costa goldfields. Another 450 acres of high value conservation area would be designated adjacent to the established Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank as part of the Specific Plan Area. These open space conservation areas preserve the majority of the vernal pools and other seasonal wetlands in the Specific Plan Area, including the large playa-type vernal pools and wetlands known to be occupied by Contra Costa goldfields.

Although some pedestrian and bike trails may be established in portions of the open space areas not specifically dedicated to habitat conservation, no other development would occur in these land uses and the City anticipates that these trails could be designed to avoid impacts on biological resources. There is an existing dirt road on a railroad right of way traversing the Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank; this trail would not be improved as part of the Specific Plan. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis it is assumed that biological resources within the Specific Plan Area’s open space areas that are not specifically identified for improvements would be preserved. Roads that would traverse open space areas to serve development are minimal and their acreage was subtracted from the open space area and counted as impact acreage.


Source: Solano County Water Agency 2009, AECOM 2010

Vernal Pool Conservation Areas and Proposed Specific Plan Land Uses Exhibit 4.4-9


Impacts to biological resources in portions of the Specific Plan Area along Vanden Road, Cement Hill Road, and Peabody Road were evaluated under a NEPA/CEQA document prepared for the Jepson Parkway Project (see Jepson Parkway site on Exhibit 4.4-3). Many of the off-site traffic improvement areas were also evaluated as part of the Jepson Parkway Project. A biological opinion was issued for the Jepson Parkway Project and it is assumed that impacts to biological resources in that portion of the Specific Plan Area would be mitigated according to the terms and conditions of the biological opinion and the mitigation measures identified in the EIR/EIS for that project. However, because it is uncertain whether that project would be approved and implemented, this EIR presents measures to mitigate indirect impacts on biological resources that would occur in this area from Specific Plan development. Biological resources that would be affected in the Jepson Parkway portion of the Specific Plan Area consist of freshwater marsh, seasonal wetlands, and both USACE-jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional drainage ditches.

Impacts to all biological resources are analyzed at a project level of detail for the Noonan North, Noonan South, Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank, North Kelley, South Kelley, Solano Irrigation District, City of Fairfield 1, Church, and Biggs sites because protocol-level biological investigations have been conducted on these sites. Impacts on wetlands and other waters of the United States are also analyzed at a project level of detail for the North Bay Regional Treatment Plant, COF2, and Burke sites, but all other biological resources impacts on these sites are analyzed at a program level. All biological resources impacts are analyzed at a program level of detail for the McAvenia, Developed 1, Developed 2, Developed 3, Eden Bridge, Ewings, Jones, and Kemp sites, as well as the off-site improvement areas.

A biological opinion has been issued for the proposed Markeley Lane Subdivision Project on the Biggs site (Exhibit 4.4-3). The biological opinion outlining the terms and conditions that shall be implemented to reduce significant impacts on California tiger salamander and Contra Costa goldfields that would result from implementing the Markeley Lane Subdivision Project is provided in Appendix C.

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

The thresholds for determining the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the environmental checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project would result in a significant impact related to biological resources if it would do any of the following:

► have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by DFG or USFWS;

► have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by DFG or USFWS;

► have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected waters of the United States, including wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the CWA through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;

► interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;

► conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;

► conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan; or


► substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species.

IMPACT ANALYSIS

IMPACT 4.4-1

Loss and Degradation of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States, and Waters of the State. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the placement of fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands subject to USACE jurisdiction under the federal Clean Water Act. The impact is potentially significant.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the placement of fill material into jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands subject to USACE jurisdiction under the federal Clean Water Act. Wetlands and other waters of the United States that would be affected by project implementation include vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, swales, ponds, freshwater marsh, intermittent drainage channels, and perennial drainage channels. Some of the waters present in the Specific Plan Area may be determined during the USACE verification process to be nonnavigable, isolated, and intrastate waters with no apparent interstate commerce connection. Although these waters would not be considered jurisdictional waters of the United States (non-jurisdictional), they would be considered waters of the state subject to regulation by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

LSA associates have preliminarily determined that approximately 21.92 acres of USACE jurisdictional waters of the United States in the Specific Plan Area would be filled as a result of implementing the proposed Specific Plan. Potential waters of the United States that would be filled consist of 21.11 acres of seasonal wetlands, including vernal pools and swales, and 0.81 acre of stream channels.

A Solano Irrigation District Canal traversing the northeast corner of the Specific Plan Area would also be affected by project development because a segment of the canal is located within the proposed northern “Employment” area and would have to be relocated. It is possible that USACE would take jurisdiction over this canal even though it is human constructed. Implementing the Specific Plan would also result in modification or fill of roadside ditches. Some of these ditches, including a wide roadside ditch along the east side of Peabody Road, were determined to be non-USACE jurisdictional during wetland verification for the Jepson Parkway project; however, some roadside ditches may be subject to USACE jurisdiction, depending on connectivity with other waters of the United States, and all of the roadside ditches may be subject to regulation by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB.

In addition to direct impacts from the placement of fill material into Federally jurisdictional waters of the United States, LSA Associates determined that the Specific Plan would result in indirect impacts to approximately 42.91 acres of potential waters of the United States that are within 250 feet of areas that would be developed. Indirectly affected waters consist of 32.05 acres of seasonal wetlands (including vernal pools and swales), 5.45 acres of freshwater marsh, and 5.41 acres of stream channel.

These wetlands and other waters could be indirectly affected by grading and creation of impervious surfaces proposed for adjacent uplands. Potential indirect effects include reduction in water quality caused by urban runoff, erosion, and siltation; intrusion of humans and domestic animals; and introduction of invasive plant species that could result in habitat degradation. However, the open space design minimizes indirect effects because it provides a large habitat patch that maintains stream networks and wetland complexes, provides corridors for habitat connectivity both on and off the Specific Plan Area, and minimizes the perimeter-to-area ratio (i.e., edge effects). Exhibit 4.4-10 shows the wetlands and other waters of the United States that would be directly and indirectly affected by project development.

The proposed Specific Plan includes over 1,500 acres of designated open space designed for habitat conservation, mitigation banking, public open space, and agricultural uses. The designated open space areas contain 169.71


acres (88% of existing acreage) of wetlands and other waters of the United States that are expected to be preserved with project implementation, although 42.91 acres are within 250 feet of development and may be subject to indirect impacts as discussed previously. Generally, USFWS considers wetlands within 250 feet of development to be subject to indirect impacts. Table 4.4-3 provides a summary of the approximate acreage of wetland impacts and preservation under the proposed Specific Plan development scenario.

The loss and degradation of USACE jurisdictional vernal pools and other wetland habitats and other waters of the United States (e.g., ponds and drainage channels) that would occur with project implementation would result in s a substantial adverse effect on Federally jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the CWA. Removal of non USACE jurisdictional wetlands in the Specific Plan Area would still constitute an adverse effect on waters of the state subject to San Francisco Bay RWQCB jurisdiction. Therefore, both direct and indirect significant impacts would occur.

Table 4.4-3 Summary of Wetland Impacts and Preservation for the Specific Plan Area

Habitat Type Acres Existing Acres of Direct Impact Acres Preserved Percent

Preserved Acres of Indirect

Impact Seasonal wetland 167.79 21.11 146.68 87 32.05

Freshwater Marsh 6.14 0.00 6.14 100 5.45

Stream 17.70 0.81 16.89 95 5.41

Concrete Spillway 0.51 0.00 0.51 100 0.00

Canal 1.21 0.39 0.82 68 0.00

Roadside Ditch 0.21 0.21 0.00 0 0.00

Total 191.67 21.92 169.71 88 42.91

Source: LSA 2010

Off-Site Improvements

The majority of the off-site improvements would occur within rights-of-way of existing roads, or within urban areas, and would not involve disturbance of natural habitats or vegetation. However, some improvements would involve adding road lanes and would be likely to require ground disturbance outside of the existing roadway footprint. Proposed improvements at the intersection of Cement Hill Road and Walters Road, Peabody Road and Air Base Parkway, Air Base Parkway and Walters Road could result in fill of perennial and seasonal drainage channels and seasonal wetlands. This impact is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a: Secure Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit and Implement All Permit Conditions; Ensure No Net Loss of Functions and Values of Wetlands, Other Waters of the United States, and Waters of the State.

1) The City shall require future development to avoid fill of wetlands and other waters of the United States to the maximum extent feasible.

2) Before the approval of grading and improvement plans and before any groundbreaking activity associated with each distinct project, the project applicant(s) of all projects requiring fill of wetlands or other waters of the United States or waters of the state shall obtain all necessary permits under Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA or the state’s Porter-Cologne Act for the respective phase. In order to apply for a CWA permits, and as a condition of project approval, a delineation of waters of the United States conducted according to methods approved by USACE shall be completed for each project site, including off-site improvement areas. The delineation shall map and quantify the acreage of all aquatic habitats on the project site and shall be submitted


to USACE for verification. For each respective phase, all permits, regulatory approvals, and permit conditions for effects on wetland habitats shall be secured before implementation of any grading activities within 250 feet of aquatic resources including both waters of the United and waters of the state, that potentially support Federally listed species, consistent with USFWS guidelines (i.e., the USFWS generally considers wetland habitats suitable for listed species to be subject to indirect impacts if development would occur within 250 feet) .

3) Project applicant(s) shall to replace, restore, or enhance on a “no net loss” basis (in accordance with USACE and the RWQCB policies) the acreage of all wetlands and other waters of the United States, and waters of the state, that would be removed, lost, and/or degraded with implementation of project plans for that phase. Wetland habitat shall be restored, enhanced, and/or replaced at an acreage and location and by methods agreeable to USACE, the RWQCB, and the City, as determined during the Section 401 and Section 404 permitting processes.

4) It is proposed by the City that impacts on wetlands regulated under Section 404 be mitigated at ratios consistent with those proposed in the current draft SMHCP.

a) If the current draft SMHCP is adopted, compensation for wetland habitat within high value conservation areas shall be provided as follows:

i) For direct impacts on wetlands: 9 acres of vernal pool habitat shall be preserved for every acre removed and 1 acre of vernal pool habitat shall be restored for every acre removed.

ii) For indirect impacts on wetlands: 3 acres of vernal pool habitat shall be preserved for every acre of wetland habitat located within 250 feet of project development and therefore subject to indirect effects through habitat modification.

b) If the current draft SMHCP is adopted, compensation for habitat within medium value conservation areas shall be provided as follows:

i) For direct impacts on wetlands: 2 acres of vernal pool habitat shall be preserved for every acre removed and 1 acre of vernal pool habitat shall be restored for every acre removed.

ii) For indirect impacts on wetlands: 1 acre of vernal pool habitat shall be preserved for every acre located within 250 feet of project development and therefore subject to indirect effects through habitat modification.

5) If the SMHCP is not adopted, unavoidable impacts on wetlands would be mitigated through the following processes and measures:

6) As part of the Section 404 permitting process, draft wetland mitigation and monitoring plans (MMP) shall be developed for the project by a qualified restoration ecologist on behalf of the project applicant(s). Before any ground-disturbing activities that would adversely affect wetlands and before engaging in mitigation activities associated with each phase of development, the project applicant(s) shall submit the draft wetland MMP to USACE, the RWQCB, and the City for review and approval of those portions of the plan over which they have jurisdiction. Once the MMPs are approved and implemented, mitigation monitoring shall continue for a minimum of 5 years from completion of mitigation, or human intervention (including recontouring and grading), or until the performance standards identified in the approved MMP have been met, whichever is longer. Project applicant(s) may purchase mitigation credits at an agency-approved mitigation bank within Solano County or may provide compensatory mitigation through creation permittee-responsible mitigation sites according to the MMP specifications outlined below. If credits are available for all wetland impacts, and the project applicant(s) commit to buy credits in an approved mitigation bank, many of the following MMP measures may not be required. Exhibit 4.4-10 shows lands in the Specific Plan Area and vicinity that are


proposed options for compensatory wetland mitigation. These lands include both established mitigation banks and potential mitigation sites. (Mitigation sites can simultaneously provide compensatory habitat for more than one impact. For example, wetland habitat can simultaneously mitigate an impact on waters of the United States and an impact on vernal pool branchiopod habitat and an impact on California tiger salamander breeding habitat, as long as the mitigation habitat is suitable for all these habitats (i.e., provides similar habitat values as the waters of the United States lost, provides suitable habitat for vernal pool branchiopods, and provides suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamander).

7) The habitat MMP for jurisdictional wetland features shall be consistent with USACE’s and EPA’s April 10, 2008 Final Rule for Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332 and 40 CFR Part 230). According to the Final Rule, mitigation banks should be given preference over other types of mitigation because a lot of the risk and uncertainty regarding mitigation success is alleviated by the fact that mitigation bank wetlands must be established and demonstrating functionality before credits can be sold. This also alleviates temporal losses of wetland function while compensatory wetlands are being established. Mitigation banks also tend to be on larger, more ecologically valuable parcels and are subjected to more rigorous scientific study and planning and implementation procedures than typical permittee-responsible mitigation sites. However, the Final Rule also establishes a preference for compensating losses of aquatic resources within the same watershed as the impact site. Because of the large amount of on-site conservation, opportunities for on-site compensatory mitigation may exist through restoration and enhancement of existing and historic wetland habitats and creation of new wetlands. For example, many of the wetlands in the Specific Plan Area are historic vernal pools that have been subjected to agricultural disturbances (e.g., grading, draining, and planting) that have resulted in varying levels of degradation of the vernal pool habitat. Opportunities for restoration or recreation of the historic vernal pools exist and may be preferable to creating compensatory wetlands off site or to purchasing mitigation credits at an established bank if those credits are in a different watershed and, therefore, would not compensate for the loss of function in the respective watershed (i.e., Union Creek, McCoy Creek, Denverton Creek, or Barker Slough watersheds).

8) Compensatory mitigation for losses of perennial and seasonal drainage channels shall be achieved through in-kind preservation, restoration, or enhancement, as specified in the Final Rule guidelines. The wetland MMP shall address how to mitigate impacts on vernal pool, seasonal wetland, swale, marsh, and pond habitat, and shall describe specific method(s) to be implemented to avoid and/or mitigate any off-site project-related impacts. The wetland compensation section of the habitat MMP shall include the following:

9) Compensatory mitigation sites and criteria for selecting these mitigation sites. In general, compensatory mitigation sites should meet the following criteria, based on the Final Rule;

a) located within the same watershed as the wetland or other waters that would be lost, or within the same vernal pool recovery area;

b) located in the most likely position to successfully replace wetland functions lost on the impact site considering watershed-scale features such as aquatic habitat diversity, habitat connectivity, available water sources and hydrologic relationships, land use trends, ecological benefits, and compatibility with adjacent land uses;

10) A complete assessment of the existing biological resources in both the on-site preservation areas and off-site compensatory mitigation areas, including wetland functional assessment using the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) (Collins et al. 2008), or other wetland functional assessment method approved by USACE, to establish baseline conditions;

11) Specific creation and restoration plans for each mitigation site;


Source: data adapted by AECOM 2010

Existing and Potential Mitigation Sites Exhibit 4.4-10


12) In kind reference wetland habitats for comparison with compensatory wetland habitats (using performance and success criteria) to document success;

13) Description of methodology used to select reference wetlands for comparison;

14) Monitoring protocol, including schedule and annual report requirements, and the following elements:

a) ecological performance standards, based on the best available science, that can be assessed in a practicable manner (e.g., performance standards proposed by Barbour et al. 2007). Performance standards must be based on attributes that are objective and verifiable;

15) CRAM, or other USACE-approved wetland assessment method, conducted annually for 5 years after construction or restoration of compensatory wetlands to determine whether these areas are acquiring wetland functions and to plot the performance trajectory of preserved, restored, or created wetlands over time. Assessment scores for compensatory wetlands shall also be compared against scores for reference wetlands assessed in the same year;

a) Wetland assessment (e.g., CRAM) conducted annually for 5 years after any construction adjacent to wetlands preserved in the Specific Plan Area to determine whether these areas are retaining wetland functions and values. CRAM scores for wetlands preserved on site shall also be compared against scores for reference wetlands assessed in the same year;

b) analysis of wetland assessment data, including assessment of potential stressors, to determine whether any remedial activities may be necessary;

c) corrective measures if performance standards are not met. Remedial actions may be implemented on an annual basis, if necessary, or at the end of the 5-year monitoring period An analysis to determine the reasons criteria were not met shall be a performed by qualified a qualified restoration ecologist and remedial actions shall be developed in coordination with USACE; remedial actions may include reseeding native vegetation, regrading wetland features; managing invasive plants, restricting access by humans and domestic animals, or other measures depending on the type and severity of performance failures. Monitoring performance standards shall resume following implementation of remedial actions until performance standards are met. If compensatory wetlands do not meet success criteria by the end of 10 years after creation, they will be mitigated through purchase of credits at an agency-approved mitigation bank.

d) monitoring of plant communities as performance criteria (annual measure of success, during monitoring period) and success criteria (indicative of achievement of mitigation habitat requirement at end of monitoring period) for hydrologic function have become established and the creation site “matures” over time;

e) GIS analysis of compensatory wetlands to demonstrate actual acreage of functioning wetland habitat;

f) adaptive management measures to be applied if performance standards and acreage requirements are not being met;

g) responsible parties for monitoring and preparing reports; and

h) responsible parties for receiving and reviewing reports and for verifying success or prescribing implementation or corrective actions.

15) An operations and management plan (OMP) for all on- and off-site wetland preservation and mitigation areas shall be prepared and submitted to USACE and USFWS for review and approval prior to the issuance of any


permits under Section 404 of the CWA. The plan shall include detailed information on the habitats present within the preservation and mitigation areas, the long-term management and monitoring of these habitats, legal protection for the preservation and mitigation areas (e.g., conservation easement, declaration of restrictions), and funding mechanism information (e.g., endowment).

16) The wetland MMP shall aim to fully mitigate all unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands, and waters of the state regulated by the RWQCB, on a no-net-loss basis. In addition to USACE approval, approval by the City and the RWQCB will also be required. To satisfy the requirements of the City and the RWQCB, mitigation of impacts on the nonjurisdictional wetlands beyond the jurisdiction of USACE shall be included in the same MMP. All mitigation requirements determined through this process shall be implemented before grading plans are approved. The MMP shall be submitted to USACE and approved prior to the issuance of any permits under Section 404 of the CWA.

17) Water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, or waste discharge requirements (for waters of the state), will be required before issuance of the record of decision and before issuance of a Section 404 permit. Before construction in any areas containing wetland features, the project applicant(s) shall obtain water quality certification for the project. Any measures required as part of the issuance of water quality certification and/or waste discharge requirements, shall be implemented. Project applicant(s) shall obtain a General Construction Stormwater Permit from the San Francisco Bay or Central Valley RWQCB, depending on location within the Specific Plan Area , prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), and implement best management practices (BMPs) to reduce water quality effects during construction. Detailed information about the SWPP and BMPs are provided in Section 4.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality.”

Implementation: Project applicants of all project phases requiring fill of wetlands or other waters of the United States or waters of the state.

Timing: Before approval of grading or improvement plans or any ground-disturbing activities for any project development phase containing wetland features or other waters of the United States. The MMP must be approved by the City and USACE before any impact on wetlands can occur. Mitigation shall be implemented on an ongoing basis throughout and after construction, as required.

Enforcement: City of Fairfield, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board, as appropriate, depending on agency jurisdiction, and as determined during the Section 401 and Section 404 permitting processes.

Because the above measures would ensure no net loss of functions and acreage of wetlands, other waters of the United States, and waters of the state, the impact would be considered less than significant with mitigation.

IMPACT 4.4-2

Loss and Degradation of Habitat for Special-status Wildlife Species and Potential Direct Take of Individuals. Implementing the Specific Plan would result in the loss and degradation of habitat for several special-status wildlife species. Take of the state and federally listed species could also result. The impact is potentially significant.

Implementing the Specific Plan would result in an increase in development and human population that would result in adverse effects on a number of special-status wildlife species. Special-status wildlife species listed under ESA that could be adversely affected are Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, delta green ground beetle, vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and California tiger salamander. Swainson’s hawk, which is listed under CESA as threatened, could also be adversely affected by Specific Plan development. Burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike, California species of special concern, and white-tailed kite, a fully protected species, have been observed in the Specific Plan Area and could be adversely affected by project implementation. Impacts on these species would be considered significant and are discussed in detail below. A western pond turtle, also a California


species of special concern, was observed in the Specific Plan Area in 2009 and suitable habitat is present in ponds and in Union Creek and other drainage channels in the Specific Plan Area. Additional California species of special concern could occur in the Specific Plan Area and potential impacts on those species are discussed below. These species are loggerhead shrike, tricolored blackbird, Modesto song sparrow, and mountain plover.

Vernal Pool Associated Wildlife Species

Vernal Pool Branchiopods

Project development would result in fill of approximately 21.11 acres of seasonal wetlands and vernal pools that provide potentially suitable habitat for Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Vernal pool fairy shrimp have been found in wetlands on the Specific Plan Area (LSA 2010b) and Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp have all been documented within 3 miles of the Specific Plan Area (CNDDB 2010).

The Specific Plan Area is within the Jepson Prairie core area identified in the vernal pool recovery plan (USFWS 2005). The Jepson Prairie core area is considered vital to the preservation and recovery of Colusa grass, Contra Costa goldfields, Greene’s tuctoria, delta green ground beetle, Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. The Specific Plan open space areas would preserve 145.63 acres of existing wetlands within the Jepson Prairie core area, or 87% of the existing core area wetland habitat within the Specific Plan Area. The specific plan would preserve at least 93% of wetland habitat suitable for listed species. . This goal is for the overall core area and does not have to be met on individual project sites in order to be achieved. Furthermore, USFWS allows flexibility in the core area preservation criteria for USFWS-approved habitat conservation plans that provide alternative strategies for conserving these species. The SMHCP would provide an alternative conservation mechanism once approved. An additional 1,650 acres of vernal pool grassland outside of the Specific Plan Area but within the Jepson Prairie core area has been identified for conservation as part of the mitigation plan for this project. Most of the designated critical habitat in the Specific Plan Area supports aquatic habitat for vernal pool branchiopods would also be preserved in the Specific Plan’s habitat conservation areas.

Although most of the suitable habitat for listed vernal pool branchiopods would be preserved within the Specific Plan designated conservation areas, 21.11 acres of potentially suitable habitat would still be filled and another 32.05 acres of suitable habitat would be subject to indirect effects because it is within 250 feet of areas that would be developed. In addition, roads, railroad spur lines, and trails would be constructed through open space areas, including areas identified for habitat conservation east of Vanden Road, and development of the northern employment center would sever connectivity between habitat conservation areas to the south of the employment center and open space areas to the north. Pavement and other impermeable surfaces adjacent to vernal pools may increase the amount of surface runoff received by the wetlands. Other indirect effects include reduced water quality through contaminants present in runoff. The direct removal of habitat and potential degradation of retained habitat could have substantial adverse effects on vernal pool invertebrates. These direct and indirect impacts would be significant.

Delta Green Ground Beetle

The large playa-type vernal pools in the Specific Plan Area that provide potentially suitable habitat for Delta green ground beetle, along with a grassland buffer, would be preserved within the Specific Plan designated conservation areas. Very little is known about this species’ life history characteristics and microhabitat requirements, but the only known occurrences are from approximately 7,000 acres in the greater Jepson Prairie area which contains very large playa-type vernal pools, or vernal lakes, in a matrix of the best remaining native perennial grassland in the Central Valley. Although the grasslands in the Specific Plan Area bear little resemblance to the Jepson Prairie grasslands, the potential for this species to occur in the Specific Plan Area cannot be ruled out, especially because it is so close to the Jepson Prairie populations and shares some of the same


soil associations. Potential impacts on this species would be less than significant, however, because potential direct and indirect impacts would be avoided or minimized by conserving the large playa-type vernal pools that provide potentially suitable wetland habitat within a large contiguous matrix of grassland habitat.

California Tiger Salamander

The designated project conservation areas would preserve the majority of suitable habitat for California tiger salamander in the Specific Plan Area, including areas identified in the SMHCP as having high preservation and restoration potential. Implementing the Specific Plan would result in the loss of 0.11 acres of potential breeding habitat and 3.89 acres of known breeding habitat, including a known occupied stock pond on the South Kelley site and known occupied pools along the old railroad berm bordering the North Bay Regional Water Quality Treatment Plant (Exhibit 4.4-11). The proposed development would result in the loss of approximately 645.30 acres of lands designated as medium value and 315.01 acres of lands designated as high value upland habitat for this species.

Another occupied wetland on the Church/East Ranch site would be indirectly affected because all of the surrounding uplands within 250 feet would be developed leaving no upland dispersal and refuge habitat, thereby rendering the wetland habitat unsuitable. Filling occupied and suitable wetland breeding habitat, as well as development of upland habitat within 1.3 miles of breeding habitat, could result in death (i.e., take) of individuals. Filling breeding habitat could result in loss of eggs and larvae, which would also constitute take. Indirect effects could result from habitat fragmentation because roads and commercial and residential centers would dissect the conservation areas creating barriers to dispersal. Roads, railroad spur lines, and trails would be constructed through open space areas, including areas identified for habitat conservation east of Vanden Road, and development of the northern employment center would sever connectivity between habitat conservation areas to the south of the employment center and open space areas to the north. There is an existing railroad line crossing the proposed habitat conservation areas between the Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank and the Noonan South site and there is an existing road (Canon Road) traversing the proposed habitat conservation areas between the Noonan North and Noonan South sites so obstacles to California tiger salamander movement already exist here. However, the rail spurs and roads crossing from Vanden Road to the southern employment center and between the north and south employment centers create new obstacles to upland dispersal within 1.3 miles of breeding sites. Other indirect impacts could include mortality related to an increase in vehicular traffic on and near the Specific Plan Area, exposure to herbicides, pesticides, and other toxins; and altered hydrology. Hydromodification that increases hydration periods, such as urban runoff, could promote invasion of predators, such as fish or bullfrogs, into aquatic breeding habitat. Alternatively, if hydration periods are decreased, for example if development resulted in a gradient change that would drain water away from breeding wetlands, then the affected habitat may not remain inundated long enough for California tiger salamander eggs and larvae to complete development and metamorphosis.

A total of approximately 0.47 acre of known breeding habitat and 6.86 acres of potentially suitable breeding habitat would be indirectly affected by project construction because it is within 250 feet of areas planned for urban development. These impacts on California tiger salamander breeding and upland habitat would be significant.

Swainson’s Hawk and Other Raptors

Approximately 1,021 acres of foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk and other raptors would be removed by Specific Plan development. This foraging habitat is within 5 miles of several active Swainson’s hawk nest sites, including a nest site discovered in the southern portion of the Specific Plan Area during biological surveys in 2010, a nest site recorded in the CNDDB in the northern portion of the Specific Plan Area in 2005, and two nest sites on the Cypress Lakes Golf Course adjacent to the Specific Plan Area. The Specific Plan Area is within areas identified in the SMHCP as Swainson’s hawk conservation areas, including the Valley Floor Grassland Conservation Area.



Direct and Indirect Impact Areas for Wetlands and Other Waters of the United States Exhibit 4.4-11


The Specific Plan would also result in removal of nesting and foraging habitat for white-tailed kite, burrowing owl, northern harrier, short-eared owl, and common raptors. White-tailed kite, which is fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code, could nest in large trees in the Specific Plan Area. Burrowing owls have been observed in the Specific Plan Area, and could nest in ground squirrel burrows, culverts, or debris piles in the Specific Plan Area. Northern harrier and short-eared owl could nest on the ground in grassland and marsh habitat in the Specific Plan Area. All raptors and their nests are protected under Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code. Common raptors that could nest in the Specific Plan Area include red-tailed hawk, great horned owl, and barn owl.

The removal of 1,021 acres of grassland habitat that provides foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks and could be used for nesting by short-eared owl, burrowing owl, and northern harrier could result in mortality of individuals and nest abandonment. If trees are to be removed during the raptor breeding season (February–August), mortality of eggs and chicks of tree nesting raptors could result if an active nest were present. In addition, project construction could disturb active nests near the construction area, potentially resulting in nest abandonment by the adults and mortality of chicks and eggs. Removal of 1,021 acres of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat could reduce the small mammal prey base in the Specific Plan Area vicinity. Large raptors generally require large areas of suitable foraging habitat and a reduced prey base could eventually lead to displacement of some nesting Swainson’s hawks if sufficient foraging habitat is no longer available to support the species at current population numbers.

Indirect effects to nesting raptors include increased nest failure due to disruption of essential breeding and foraging behavior resulting from human disturbances in adjacent developed areas and increased nest predation by wildlife species associated with human development, such as crows and raccoons, as well as domestic cats (and dogs for ground-nesting raptors such as short-eared owl, burrowing owl, and northern harrier). The preservation of 1,759 acres (63 %) of large interconnected tracts of open space in the Specific Plan Area would reduce potential impacts on raptor nesting and foraging habitat but not below the level of significance. The direct loss or injury of raptors or their nests during construction of projects accommodated by the Specific Plan would also be a significant impact.

Loggerhead Shrike

An active loggerhead shrike nest with two fledglings was discovered in a salt cedar in the Specific Plan Area in 2009. Disturbance of potentially suitable habitat during construction could result in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or young if an active loggerhead shrike nest were to be present during ground-disturbing activities. Loss of an active loggerhead shrike nest would be a direct significant impact.

Tricolored Blackbird

Tricolored blackbirds are not known to nest on the site, and available nesting habitat is limited in the Specific Plan Area consisting of relatively small patches of emergent marsh vegetation. However, there are three previously reported tricolored blackbird colonies within 2 miles of the treatment plant marsh, with the closest located less than 0.5 mile from the edge of the Specific Plan Area (S. Foreman pers. comm.). Suitable nesting habitat for this species is present in the Specific Plan Area. Disturbance of potentially suitable habitat during construction could result in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or young if an active tricolored blackbird nesting colony were to be present during ground-disturbing activities. Loss of an active nesting tricolored blackbird colony would be a potentially significant impact.

Other California Species of Special Concern

Western pond turtles are known to occur in one pond in the Specific Plan Area and have been documented on the Travis air Force Base and other locations in the Specific Plan Area vicinity (i.e., within 3 miles) (CNDDB 2010). Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would not directly fill the occupied or suitable aquatic habitat and


upland habitats suitable for nesting would be retained in proximity to aquatic habitat. Direct and indirect impacts to western pond turtle are considered less than significant.

The Specific Plan Area provides potential nesting habitat for Modesto song sparrow and wintering habitat for mountain plover. Modesto song sparrow could nest in marsh or riparian habitat in the Specific Plan Area. Mountain plover could winter in the Specific Plan Area, foraging in the grassland habitat; however, documented occurrences of mountain plover in Solano County are generally located east of the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, portions of the grassland habitat that would be removed by project implementation are considered to be of low value to this species. Potential impacts to Modesto song sparrow and mountain plover would be reduced through retention of large areas of grassland habitat, and most of the existing marsh and riparian habitat is expected to be preserved in the open space areas. Sufficient foraging habitat would remain in the Specific Plan Area after project implementation for mountain plovers to continue using the site as wintering habitat. Although there is some potential for nesting Modesto song sparrows to abandon their nests due to project construction activity nearby, it is unlikely that this would occur on a large scale. Therefore, these species would not be displaced from the Specific Plan Area and project construction would not be expected to result in the loss of more than a few individuals. Direct and indirect impacts of project implementation on these species are considered less than significant because potential loss of a few individuals is not likely to result in a substantial effect on their populations.

Off-site Improvements

Seasonal wetlands present at the intersection of Cement Hill and Walters Road and the intersection of Walters Road and Air Base Parkway could support federally listed vernal pool branchiopods and Contra Costa goldfields and the latter intersection is within designated critical habitat for these species. Loss of suitable habitat for these species as a result of implementing the off-site improvements would be a significant impact.

Proposed off-site improvements could disturb nesting raptors or other nesting birds in suitable nest trees in the vicinity of the intersections of Cement Hill Road and Clay Bank Road, Peabody Road and Air Base Parkway, and Vanden Road and Fry Road. Active burrowing owl nests could be present in underground burrows at these off-site improvement areas and could be removed or disturbed by construction activities causing nest abandonment. Loss of an active raptor nest or other native migratory bird nest would be a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a: Secure Take Authorization for Federally Listed Vernal Pool Invertebrates and Implement All Permit Conditions; Preserve and Restore Wetland and Adjacent Upland Habitat Consistent with the SMHCP Conservation Strategy

1) No project construction shall proceed in areas supporting potential habitat for Federally listed vernal pool invertebrates, or within adequate buffer areas (250 feet or lesser distance deemed sufficiently protective by a qualified biologist with approval from USFWS), until take authorization has been obtained from the USFWS and the project applicant(s) of all projects, including off-site improvement projects, have abided by conditions specified in the take authorization, including all conservation and minimization measures, intended to be completed before on-site construction. Conservation and minimization measures are expected to include requirements for preparing supporting documentation describing methods to protect existing vernal pools during and after project construction, methods for determining impact ratios, a detailed monitoring plan, and reporting requirements.

2) It is the City’s desire that mitigation for project impacts on biological resources be mitigated through participation in the SMHCP, by implementing all measures described for the respective species in the SMHCP.

3) If the SMHCP is not adopted in time for project implementation, or if the City chooses to not seek coverage, the project applicant(s) shall secure take authorization prior to project construction through formal


consultation with the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, and shall implement all measures included in the Biological Opinion (BO) issued by the USFWS.

4) As described under Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a, an MMP shall be developed that describes in detail how loss of vernal pool and other wetland habitats shall be avoided or offset, including details on creation of habitat, compensation for the temporal loss of habitat, performance standards to ensure success, and remedial actions if performance standards are not met.

5) The project applicant(s) of each project shall complete and implement a habitat MMP that will result in no net loss of acreage, function, and value of affected vernal pool habitat. The final habitat MMP shall be acceptable to the City, USACE, and USFWS and accomplish no net loss of habitat acreage, function, and value.

a) The SMHCP identifies the vernal pool grassland habitat in the eastern portion of the Specific Plan Area (east of Vanden Road) as a high value conservation area (Solano County Water Agency 2009, Figure 4-9). Portions of the Specific Plan Area located west of Vanden Road are identified as medium value conservation areas.

6) If the current draft SMHCP is adopted and available as an avenue for take authorization, compensation for suitable habitat within high value conservation areas shall be provided as follows:

a) For direct impacts on wetlands: 9 acres of vernal pool habitat shall be preserved for every acre removed and 1 acre of vernal pool habitat shall be restored for every acre removed.

b) For indirect impacts on wetlands: 3 acres of vernal pool habitat shall be preserved for every acre of wetland habitat located within 250 feet of project development and therefore subject to indirect effects through habitat modification.

c) For direct impacts on valley floor grassland (upland) habitat: 3 acres of upland habitat shall be preserved for every acre removed.

d) For indirect impacts on upland habitat: 1 acre of upland habitat shall be preserved for every acre of wetland habitat located within 250 feet of project development and therefore subject to indirect effects through habitat modification.

7) For consistency with the SMHCP, compensation for habitat within medium value conservation areas shall be provided as follows:

a) For direct impacts on wetlands: 2 acres of vernal pool habitat shall be preserved for every acre removed and 1 acre of vernal pool habitat shall be restored for every acre removed.

b) For indirect impacts on wetlands: 1 acre of vernal pool habitat shall be preserved for every acre located within 250 feet of project development and therefore subject to indirect effects through habitat modification.

c) For direct impacts on upland habitat: 3 acres of upland habitat shall be preserved for every acre removed.

d) For indirect impacts on upland habitat: 1 acre of upland habitat shall be preserved for every acre located within 250 feet of project development and therefore subject to indirect effects through habitat modification.

8) If the SMHCP is not adopted before project implementation, adequate mitigation ratios for take authorization shall be determined through the ESA Section 7 consultation process.


9) Mitigation shall occur before the approval of any grading or improvement plans for any project phase that would allow work within 250 feet of such habitat, and before any ground-disturbing activity within 250 feet of the habitat.

10) The project applicant(s) of all project phases shall identify the extent of indirectly affected vernal pool and seasonal wetland habitat, either by identifying all such habitat within 250 feet of project construction activities or by providing an alternative technical evaluation. If a lesser distance is pursued, this distance shall be approved by USFWS.

Potential mitigation sites are identified in Exhibit 4.4-10.

Implementation: Project applicant(s) of all project phases.

Timing: Before approval of any grading or improvement plans, before any ground-disturbing activities within 250 feet of said habitat, and on an ongoing basis throughout construction as applicable for all project phases as required by the mitigation plan, BO, and BMPs.

Enforcement: USACE, USFWS, and the City of Fairfield.

Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a would reduce significant impacts on vernal pool invertebrates to a less-than-significant level because it would ensure that substantial habitat for these species would be preserved in the Specific Plan Area and vicinity consistent with the conservation strategy in the proposed SMHCP and that habitat lost as a result of project implementation would be replaced through restoration of degraded vernal pool and seasonal wetland habitat.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b: Implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a; Secure Take Authorization for California Tiger Salamander and Implement All Permit Conditions; Preserve and Enhance Upland Habitat; Preserve and Create Breeding Habitat

1) No project construction shall proceed in areas supporting potential habitat for California tiger salamander (known or potential breeding pools/ponds plus surrounding Specific Plan Area grasslands within 1.3 miles), until take authorization has been obtained from the USFWS and the project applicant(s) of all project phases have abided by all conditions in the take authorization, including conservation and minimization measures, intended to be completed before on-site construction. Conservation and minimization measures are expected to include requirements for preparing supporting documentation describing methods to protect existing vernal pools during and after project construction, methods for determining impact ratios, a detailed monitoring plan, and reporting requirements.

2) It is the City’s desire that mitigation for project impacts on biological resources be mitigated through participation in the SMHCP, by implementing all measures described for the respective species in the SMHCP.

3) If the SMHCP is not adopted in time for project implementation, or if the City chooses to not seek coverage, the project applicant(s) shall secure take authorization prior to project construction through formal consultation with the USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, and shall implement all measures included in the Biological Opinion (BO) issued by the USFWS.

4) If the current draft SMHCP is adopted and available as an avenue for take authorization under CESA and ESA, in addition to the preservation and restoration specifications presented under Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a, the following mitigation shall be implemented for impacts on known occupied and suitable breeding habitat for California tiger salamander (i.e., seasonal wetlands and ponds that remain inundated in most years for a minimum of 10 weeks), which are consistent with the mitigation requirements proposed in the draft SMHCP:


a) Preserve 3 acres of known breeding habitat for every acre of suitable breeding habitat removed.

b) Create suitable breeding habitat at a 2:1 ratio, or 0.35 acre, whichever is greater. Created breeding habitat must be within at least 300 contiguous acres of preserved upland habitat and within 2,100 feet of known breeding habitat.

5) The following measures shall be implemented to mitigate impacts on upland habitat and movement corridors (i.e., seasonal wetland swales, meadows) within the known or potential range of California tiger salamander:

a) For impacts within medium and high value conservation, preserve upland habitat at a 3:1 ratio, consistent with Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a, and create 0.01 acre of breeding habitat per each acre of upland habitat removed.

6) Known breeding habitat shall include all sites where California tiger salamander breeding has been documented at least once in the last 10 years. Multiple compensatory breeding sites can be created within 1,300 feet of each other, but shall be within 2,100 feet of known breeding habitat and within 300 acres of contiguous suitable upland habitat. Each wetland created as breeding habitat shall be a minimum of 0.02 acre (Solano County Water Agency 2009, pages 6-19 through 6-20).

Potential mitigation sites are shown in Exhibit 4.4-10.


Timing: Before approval of any grading or improvement plans and on an ongoing basis throughout construction, as applicable for all project phases as required by the mitigation plan, BO, and/or BMPs.

Enforcement: USACE, USFWS, and the City of Fairfield.

Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b would reduce significant impacts on California tiger salamander to a less-than-significant level because it would ensure that substantial breeding and upland habitat would be preserved in the Specific Plan Area and that breeding habitat lost as a result of project implementation would be replaced.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c: Avoid Direct Loss of Swainson’s Hawk and Other Raptors

1) To avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on Swainson’s hawk and other raptors (not including burrowing owl), the project applicant(s) of each project shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys and to identify active nests on and within 0.5 mile of the Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas. The surveys shall be conducted before the approval of grading and/or improvement plans (as applicable) and no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days before the beginning of construction for all project phases. To the extent feasible, guidelines provided in Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in the Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000) shall be followed for surveys for Swainson’s hawk. If no nests are found, no further mitigation is required.

2) Impacts on nesting Swainson’s hawks and other raptors shall be avoided by establishing appropriate buffers around active nest sites identified during preconstruction raptor surveys. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined in coordination with DFG the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or until that reducing the buffer would not result in nest abandonment. DFG guidelines recommend implementation of 0.25- or 0.5-mile-wide buffers, but the size of the buffer may be adjusted if a qualified biologist and the City, in consultation with DFG, determine that such an adjustment


would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during and after construction activities will be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest.

3) To mitigate impacts on Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat consistent with the SMHCP, implement Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a, which requires that 3 acres of valley floor grassland habitat be preserved for every 1 acre lost to development, and retain active and suitable nest trees within and adjacent to foraging habitat. This mitigation can be concurrent with mitigation for California tiger salamander habitat provided the valley floor grassland habitat preserved is suitable for both species.

4) To avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on burrowing owl, the project applicant(s) of each project, including off-site improvements projects, shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys within 30 days prior to the start of construction activities to ensure that burrowing owls will not be affected by project activities.

5) If an active burrow is found during the non breeding season (September 1 through January 31), then western burrowing owls occupying burrows that cannot be avoided or adequately protected may be evicted from the area using passive relocation as described in DFG’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owls (1995).

6) If an active burrow is found during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), occupied burrows shall not be disturbed and shall be provided with a 250-foot protective buffer unless a qualified biologist verifies through noninvasive means that either: 1) the birds have not begun egg laying, or 2) juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and are capable of independent survival. Once the fledglings are capable of independent survival, the owls can be evicted and the burrow can be destroyed.

7) Project applicants shall mitigate for the permanent loss or conversion of burrowing owl habitat (i.e., valley floor or vernal pool grassland, grain and hay crops, pasture, irrigated agriculture, fallow fields) by preserving suitable habitat at a 3:1 ratio. Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.4-2a, which requires that 3 acres of valley floor grassland habitat be preserved for every 1 acre lost to development, would provide adequate mitigation for loss of burrowing owl habitat. As discussed previously, the Specific Plan Area is identified in the SMHCP as being within the Valley Floor Grassland Conservation Area.

8) If active burrowing owl nests are found on the Specific Plan Area during preconstruction surveys and these nest sites are lost as a result of implementing the project, then the project applicants for those project phases that would result in the loss of nest burrows shall mitigate the loss through preservation of other known nest sites at a ratio of 1:1, according to the guidelines outlined in the SMHCP.

Proposed and potential mitigation sites are shown in Exhibit 4.4-10.


Timing: Before the approval of grading and improvement plans, before any ground-disturbing activities, and during project construction, as applicable for all project phases.

Enforcement: DFG and the City of Fairfield.

Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.4-2c would reduce significant impacts on Swainson’s hawk, burrowing owl, and other raptors to a less-than-significant level because it would ensure that these species are not disturbed during nesting so that project construction would not result in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or young. These measures would also ensure that nesting habitat lost as a result of project implementation would be replaced in on-site open space conservation areas and that Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat and burrowing owl habitat would be preserved at a 3:1 ratio.


Mitigation Measure 4.4-2d: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Tricolored Blackbird Nesting Colonies

1) To avoid and minimize impacts to tricolored blackbird, the project applicant(s) of all project phases shall conduct a preconstruction survey for any project activity that would occur during the tricolored blackbird’s nesting season (March 1–August 31). The preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist before any activity occurring within 500 feet of suitable nesting habitat, including freshwater marsh and areas of riparian scrub vegetation. The survey shall be conducted within 14 days before project activity begins.

2) If no tricolored blackbird colony is present, no further mitigation is required. If a colony is found, the qualified biologist shall establish a buffer around the nesting colony. No project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the colony is no longer active. The size of the buffer shall be determined in consultation with DFG. Buffer size is anticipated to range from 100 to 500 feet, depending on the nature of the project activity, the extent of existing disturbance in the area, and other relevant circumstances as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with DFG.


Timing: Before the approval of any ground-disturbing activity within 500 feet of suitable nesting habitat as applicable for all project phases.


Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.4-2d would reduce significant impacts on tricolored blackbird to a less-than-significant level because it would ensure that tricolored blackbird colonies are not disturbed during nesting so that project construction would not result in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or young.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-2e: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Nesting Loggerhead Shrikes

1) To avoid and minimize impacts to loggerhead shrike and other nesting birds, the project applicant(s) of all project phases shall conduct a preconstruction survey for any project activity that would occur during the loggerhead shrike nesting season (March 1–August 31). The preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist before any activity occurring within 500 feet of suitable nesting habitat. The survey shall be conducted within 14 days before project activity begins.

2) If no active loggerhead shrike nests are found, no further mitigation is required. If an active nest is found, the qualified biologist shall establish a buffer around the nest. No project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the nest is no longer active. The size of the buffer shall be determined in consultation with DFG. Buffer size is anticipated to range from 100 to 500 feet, depending on the nature of the project activity, the extent of existing disturbance in the area, and other relevant circumstances as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with DFG.


Timing: Before the approval of any ground-disturbing activity within 500 feet of suitable nesting habitat as applicable for all project phases.


Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.4-2e would reduce significant impacts on loggerhead shrike to a less-than-significant level because it would minimize disturbance to active nests that might otherwise occur during construction.


IMPACT 4.4-3

Loss of Special-status Plants and Loss and Degradation of Special-Status Plant Habitat. Project implementation would result in direct removal of vernal pools occupied by Contra Costa Goldfields, a species federally listed as endangered, as well as dwarf downingia and legenere, which are listed as rare by CNPS. Other CNPS listed species have been documented in the Specific Plan Area and could also be removed during project development. Other special-status plant species could potentially be present and could be lost through habitat removal or modification. In addition, any special-status plants on the Specific Plan Area that are not directly removed could be adversely affected by loss or degradation of suitable or occupied habitat. The impact is potentially significant.

Loss of occupied habitat as a result of project development would result in direct removal of Contra Costa goldfields, dwarf downingia, and legenere and loss of suitable habitat could result in direct removal of other special-status plants if they are present in the Specific Plan Area. Specific Plan development could also result in indirect impacts on Contra Costa goldfields, dwarf downingia, legnere, and other special-status plants if any are present on portions of the Specific Plan Area that have not been specifically surveyed as discussed in the setting section, including impacts caused by pollutants transported by urban runoff and other means, airborne particulates, changes in vegetation as a result of changes in land use and management practices, altered hydrology from the construction of adjacent residential development and roadways, habitat fragmentation, and the introduction of invasive species or noxious weeds from surrounding development. USFWS typically considers occupied habitat within 250 feet of urban development to be subject to adverse effects. However, indirect effects from fragmentation would be minimized because project design includes preservation of large, interconnected habitat patches on site with connectivity to off-site vernal pool grassland habitat to the east.

Loss of Contra Costa goldfields, legenere, and dwarf downingia, either through direct removal or through habitat modification, constitutes a substantial adverse effect on special-status plant species. Direct and indirect impacts on these species would be significant.

Project development would result in loss and degradation of habitat that could support other special-status plant species. Direct and indirect impacts on special-status plant species that could be present would be potentially significant.

Off-site Improvements

Contra Costa goldfields, brittlescale, and saline clover have been documented in seasonal wetlands in the vicinity of the intersections of Walters Road and Cement Hill Road and Walters Road and Air Base Parkway and the latter intersection is within designated critical habitat for this species. Proposed road improvements at these intersections could result in loss of Contra Costa goldfields, brittlescale, or saline clover through direct removal or habitat degradation. This would be a significant impact. Special-status plant species could be affected by direct removal or habitat degradation at other off-site improvement areas if suitable habitat is present. This impact is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-3a: Secure Take Authorization for Federally Listed Contra Costa Goldfields and Implement All Permit Conditions, Implement Contra Costa Goldfields Core Population Development Criteria Consistent with the SMHCP, Establish New Populations of Contra Costa Goldfields.

1) To avoid and minimize direct and indirect impacts on Contra Costa goldfields in the Specific Plan Area and off-site improvement areas, the following performance criteria/design guidelines provided in the Conservation Strategy of the draft SMHCP shall be implemented:

a) New roads and expansion of existing roads shall incorporate design measures to maintain hydrological connectivity, such as culverts and underpasses.


b) Individual projects shall not directly impact more than 10% of suitable Contra Costa goldfield habitat in the Specific Plan Area.

c) The project shall not directly impact more than 50% of current or historically occupied habitat in the Specific Plan Area.

d) The extent of occupied habitat shall be based on a minimum of two years of surveys. Occupied habitat shall be based on the total area of occupied wetland habitat, not just Contra Costa goldfield cover.

e) Preserve areas shall encompass at least 100 acres of suitable vernal pool grassland habitat.

2) To compensate for the direct loss of occupied Contra Costa goldfield habitat within core population areas (portions of Specific Plan Area east of Vanden Road) and potential habitat, watershed, and corridor areas (portions of Specific Plan Area west of Vanden Road); new, self-reproducing populations of Contra Costa goldfields shall be established at a ratio of 4:1, or other ratio as required in the final adopted SMHCP, according to the following criteria outlined in the SMHCP (Solano County Water Agency 2009):

a) Establishment of new populations shall take place in constructed, restored, and enhanced wetlands within the known range of Contra Costa goldfields in Solano County. To the extent possible, habitat restoration and establishment of new populations shall occur within the open space areas of the Specific Plan Area in the same core area as the affected habitat. For on-site restoration and establishment to be feasible, unoccupied habitat that can be restored must be identified in the Specific Plan Area. It is likely that currently unoccupied habitat on the Noonan North and South sites could be restored for establishing new populations of Contra Costa goldfields. Additional potential mitigation sites are shown in Exhibit 4.4-10.

b) New populations shall be established from seed of plants that would be removed as a result of project development and if needed, additional seed from the affected population may be collected if necessary to establish new populations (affected populations are within core areas identified in the SMHCP). Seed and topsoil shall be salvaged from the occupied wetlands that would be removed by project development. Seed shall be collected from affected populations for at least one season prior to loss, but no more than 10% of the seed produced can be removed from the overall population in a given growing season. All of the seed from plants in occupied habitat to be removed shall be harvested in the final harvest season. Collected seeds shall be stored at two different seed repositories, including the National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation in Fort Collins, Colorado, and a repository certified by the Center for Plant Conservation, such as the Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden, until reestablishment habitat is ready for planting.

c) The extent of occupied area and the flower density in compensatory reestablished populations shall be equal to or greater than the affected occupied habitat.

d) Reestablished populations shall be considered self producing when:

(1) plants reestablish annually for a minimum of 5 years with no human intervention such as supplemental seeding; and

(2) reestablished habitats contain an occupied area and flower density comparable to existing occupied habitat areas in similar pool types and core areas (e.g., the Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank).

e) If success criteria are not met within 10 years of project implementation, the project applicant shall increase the preserved wetland restoration acreage by 50%. The project applicant shall provide bonds or other financial assurances to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures.


3) If the SMHCP is not adopted prior to implementing the project, project applicant(s) shall develop a mitigation and monitoring plan for Contra Costa goldfields in consultation with USFWS. The MMP shall include detailed plans to compensate for the direct loss of occupied Contra Costa goldfield habitat at a ratio agreeable to USFWS and the City. At a minimum, the MMP shall include all of the measures listed above from the Draft SMHCP and shall include monitoring of preserved and compensatory reestablished populations annually for a minimum of 5 years to ensure plants are regenerating on a yearly basis without human intervention. If plants are not regenerating, reseeding and other measures (e.g., recontouring wetland habitat, hydrological remediation, weed management), as appropriate based on assessment by a qualified ecologist shall be implemented and monitoring continued until populations are self sustaining.


Timing: Before the approval of any ground-disturbing activity within 250 feet of Contra Costa goldfield habitat.

Enforcement: USFWS and the City of Fairfield.

Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.4-3a would reduce significant impacts on Contra Costa goldfields to a less-than-significant level because it would ensure that occupied habitat is avoided to the extent feasible, that the majority of occupied habitat present is preserved in perpetuity, and that populations removed as a result of Specific Plan implementation are replaced through establishment of new populations.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-3b: Conduct Special-Status Plant Surveys; Implement Avoidance and Mitigation Measures and Compensatory Mitigation for Special-status Plants Other Than Contra Costa Goldfields.

1) To mitigate for the loss of dwarf downingia and legenere, and the potential loss or degradation of other special-status plant species and habitat, the project applicant(s) of each project, including off-site improvement projects, shall adhere to the requirements described below:

a) The project applicant(s) of each proposed project, including off-site improvement projects, shall retain a qualified botanist to conduct protocol level preconstruction special-status plant surveys for all potentially occurring species. The surveys shall be conducted no more than 5 years prior and no later than the blooming period before approval of grading or improvement plans or any ground disturbing activities, including grubbing or clearing, for any project phase, including off-site elements. If no special-status plants are found during focused surveys, the botanist shall document the findings in a letter report to the City of Fairfield and no further mitigation shall be required. If a protocol level survey targeting all potentially occurring special-status plant species has been conducted on the specific project site in the previous 5 years, a preconstruction survey shall not be required because surveys conducted according to established guidelines are generally considered valid by the resource agencies for a period of 5 years. If the SMHCP is approved at the time of project implementation and the applicant participates in the SMHCP, special-status plant surveys shall not be required in conservation areas designated as low to medium value.

b) Because Parry’s red tarplant is abundant in the Specific Plan Area and the majority of occupied habitat would be retained in the open space areas, no further mitigation would be needed for this species. Likewise, the majority of wetlands occupied by hogwallow starfish would be preserved in the Specific Plan Area and no further mitigation is needed for this species.

c) If special-status plant populations are present, the project applicant(s) of affected project phases shall consult with DFG and USFWS, as appropriate depending on species status, to determine the appropriate mitigation measures for direct and indirect impacts on any special-status plant population. Mitigation measures may include preserving and enhancing existing populations, creation of off-site populations on


project mitigation sites through seed collection or transplantation, and/or restoring or creating suitable habitat in sufficient quantities to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat or individuals.

d) If impacts on special-status plant species are likely, a mitigation and monitoring plan shall be developed before the approval of grading plans or any ground-breaking activity within 250 feet of a special-status plant population. The mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City of Fairfield for review and approval. It shall be submitted concurrently to DFG or USFWS, as appropriate depending on species status, for review and comment. The City shall consult with these entities before approval of the plan. The plan shall require maintaining viable plant populations in the Specific Plan Area and shall identify avoidance measures for any existing population(s) to be retained and compensatory measures for any populations directly affected. Consistent with City of Fairfield General Plan policy, special-status plant populations shall be avoided to the maximum extent feasible. Possible avoidance measures include fencing populations before construction and exclusion of project activities from the fenced-off areas, and construction monitoring by a qualified botanist to keep construction crews away from the population. Mitigation could include purchase of an existing off-site area known to support the special-status species to be affected, as well as preserving the site in perpetuity. Transplanting and/or reseeding of special-status plants is not proven to be an effective compensation method for most species; therefore, project proponents should avoid special-status plants for which transplanting techniques have not been proven or compensate for impacts by preserving other populations.

1) If transplantation is a proven method for a species and relocation efforts are part of the mitigation plan, the plan shall include a description and map of mitigation sites, details on the methods to be used, including collection, storage, propagation, receptor site preparation, installation, long-term protection and management, monitoring and reporting requirements, remedial action responsibilities should the initial effort fail to meet long-term monitoring requirements, and sources of funding to purchase, manage, and preserve the sites. The following performance standards shall be applied:

The extent of occupied area and the flower density in compensatory reestablished populations shall be equal to or greater than the affected occupied habitat and shall be self-producing.

Reestablished populations shall be considered self producing when:

– plants reestablish annually for a minimum of 5 years with no human intervention such as supplemental seeding; and

– reestablished habitats contain an occupied area and flower density comparable to existing occupied habitat areas in similar pool types and core areas (e.g., the Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank).

2) Whenever possible, transplantation shall take place in Specific Plan Area conservation areas that support suitable but currently unoccupied habitat for the affected species.

3) If off-site mitigation includes dedication of conservation easements, purchase of mitigation credits, or other off-site conservation measures, the details of these measures shall be included in the mitigation plan, including information on responsible parties for long-term management, conservation easement holders, long-term management requirements, and other details, as appropriate to target the preservation of long term viable populations.


Timing: Before approval of grading or improvement plans or any ground disturbing activities, including grubbing or clearing, for any project phase, including off-site elements.


Enforcement: City of Fairfield, USFWS, and DFG; as appropriate depending on species status.

Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.4-3b would reduce significant impacts on dwarf downingia, legenere, brittlescale, and saline clover, and potentially significant impacts on other special-status species to a less-than-significant level because each development project would be required to identify and avoid special-status plant populations or provide compensation for the loss of special-status plants through creation of new populations, conservation easements, or other appropriate measures.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-3a and 4.4-3b would reduce the significant and potentially significant impacts on special-status plant species to a less-than-significant level because each development project would be required to identify and avoid special-status plant populations or provide compensation for the loss of special-status plants through establishment of new populations, conservation easements, or other appropriate measures.

IMPACT 4.4-4

Loss and Degradation of Sensitive Natural Communities. Implementing the Specific Plan could result in loss or degradation of riparian plant communities and creeping rye grass tufts considered sensitive by state and local resource agencies, protected under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, and requiring consideration under CEQA. The impact is potentially significant.

Riparian vegetation that could be lost or degraded as a result of project implementation consists of black willow woodland and cottonwood-willow woodland. These riparian communities are located within areas designated as open space in the Specific Plan, however, depending on the particular uses that would ultimately be implemented in these areas; the existing riparian vegetation could be either directly or indirectly affected by Specific Plan development. In addition, creeping rye grass tufts are present along Union Creek in and near the area proposed for construction of the Great Park.

Potential direct effects include the removal of riparian vegetation or creeping rye grass tufts for development of recreational amenities such as bike and pedestrian trails, informational kiosks, sitting/picnic areas, landscaping, viewing platforms, or boardwalks. Furthermore, these communities are growing in or adjacent to wetland habitats that are within 250 feet of project development and could therefore be adversely affected by adjacent land uses. Potential indirect impacts on riparian communities and rye grass tufts include degradation caused by pollutants transported by urban runoff, changes in vegetation as a result of changes in land use and management practices, altered site hydrology from the construction of adjacent residential development, trails, and roadways, and the introduction of invasive species or noxious weeds from the surrounding development, and intrusion by humans and domestic animals that could disturb riparian vegetation and reduce habitat values.

Constructing the Great Park Lake adjacent to Union Creek could divert water from Union Creek or result in changes in flow or to the bed and bank of Union Creek and these changes could subsequently result in altered hydrology downstream of the lake. Any changes to the bed, bank, channel, or flow of Union Creek could result in significant direct and indirect effects on in stream habitat and would require a streambed alteration agreement from DFG. Additionally, drawing water from the SID canal to fill project lakes could modify hydrology downstream of the Specific Plan Area. Because the SID canal does not provide water to support aquatic resources on site, use of water from the canal is not expected to have effects to on-site resources, however; it is possible that unused overflow from SID appropriated water currently flows to downstream waters. It is unknown at this time how much, if any, unused appropriated water is currently available to downstream aquatic habitats. Therefore, it is not possible to quantify what the potential indirect effects to downstream resources would be.

The loss and degradation of riparian habitat or rye grass tufts that could occur with project implementation would constitute an adverse effect on sensitive natural communities regulated by DFG under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. Much of the area supporting riparian vegetation in the Specific Plan Area is within potentially jurisdictional waters of the United States and would also be subject to USACE regulation under the CWA, as discussed in Impact 4.4-1. Therefore, direct and indirect impacts would be considered potentially significant.


Mitigation Measure 4.4-4: Map Riparian Habitat and Other Sensitive Natural Communities; Implement Avoidance and Mitigation Measures, Secure and Implement Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement.

1) The project applicant(s) of all proposed projects shall retain a qualified botanist to identify, map, and quantify riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities, such as rye grass tufts, on the project site before final project design is completed.

2) The project applicant(s) of affected projects shall design project development to avoid riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities to the extent feasible. Since the majority of riparian vegetation in the Specific Plan Area is located in an area that is part of the railroad museum open space, it would be feasible to design museum and trail features to be constructed outside of the depressions containing wetland and riparian habitat. The depressions supporting riparian vegetation are located at the base of an old railroad berm. Museum attractions, trails, and other amenities shall be constructed atop the berm or in other areas outside of the depressions supporting riparian vegetation.

3) If impacts on riparian habitat or rye grass tufts cannot be avoided as part of future project construction, the project applicant shall consult with DFG to determine whether a Section 1602 streambed alteration agreement may be required for alteration of these habitats.

4) The acreage of riparian habitat that would be removed shall be replaced or restored/enhanced on a “no net loss” basis in accordance with DFG regulations, subject to limitations on its authority set forth in California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 et seq., and City policies.

5) Compensatory mitigation for loss of riparian vegetation and rye grass tufts shall be accomplished through restoration and creation of native riparian vegetation and rye grass tufts along Union Creek within the Specific Plan Area, to the extent feasible. To avoid potential adverse effects to vernal pools and other wetland habitats and associated special-status species, riparian habitat restoration shall be restricted to the northern portions of Union Creek on Parcels 4 and 5 (the Solano Irrigation District and North Kelley properties). If habitat restoration/creation cannot be accommodated within the project site because of conflicts with SID management of the Union Creek channel, then an appropriate site elsewhere in the Union Creek watershed shall be identified for riparian habitat restoration/creation to offset losses of riparian habitat on the project site, as agreeable to DFG and the City. If an alternative site acceptable to the City and DFG is not available, compensatory mitigation shall be accomplished through purchase of in-kind mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank within eastern Solano County.


Timing: Before approval of grading or improvement plans or any ground disturbing activities in any areas that could affect riparian or stream habitats.

Enforcement: City of Fairfield and DFG.

Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 would reduce significant impacts on sensitive natural communities to a less-than-significant level because restoration and creation ensuring adequate compensation for the loss of riparian habitat would have to be developed and implemented as a condition of the streambed alteration permit.

IMPACT 4.4-5

Potential Interference with Wildlife Movement or Nursery Sites. Project implementation could interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. However, the Specific Plan would retain large, interconnected open space areas as natural habitat that would continue to provide wildlife movement opportunities. The impact is less than significant.


Wildlife corridors are features that provide connections between two or more areas of habitat that would otherwise be isolated and unusable. Often drainages, creeks, or riparian areas are used by wildlife as movement corridors as these features can provide cover and access across a landscape. Union Creek flows across the Specific Plan Area southeasterly from developed areas to the north of the Specific Plan Area boundary to Vanden Road then southwesterly to developed areas south of the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, Union Creek does not connect to natural habitats off site. Union Creek supports very little riparian vegetation that would provide cover for wildlife movement, but Union Creek would be preserved across the Specific Plan Area, as part of project design. However, all of the Specific Plan Area currently consists of open space habitat that connects to natural habitat to the northwest and southeast, providing movement and dispersal corridors across the site, and ultimately to the Bay-Delta to the south and the Coast Range to the northwest. An analysis of movement barriers and patterns of fragmentation for the SMHCP identified a major corridor for wildlife movement from the Vaca Mountains to the Jepson Prairie through the Vacaville-Fairfield Greenbelt. The Specific Plan Area would retain large, interconnected open space areas, including the Vacaville-Fairfield Greenbelt, as natural habitat that would continue to provide wildlife movement opportunities within and across the Specific Plan Area.

Following project implementation, the habitat conservation areas east and south of Vanden Road would be fragmented by new roads and rail spurs and an “Employment” area. California tiger salamanders are known to use upland refugia up to 1.3 miles from their breeding pools. However, there is no established movement corridor system for this species between the breeding pools in the southern portion of the SPA (Noonan Conservation Bank, Biggs, and Burke sites) and the upland habitat between the northern and southern “Employment” areas. The potential effects of habitat fragmentation on California tiger salamander are discussed under Impact 4.4-2 and Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b is proposed to mitigate impacts on California tiger salamander, including the effects of habitat fragmentation. Regionally common wildlife species, such as coyote, fox, raccoon, skunk, and possum, are expected to continue to use the open space areas of the Specific Plan Area after implementation and native resident and migratory species would continue to have a movement and migration corridor through the Vacaville-Fairfield Greenbelt on the SPA. Therefore, direct and indirect impacts on wildlife movement from implementing the Specific Plan are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation is required.

IMPACT 4.4-6

Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources. Project implementation could result in conflicts with policies outlined in the City of Fairfield General Plan, and City ordinances, including noxious weed, and freshwater marsh, riparian, and open water habitat policies. The impact is potentially significant.

Project construction could result in the spread of noxious weed species that are present in the Specific Plan Area, including barbed goat grass (Aegilops triuncialis), black mustard (Brassica nigra), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), purple starthistle (Centaurea calcitrapa), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus), perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), and medusa head (Taeniatherum caput-medusae). Constructing the Specific Plan without implementing measures to avoid or minimize the risk of spreading noxious weeds would conflict with General Plan Policy OS 7.10.

As discussed under Impacts 4.4-1 and 4.4-4, implementing the Specific Plan could result in the fill of stream and wetland habitats and removal of marsh and riparian vegetation. Removal of riparian, marsh, and open water habitats would conflict with City General Plan Policy OS 9.9.

Project construction could result in conflicts with City policies and ordinances through removal of oak trees, freshwater marsh, riparian, and open water habitats, and the spread of noxious weeds. This direct impact is potentially significant.


Mitigation Measure 4.4-6a: Identify and map noxious weed infestations, avoid infested areas to the extent feasible.

1) The following measures shall be implemented to reduce the risk of spreading noxious weeds:

a) Prior to construction commencement, project applicants of all project phases shall hire a qualified botanist to identify and map all noxious weed infestations within project construction sites. The botanist shall contact the Solano County Agricultural Commissioner to obtain a current list of noxious weeds of concern.

b) Areas infested by noxious weeds shall be fenced and avoided during construction if feasible. If these areas are to be developed and cannot be avoided, noxious weeds shall be removed at the onset of construction and disposed of properly. Proper disposal methods depend on the species, removal method, and the timing of removal. Appropriate methods of disposal shall be determined by a qualified botanist or land manager experienced in weed eradication methods.

c) Where it is not possible to keep equipment out of sites infested with noxious weeds, the equipment shall be cleaned so that it is free of soil, seeds, vegetative matter or other debris prior to being moved from infested sites to un-infested sites and prior to being transported out of the project area.


Timing: Before approval of grading or improvement plans.

Enforcement: City of Fairfield.

Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.4-6a would reduce potentially significant impacts from the spread of noxious weeds to less than significant because project applicants of all phases would be required to identify and avoid noxious weed infestations or remove noxious weeds prior to construction and clean weed propagules from equipment.

Mitigation Measure 4.4-6b: Assess riparian, marsh, and stream habitat, develop and implement an enhancement or restoration plan for riparian and marsh habitat, implement Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 and 4.4-4.

1) City General plan Policy OS 9.9 requires project proponents to assess important freshwater marsh, riparian, and open water habitats, such as habitats within and along Union Creek. Based on the habitat assessment, project proponents shall hire a qualified restoration ecologist to prepare a restoration or enhancement plan.

2) Because alteration of streams and associated riparian and marsh habitat is regulated by DFG under Section 1602 of the California Game Code, a streambed alteration agreement would have to be developed and implemented for the Specific Plan, if impacts on these habitats would occur, as discussed in Mitigation Measure 4.4-4. Furthermore, all waters of the United States, including any wetlands supporting riparian or marsh habitat, are regulated by USACE under the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as discussed under Impact 4.4-1. Both the Section 1602 streambed alteration agreement and the Section 404 permit would require mitigation resulting in no net loss of habitats under their jurisdiction. Therefore, Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 and 4.4-4 shall be implemented as mitigation for impacts on riparian, marsh, and open water habitats protected under City General Plan Policy.

Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.4-6b would reduce significant impacts on riparian, marsh, and open water habitat to a less-than-significant level because project applicants would be required to restore and enhance these habitat on a no net loss basis.


IMPACT 4.4-7

Conflict with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Project implementation could result in conflicts with the goals of the proposed SMHCP, should the Plan be implemented prior to project commencement. However, In general, the Specific Plan has been designed to provide consistency with the conservation strategy of the proposed SMHCP. The impact is less than significant.

Consistency with the SMHCP is not required under CEQA because the SMHCP has not been adopted and is not scheduled for completion and implementation until late 2011 or early 2012 (Foreman, pers. comm., 2010). Therefore, the exact scope and content of the final adopted SMHCP is not known at this time and a consistency evaluation for the Specific Plan with the final SMHCP is not possible. However, LSA Associates have completed an analysis of consistency with the current Draft SMHCP (Solano County Water Agency 2009) and that analysis is provided in Appendix C. LSA found the Specific Plan to be generally consistent with the SMHCP goals and strategies with the following exceptions: the Specific Plan does not provide wildlife movement corridors across the proposed four-lane Jepson Parkway (a.k.a. Vanden Road) between habitat conservation areas to the east and open space to the west, small segments of Union and McCoy Creeks would not be provided with setbacks proposed in the SMHCP, and there is no plan to retain and restore segments of McCoy Creek between Peabody and Cement Hill Road.

In general, the Specific Plan has been designed to provide consistency with the conservation strategy of the proposed SMHCP. Measures have been incorporated into the project design specifically to meet the particular goals of the current draft of the SMHCP, including preserving areas identified in the draft SMHCP as medium and high value conservation areas, and designing development to minimize and avoid impacts on species covered in the SMHCP and their habitats. In addition, all of the mitigation measures provided in this section are consistent with the mitigation requirements presented in the conservation strategy section of the current draft SMHCP (Solano County Water Agency 2009). Therefore, implementing the Specific Plan would not reduce the effectiveness of the SMHCP conservation strategy and would not interfere with attaining the overall SMHCP goals and objectives. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures

No mitigation is required.

4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - California

Documents

Transcript of 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - California