sfpuc awhcp - san francisco public utilities commission

SFPUC AWHCP Summary of Public Meeting, December 8, 2011

Introduction The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is preparing the Alameda Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to mitigate impacts of SFPUC activities on covered plants, fish and wildlife within the watershed and to serve as the regulatory mechanism for complying with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The SFPUC began drafting the HCP in 2002. During 2011, SFPUC and its consultants prepared drafts of Chapter 4 (Impact Analysis) and Chapter 5 (Conservation Strategy).

The SFPUC held a public meeting on December 8, 2011 to update stakeholders on the HCP and to receive input on the draft chapters available for review. This memo summarizes the activities conducted in preparation for the public meeting and the stakeholder input received.

Public Meeting

Notification To notify stakeholders about the meeting, SFPUC’s consultants – ICF International (ICF) and Workman Associates San Francisco (Workman Associates) – prepared a project newsletter to be distributed via mail. The newsletter contained information about recent project developments and the upcoming public meeting. ICF and Workman Associates updated the project mailing list with current mailing addresses and provided to SFPUC for review. Once finalized, the newsletter and mailing list were sent to a mailing house for printing and distribution. Approximately 1,300 people received newsletters. Additionally, email notifications were sent out to several list serves, and the meeting information was posted on the SFPUC website. A copy of the newsletter is included in Appendix A.

Preparation In preparation for the meetings, ICF and Workman Associates held two planning sessions with SFPUC staff to discuss the meeting format and agenda, review content for display boards and meeting handouts, and conduct a dry run of the presentation.

Meeting Format and Materials The public meeting took place at the Dublin Public Library on December 8, 2011 from 6:30 – 8:00 p.m. The first part of the meeting was an informational open house to review display boards and ask questions of project representatives. Six stations were set up with the following display boards.

• Station 1: HCP Study Area Study Area Watershed Overview

• Station 2: HCP Covered Activities • Station 3: Currently Proposed Covered Species

Conservation Strategy • Station 4: Modeled Stream Reaches • Station 5: Impact Analysis Methodology for Non-fish Species • Station 6: Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System

The second portion of the meeting was a presentation on the HCP, focusing on the Impact Analysis and Conservation Strategy for non-fish species. The presentation content included discussion on the following:

• Status of the HCP • Impact Analysis Methods for Non-fish Covered Species • Conservation Strategy for Non-fish Covered Species • Overview of Fish in the HCP and Integration with other Processes • Next Steps

The final portion of the meeting was a public comment and question/answer session. Project representatives convened at a table at the front of the room to take public comments and respond to questions. Additionally, participants were provided a comment card to write down questions or comments and submit to project representatives. An overview of public comments and questions/answers is included on the following pages. Copies of the meeting agenda, display boards, presentation and meeting handouts (fact sheet and comment card) are included in Appendix B.

Attendance Staff from SFPUC, the consultant teams and agency representatives attended the meeting. Joanne Wilson, SFPUC, facilitated the presentation and question answer/session and was supported by additional SFPUC staff, agency representatives and the consultant team. The following table lists the names of persons who attended to assist with meeting staffing.

Name Agency/Firm

Joanne Wilson SFPUC

Tim Ramirez SFPUC

Ellen Natesan SFPUC

Scott Chenue SFPUC

Cynthia Servetnick SFPUC

Michele Liapes SFPUC

Tim Koopman SFPUC

Sheila Larson US Fish and Wildlife Service

Marcia Grefsrud CA Department of Fish and Game

Gary Stern National Marine Fisheries Service

Josh Fuller National Marine Fisheries Service

Barbara McDonnell MWH

Paola Bernazzani ICF

Monique Briard ICF

Stefanie Lyster ICF

Dee Dee Workman Workman Associates

Risa Blumlein Workman Associates

Lily Dixon Workman Associates

Public Questions and Comments As noted on the previous page, a public comment and question/answer session followed the project presentation. The comments, questions and responses from meeting participants are documented below.

• Question: The impacts analysis for most impacts uses habitat as a proxy for species and

questions assumptions regarding what is suitable habitat, how thorough, what kind of surveys have been done, opportunistic or protocol-level surveys, where habitat occurs seasonally, etc. I would like to hear from regulatory agencies about what they think of assumptions regarding suitable habitat and extent of habitat, and how thorough the surveys were. Response: Assumptions regarding suitable habitat for the proposed covered species were (are) made only at the conclusion of the species accounts and only after taking into consideration the species’ needs. All species accounts have all assumptions at the end. The goal is to give a broad overview of what could be suitable habitat. We are willing to take comments on that. This is not a survey-based approach. It is based on understanding of the species needs, intended to capture more rather than less.

• Question: Regarding designated critical habitat - is it all considered suitable?

Response: The parameters used to evaluate actual impacts to model species are not the same as those used for critical habitats. We did analyze effects on critical habitat and all are described in the HCP. Over the last 2 years we have done intensive plant surveys for all rare plants. We learned a lot about what is out there. Those reports can be made available. They are not finished yet but have a lot of information that is very thorough. We surveyed throughout the flowering season and in all possible suitable habitat. There were a number of ponds surveyed, and that was integrated into habitat modeling process, as well as two years of butterfly surveys.

• Question: You made some assumptions about suitable habitat going into HCP. Where do those questions get answered? For example, the Callippe butterfly. Where does that decision get made (to include that species in the HCP)? I am interested to hear what the agencies have to say about it. Response: We welcome feedback on that. We are trying to be as accurate as possible. (Note that Agencies do not field questions at the public outreach meeting. Information on the decision making process for each species are found in Tables 1.1a and 1.1b)

• Question: I own land above creek. There is unrestricted release. Everything gets wiped out

every year. A 30-year plan should involve restructuring of that creek and habitats along with it. Forms of wildlife are important, but everything near the creek gets decimated every year. Response: Arroyo de la Laguna (the location where the landowner has property) is not part of the HCP area. Staff is aware of flood damage that potentially occurs every year. We have been working on projects for the last five years to alleviate floodwater. We are working with Alameda County Public Works, Zone 7, and the local resource conservation district and natural resource conservation service. We are trying to broaden the creek stream and use natural barriers to slow the creek down. Because of excessive construction upstream with no flood control regulation, the creek has become a torrent. We recognize that. We need to get groups of homeowners together to work on it.

• Question: Regarding conservation easements: are those already protected? Would it be better

to go out of boundaries and procure land for conservation easement? Response: We are. It is part of the plan and the different tools being considered. A conservation easement on one’s own land is a minor investment but is a commitment to long-term maintenance. We are negotiating easements with property owners upstream, and have made acquisitions for property for the Alameda whipsnake.

• Question: What is happening south along Interstate 680 along Andrade Road? Is that part of the

watershed? Are you looking at that area as well? Response: Yes, we are looking at that area as well.

• Question: Regarding road grading: how do you divide out permanent versus temporary effects?

Response: Road maintenance calculates impacts to the vegetation along the roadbed. It is described in Chapter 2. Most of activities are temporary because the vegetation re-establishes after the maintenance activities conclude.

• Question: Regarding hydrological models applied to fish in stream reaches: are you going to

apply the models to other aquatic forms like the Foothill yellow-legged frogs? Response: Yes. It is a different model, but we have the same researcher working on it. It is a hydrology-based spreadsheet model and not based on the EDT modeling. We are carrying out two separate impact assessments dealing with Foothill yellow-legged frog.

• Question: Have you ever seen a Foothill yellow-legged frog?

Response: Yes.

Next Steps Tim Ramirez, SFPUC, told the participants the public meeting was the beginning of the process to re-engage with stakeholders and that more meetings will be held with the public over the next six months. He encouraged participants to contact staff with additional questions or comments on the chapters and he thanked the participants for attending the meeting.

Appendix A Newsletter Sent to Stakeholders

San Francisco Public Utilities CommissionAlameda Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan Newsletter - Fall 2011

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), operator of the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System, began drafting the SFPUC Alameda Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in 2002. The HCP, which is described in the Alameda Watershed Management Plan, will mitigate impacts of SFPUC activities on plant, fish and wildlife habitat within the watershed and serve as a regulatory mechanism for complying with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

This newsletter provides information on the current status of the Draft HCP, species currently recommended for coverage and projected timelines.

Alameda Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan Update

Over the last year the SFPUC has been working on drafts for Chapter 4, Impact Analysis, and Chapter 5, Conservation Strategy. These drafts address direct and indirect impacts of covered activities and proposed conservation for non-fish species within the HCP area. The impact analysis and conservation strategy for fish species is ongoing, and the chapters will be updated to include these analyses once they are complete. These chapters will address direct and indirect impacts of covered activities on covered species and their habitat and the proposed conservation strategy that minimizes, mitigates, and monitors those impacts within the HCP area (plan area). Species recommended for coverage in the HCP have also been updated. (Please see - Currently Proposed Covered Species.)

Analyzing Impacts to Covered Fish, Plants and Wildlife

Most covered activities, such as road maintenance, that impact covered species are related to SFPUC operations and maintenance within the SFPUC-owned portion of the watershed. Two distinct models were developed to estimate impacts on fish versus non-fish species (non-fish species include terrestrial wildlife and aquatic or semi-aquatic wildlife such as Foothill yellow-legged frog and Western pond turtle).

Impacts from covered activities to non-fish species, including plants and wildlife (terrestrial and non-fish aquatic species), are being evaluated with a habitat-based land-cover model. This method estimates incidental take based on impacts to modeled habitat for each species. Estimated areas of impact, impact on land cover from covered activities, the proportion of land cover suitable for covered species, and temporary and permanent impacts on covered species are being addressed.

Impacts to covered fish species are currently being modeled based on estimated changes in habitat condition in Alameda Creek under several scenarios, including template, covered activities, and conservation strategy conditions. While based on data currently available, the model can incorporate new data, providing a mechanism to chart progress and refine mitigation measures over time.

Conservation Strategy

The conservation strategy addresses avoidance, minimization, mitigation, monitoring, and adaptive management as one integrated program. Guidelines have been developed to minimize impacts from covered activities over the Plan’s 30-year permit term. A framework for mitigation, including identification of high-priority areas for restoration and management, is being developed.

Conservation actions to mitigate for impacts on covered species have been developed mainly through land-cover management and water releases. Examples of habitat-management actions include the following:

• plant riparian vegetation in target streams,• reduce nonnative wildlife and plants,• restore pond hydrology to support covered frogs and reptiles (tiger salamander, red-legged frog, pond turtle),• enhance pond vegetation to support nesting tricolored blackbirds, and• install logs in ponds for Western pond turtles for basking.

Impacts from SFPUC operations on covered fish species will be minimized by releasing or bypassing water that could otherwise be stored or diverted. The water will restore and enhance habitats for fish, riparian trees, and other aquatic species.

Currently Proposed Covered Species

Correctly determining the species to be covered by the HCP is an essential component of the overall plan. More than 150 special-status species that currently occur in the watershed, or may occur over the course of the HCP permit term, were identified and analyzed for coverage.

Fifteen species met the screening criteria and are currently being proposed as covered species in the HCP, including three fish, nine wildlife and three plant species. Two additional plant species are under consideration for coverage.

Fish and wildlife species currently proposed for coverage include the following:

• Pacific lamprey• Central California Coast steelhead• Fall and late-fall run Central Valley Chinook salmon• California tiger salamander• California red-legged frog• Foothill yellow-legged frog• Tricolored blackbird• Western burrowing owl• Callippe silverspot butterfly• Pacific Townsend’s western big-eared bat• Western pond turtle• Alameda whipsnake

Resident rainbow trout, though not proposed for coverage, will be addressed under the conservation strategy for the HCP. Many of the HCP’s mitigation measures and beneficial projects for steelhead will also benefit rainbow trout.

Plant species currently proposed for coverage include:

• Round-leaved filaree• Fragrant fritillary• Most beautiful jewelflower

Additional plant species under consideration for coverage include:

• Congdon’s tarplant• Hospital canyon larkspur

Several plant species previously considered for coverage in the HCP have been removed based on new information showing that these species do not occur, or are likely to not occur in the HCP permit area: Tiburon Indian paintbrush, Presidio clarkia, Diablo helianthella, robust monardella.

Central California Coast steelhead

Callippe silverspot butterfly

California red-legged frog

Tricolored blackbird

Most beautiful jewelflower

Congdon’s tarplant

Public MeetingThursday, December 8, 2011

6:30 - 8:00 p.m.Dublin Public Library Community Room

Details Above

Alameda Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan San Francisco Public Utilities CommissionNatural Resources and Lands Management Division 1657 Rollins Road, Burlingame, CA 94010-2310

Alameda Watershed HCP Study Area

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Web site: http://sfwater.org/alamedahcp Manager: Joanne Wilson E-Mail: [email protected] Write: Alameda Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Natural Resources and Lands Management Division 1657 Rollins Road Burlingame, CA 94010-2310

UPCOMING PUBLIC MEETING

When: Thursday, December 8, 2011 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

6:30 p.m. Informational Open House 7:00 p.m. Presentation followed by a question-and-answer session

Where: Dublin Public Library Community Room 200 Civic Plaza, Dublin CA

Meeting Agenda:

• Update on the Alameda Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan • Impact Analysis Methods for Nonfish Covered Species • Conservation Strategy for Nonfish Covered Species • Overview of Fish in the HCP and Integration with other Processes • Next Steps • Q and A

All are welcome. For more information, a map to the location, or to review project materials please visit the project web site at http://sfwater.org/alamedahcp. Your attendance and participation are essential to this 30-year conservation planning effort. For arrangements for persons with disabilities please call (650) 652-3209 at least two business days prior to the event.

Independent Science Review Underway Soon

An independent review of the SFPUC Alameda Watershed HCP’s aquatic modeling, and the hydrology, hydraulic, and temperature modeling that supports it, will ensure that the highest possible scientific and technical tools are used to achieve the HCP’s policy and management goals. An Independent Science Review Panel will be composed of local and external experts in important aquatic resource topics to be evaluated in the HCP. A Review Advisory Committee will also be convened to guide the Panel’s review. We anticipate the public meeting for the Independent Science Review Panel to be held late spring of 2012.

Project Schedule

Draft Species Accounts and

Chapters 4 & 5 posted on SFPUC

public website

Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Spring 2013

Public Draft HCP and EIR/EIS

Final HCP and EIR/EIS

Appendix B Agenda, Display Boards, Presentation, Handouts

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "#$!%&#$'("')!*+,-('!+.(-(.(/"!')00(""()$!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! #-#0/1#!2#./&"3/1!3#,(.#.!')$"/&4#.()$!*-#$!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! *+,-('!0//.($5!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! .6789:;<=!1>?>@A>8!B=!CDEEF!!GFHD!IJ@J!KL!BFDD!IJ@J!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 17AMNO!-NA8;8<!'L@@7ONK<!&LL@=!17AMNO=!'#!

!!

*&)5&#0!!

.6;OP!<L7!QL8!;KK>O:NOR!KLONR6KS9!@>>KNOR!LO!K6>!";O!%8;O?N9?L!*7AMN?!+KNMNKN>9!'L@@N99NLO!#M;@>:;!2;K>896>:!

3;ANK;K!'LO9>8T;KNLO!*M;O!U3'*VJ!2>!WNMM!A>RNO!WNK6!;O!NOQL8@;KNLO;M!LI>O!6L79>!QLMMLW>:!A<!;!I8>9>OK;KNLO!;O:!

X7>9KNLOY;O:Y;O9W>8!9>99NLOJ!!178NOR!K6>!LI>O!6L79>=!<L7!;8>!NOTNK>:!KL!TN>W!NOQL8@;KNLO;M!>Z6NANK9!;O:!9I>;P!WNK6!

K>?6ON?;M!9K;QQ!KL!:N9?799!K6>!I8L[>?KJ!!.6>!I7AMN?!@>>KNOR!I8>9>OK;KNLO!WNMM!I8LTN:>!;O!7I:;K>!LO!K6>!3'*J!!(O!

;::NKNLO!KL!X7>9KNLO9!K;P>O!;K!KLONR6K\9!@>>KNOR=!;KK>O:>>9!@;<!97A@NK!W8NKK>O!?L@@>OK9!ULO!K6>!?L@@>OK!?;8:!

I8LTN:>:V!QL8!?LO9N:>8;KNLO!A<!K6>!I8L[>?K!K>;@J!!

!

)*/$!3)+"/!!!!!!! ! GFHD!IJ@J!Y!]FDD!IJ@J!

!! "K;KNLO!EF! ! ! ^! 3'*!"K7:<!#8>;!

! ! ! ! ! ! ^! 3'*!2;K>896>:!)T>8TN>W!

! ! ! ! ! ! ^! 3>K?6!3>K?6<!2;K>8!"<9K>@!0;I!

! "K;KNLO!CF! ! ! ^! ">M>?K>:!'LT>8>:!#?KNTNKN>9!

! "K;KNLO!HF! ! ! ^! *8LIL9>:!'LT>8>:!"I>?N>9!

! "K;KNLO!_F! ! ! ^! (@I;?K!#O;M<9N9!0>K6L:9!U$LOYQN96!"I>?N>9V!

! "K;KNLO!`F! ! ! ^! 'LO9>8T;KNLO!"K8;K>R<!U$LOYQN96!"I>?N>9V!

! "K;KNLO!GF! ! ! ^! 0L:>M>:!"K8>;@!&>;?6>9!

!

!

*+,-('!0//.($5!#5/$1#!!!!!]FDD!IJ@J!Y!]FHD!IJ@J!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ^!! 2>M?L@>!;O:!(OK8L:7?KNLO9!

! ! ! ! ! ! ^! +I:;K>!LO!K6>!"%*+'!#M;@>:;!2;K>896>:!3'*!

! ! ! ! ! ! ^! (@I;?K9!#O;M<9N9!0>K6L:9!QL8!$LOYQN96!'LT>8>:!"I>?N>9!

! ! ! ! ! ! ^! 'LO9>8T;KNLO!"K8;K>R<!QL8!$LOYQN96!'LT>8>:!"I>?N>9!

! ! ! ! ! ! ^! )T>8TN>W!LQ!%N96!NO!K6>!3'*!;O:!(OK>R8;KNLO!WNK6!LK6>8!*8L?>99>9!

! ! ! ! ! ! ^! $>ZK!"K>I9!

!!

a+/".()$!#$1!#$"2/&!"/""()$!!!!]FHD!IJ@J!Y!BFDD!IJ@J!!

!

%)&!0)&/!($%)&0#.()$F! ! ! 2>A9NK>F! 6KKIFbb9QW;K>8JL8Rb;M;@>:;6?I!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 'LOK;?KF! cL;OO>!2NM9LO=!0;O;R>8!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! [WNM9LOd9QW;K>8JL8R!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 28NK>F! ! #M;@>:;!2;K>896>:!3;ANK;K!'LO9>8T;KNLO!*M;O!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ";O!%8;O?N9?L!*7AMN?!+KNMNKN>9!'L@@N99NLO!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $;K78;M!&>9L78?>9!;O:!-;O:9!0;O;R>@>OK!1NTN9NLO!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! EG`]!&LMMNO9!&L;:!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ,78MNOR;@>=!'#!e_EDEYCHDE!

Welch Creek

San AntonioRe

servo

ir

Reservoir

Calaveras

Alameda

C reekDel

Lake

Valle

ArroyoHondo

San Antonio

Creek

Arroyode

laLaguna

Calaveras

Creek

LaCosta

Creek

A lame d a Creek

Vallecito's Creek

IndianCree k

Leyden C

reek

FremontH a y n e s

G u l c h

Milpitas

Mt.Day

Santa Clara Co.

Alameda Co.

A p p e r s o nR

i d g e

P o v e r t yR

i d g e

Su

no

lV

al l e

y

O a k R i d g e

W i l l i a m s

Gu l c h

Marsh Road

I -680

Niles

CanyonRoad

Calaveras R

oad

Vallecitos Road/ Rout

e

84

Ca la vera s

Road

Felter Road

I - 680

I - 680I-880

Sher idan

Road

Welle r

Road

Footh

illR d

Figure 3-3 SFPUC Land-Cover Type Map

Legend

©0 1 20.5

Miles1:100,000

Q: \

PR

OJE

CTS

\ S

FPU

C \

SFP0

1_02

\ M

APD

OC

\ FI

GU

RE

S_2

009

\ 200

9042

9 \ L

AN

DC

OV

ER

FIG

3-3

.MXD

(0

6-08

-09)

Land-Cover Types:

Stream

County LineSecondary Road

Primary Road

SFPUC OwnershipStudy Area

Solano

Sonoma Napa

Santa Clara

Marin

Alameda

Yolo

Contra Costa San Joaquin

Sacramento

StanislausSan Mateo

Santa Cruz Merced

San Francisco

San Benito

El DoradoLocation Map

GrasslandsNonnative GrasslandSerpentine Bunchgrass Grassland

Freshwater Wetland

Scrub/Chaparral

Woodland/Forest

Freshwater Marsh

Diablan Sage Scrub

Blue Oak Woodland

Oak SavannahValley Oak Woodland

Mixed Evergreen Forest/Oak WoodlandSerpentine Foothill Pine - Chaparral Woodland

Willow Riparian Forest/ScrubCentral Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest

White Alder Riparian Forest

Coast Live Oak Riparian ForestSycamore Alluvial Woodland

ReservoirQuarry Pond

Pond

Riparian

Aquatic

Developed and CultivatedCultivated AgricultureNursery

Disturbed/DevelopedTurf

Rock OutcropOther

ArroyoHondo

Fremont

Milpitas

Santa ClaraCounty

Contra Costa County

SanFrancisco Bay

Alameda County

Alameda Creek

Arroyo Valle

Calaveras Reservoir

San AntonioReservoir

Lake del Valle

Alamo

C reek

Tass

ajar

aCr

eek

ArroyoSeco

Arroyo

Mocho

Arroyo Las Positas

Pleasanton

AlamedaCreek

Alameda Watershed HCPWatershed Overview

DRAFT

San Francisco Public Utilities CommissionNatural Resources and Lands Management Division

JLukins 1-25-10

LegendHCP study area

WatershedsArroyo de la LagunaLower Alameda CreekUpper Alameda Creek

County boundary0 5 10

Miles

C:\j

erem

y\al

a\pr

ojec

ts\H

CP\

Ala

Wsh

ed_H

CP_

wat

ersh

eds.m

xd

1-2

5-10

K:\P

roje

cts_

2\SF

PUC

\SFP

01_0

2\m

apdo

c\fig

ures

_200

9\20

0904

29\fi

gure

_2-1

_cov

ered

_act

iviti

es_B

.mxd

ds

11/

22/2

011

Figure 2-1Alameda Watershed HCP Selected Covered Activities

0 1 2Miles

±

an ICF International Company

The standard text font is Myriad Pro.If needed, copy the fonts from S:\GIS\Tools|Figure_Templates_2008\Myriad\to your C:\Windows\Fonts\ folder.

Selected Covered ActivitiesVegetation Management*

Sunol Valley Recreation Plan

!( Sludge Pond Maintenance

TX Bridge Replacement & Construction

Road Maintenance

"n| Boat Launch Construction

Other FeaturesHCP Study Area

Stream

Aqueduct

Paved Road

TX

TX

TX

TX

"n|

!(!(

Welch Creek

San Antonio Re

servo

ir

Reservoir

Calaveras

Alameda C reek

Del

Lake

Valle

Arroyo Hondo

San Antonio Creek

Arroyo de la L agu na

Calaveras Creek

La Costa Cre

ek

A lame d a Creek

Vallecito's Creek

Pirate Cre ek

Indian Creek

Valpe Creek

Sinbad Creek

Stoneybrook Cree k

Leyd

en Creek

H a y n e s

G u l c h

Milpitas

Mt.Day

Santa Clara Co.

Alameda Co.

A p p e r s o n R i d g e

P o v e r t y R i d g e

S u n o l V a l l e y

O a k R i d g e

W i l l i a m s G u l c h

Marsh Road

Niles

Canyon Road

Calaveras R

oad

Cal averas R

oad

Felter Road

Sheridan Road

Weller R

oad

Footh

ill Rd

South Bay Aqueduct

Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct

Fremont

§̈¦680680

§̈¦880880

·|}þ84

·|}þ238

·|}þ237

·|}þ17

*A majority of vegetation management will occur in these areas

Vegetation Management*

Selected Covered Activities

Road Maintenance

Boat Launch ConstructionSludge Pond Maintenance

*A majority of vegetation management will occur in these areas

Bridge Replacement and/or Maintenance

Recreation Improvements in the Sunol Valley

Selected Covered Activities*

SFPUC ALAMEDA WATERSHED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (AWHCP)

0 1 2

Miles

!<(

La Costa 1La Costa 2

La Costa 3

San Antonio 3San Antonio 2

StonybrookSinbad

Pirate 1Alameda 14

Alameda 13

Alameda 16

Calaveras 4

Alameda 3

Alameda 18

Calaveras 2

Welch 1

San Antonio 5Alameda 5

Alameda 21Little Yosemite

Calaveras 1

Alameda 8

Calaveras 3

Alameda 12

Alameda 7

Alameda 15Welch 2

Alameda 10

Indian 1

Alameda 19

Alameda 4

Alameda 17

Alameda 11

Alamed

a 6

Indian Jo

e

D ry

Arroyo Hondo 2

Alameda 20

San Antonio 1 Indian 2

Valpe

San Antonio 4

San Antonio 6

Calaveras

5

Alameda 2

Alameda

23

Alameda 9

Indian 3 La Costa 4

Calaveras 6

Indian 4

Arroyo Hondo 1

Williams Gulch

Alameda 1

Isabel

Arroyo Hondo

3

SmithAlameda 22

Figure 4-2 Alameda Watershed Reaches

Legend

0 2 41Miles

K: \

PR

OJE

CTS

_1 \

SFP

UC

\ SF

P01_

02 \

MA

PDO

C \

FIG

UR

E_4

_2_R

EA

CH

ESA_

2011

1129

.MX

D D

S (

04-1

5-10

)

Solano

Santa Clara

Sonoma

San Joaquin

Napa

Marin

Alameda

Contra Costa

Yolo

Stanislaus

Sacramento

San Mateo

Santa Cruz MercedSan Benito

San Francisco

El DoradoLocation Map

Complete Obstruction

Partial Obstruction

!<( Alameda Creek Diversion Dam

Other Relevant Obstruction

Stream Reaches

Water Body

Subwatershed

HCP Study Area

©

©

Figure 4-1Methodology for Estimating Direct Impacts on Covered Species

Gra

phic

s … S

FP01

.02

(11-

22-1

1)

Step One

Map or estimate activity footprint.

Step Two

Calculate acres of each land-covertype a�ected.

Step Three

Calculate proportion of impact to speci�cland-cover types.

Step Four

Calculate (if model exists) or estimate(if no model exists) proportion of suitablehabitat for covered species in eachland-cover type.

Step Five

Multiply impacts to each land-cover type by proportion of suitable habitatto quantify impacts on covered species.

Step Six

Summarize total acres of impacts for each species.

San Andreas Fault

PACIFICOCEAN

SFO

SAN FRANCISCO BAY

Crystal SpringsReservoir

HALF MOON BAY Pulgas Water Temple

Pulgas Tunnel

PALO ALTO

SANTA CLARABay Division Pipelines Nos. 3 & 4

San AntonioReservoir

Coast Range Tunnel

Sunol ValleyWater Treatment Plant

San JoaquinPipelines

FoothillTunnel

New Don PedroReservoir

MoccasinPowerhouse and Reservoir

STANISLAUSNATIONALFOREST

Priest Reservoir

YOSEMITE NATIONAL

PARK

Lake Eleanor Reservoir

Hetch HetchyReservoir

Lake LloydReservoir

(Cherry Lake)

Early IntakeDiversion Dam

Kirkwood Powerhouse

CanyonPower Tunnel

Cherry Power Tunnel

Holm Powerhouse

TUOLUMNERIVER

O'Shaughnessy Dam

Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System

Hayward Fault

Calaveras Fault

HAYWARD

SAN FRANCISCO

Harry TracyWater

TreatmentPlant

San Andreas Reservoir

PilarcitosReservoir

PENINSULA

BAY DIVISION

Bay Division Pipelines Nos. 1 & 2

SUNOL VALLEY

SAN JOAQUIN

Calaveras Dam & Reservoir

FREMONTNEWARK

MILPITAS

REDWOOD CITY

SAN MATEO

MILBRAE

DALY CITY

TRACYIrvington Tunnel

SFPUC ALAMEDA WATERSHED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (AWHCP)

1

SFPUC Alameda Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan

December 8, 2011

Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

Meeting Agenda

• Update on the SFPUC Alameda Watershed HCP

• Review covered activities and covered species

• Description of impact analysis methods and conservation strategy approach for non-fish species

• Status update on modeling for fish

• Next steps 2

SFPUC Alameda Watershed

What is the SFPUC Alameda Watershed HCP?

• Mitigation and conservation plan for SFPUC activities related to … • Operations and maintenance (O&M) • Selected lease agreements • Conservation Strategy implementation

• The HCP is being developed to support SFPUC’s permit application to the Service for an incidental take permit under ESA. • Take under ESA = An action or attempt to hunt, harm,

harass, pursue, shoot, wound, capture, kill, trap, or collect a species.

3

Update on AWHCP

4

Update on AWHCP

• Project progress since 2008 scoping meetings: • Developed draft Chapters 1-3 (posted January 2010) • Developed draft Chapter 4 - Impact Analysis and

Chapter 5 - Conservation Strategy (posted November 2011) Non-fish species only Development of models for impacts and conservation of fish

species underway

• Updated covered species list and species under consideration for coverage

5

Proposed Covered Activities

• Operations and Maintenance • Watershed • Reservoir • Water Transmission and Filtration System

• Lease Permitting and Easements

• HCP Implementation

6

1. Occurrence: Does species occur, or is it expected to occur in watershed?

2. Legal Status: Is species currently or expected to be listed?

3. Impact: Will species likely be adversely affected by covered activities?

4. Data: Are data sufficient to determine impacts and conservation measures? Most beautiful

jewelflower

Criteria for Covered Species

Proposed Covered Species

• Species changes since last public meeting • 17 species under consideration

• 3 fish species • 5 plant species • 9 wildlife species

8

9

Impact Analysis Methods for

Non-fish Covered Species

Impact Analysis Overview

• Impact Analysis • Impacts to habitat

used as a proxy for impacts to species (this will overestimate impacts)

• Based on species-habitat models, mapped impacts, and spreadsheet analyses.

10

Types of Impacts & Analyses

• Direct and Indirect Impacts

• Temporary and Permanent Impacts

• Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses

• Effects on Critical Habitat

• Cumulative Effects

Covered Activities Map

Overlaid with a species habitat model map

Calculate areas of impact

Map Overlay to Calculate Impacts

• Example Covered Activity: Road Maintenance • Example Covered Species:


Impact Analysis Example


Step 1: Calculate Area of Impact

• Map area of impact in GIS: Example temporary impacts on most beautiful jewelflower from road maintenance and use • 128.25 acres disturbed per

road maintenance event.

• Occurs every 2 years.

• 90% temporary.

• Which averages to 64.1 acres per year.

Step 2 : Estimate Proportion of Each Land Cover Type Affected by Impacts

• Calculate proportion of impact using GIS based (or expert opinion):

Example road maintenance and use • 90% in developed/disturbed areas • 5% in non-native grassland • 0.1 % in serpentine bunchgrass

grassland • 0.3% in Diablan sage scrub • Less than 1% in each woodland

type and intermittent/ephemeral streams

Step 3 :Calculate proportion of impacts on each land cover type per year

• Partition 64.1 acres of temporary annual impact from road maintenance and use into the land cover types affected • 58.0 acres in developed/disturbed • 3.3 acres in non-native grassland • 1.2 acres in mixed evergreen

forest/oak woodland • 0.06 acre in serpentine

bunchgrass grassland • 0.19 acre in Diablan sage scrub • Less than 1 acre in all other land

cover types impacted.

• Example species: most beautiful jewelfower • 88% of serpentine

bunchgrass grassland is primary habitat

• 12% of serpentine bunchgrass grassland is suitable and 100% of Diablan sage scrub is secondary habitat

Step 4 :Calculate proportion of each land cover type for each species

• Multiply proportion of suitable habitat by impacts from each covered activity

Example: road maintenance and use • Annual temporary impacts from

road maintenance and use on most beautiful jewelflower: • 0.05 acres of primary habitat • 0.20 acres of secondary habitat

Step 5: Overlay species habitat with impact model

• After calculating impact of every covered activity on each covered species, sum them up

Total estimated impacts on most beautiful jewelflower • Temporary impacts:

• 1.2 acres primary habitat • 1.7 acres secondary habitat

• Permanent impacts: • 1.6 acres primary habitat • 6.5 acres secondary habitat

Step 6: Summarize acres of impact for each species

• Greatest impact to non-native grassland. • Low impact to sensitive land-cover types.

Results of Impact Analysis: Impacts to Land Cover Type

Amount of Primary Habitat Impacted

Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts

Total impacts from all covered activities

388 acres/year 337 acres total during entire permit term

Impacts to non-native grassland

275 acres/year (~2% of total)

69 acres (~0.4% of total)

Freshwater marsh 0.0 acres 0.1 acres

Serpentine bunchgrass grassland

0.6 acres 0.9 acres

Serpentine foothill pine 0.7 acres 0.9 acres

• Very low impact to most species. Most species have less than 1% of their habitat impacted by all covered activities combined.

• See Table 4-5 in Chapter 4 for more detail. • For example: California tiger salamander

• Temporary impacts will affect 0.32% of primary and 0.49% of secondary habitat. • Permanent impacts will affect 1.0% of primary and 0.41% of secondary habitat.

Results of Impact Analysis: Impacts to Species

California tiger salamander

24

Conservation Strategy for Non-fish Covered Species

Conservation Strategy Elements

• Based on Biological Goals and Objectives

• Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs)

• Conservation Measures • Monitoring • Adaptive Management

25

Biological Goals and Objectives

• Foundation for the conservation strategy • Goals

• Broad, Guiding Principles

• Objectives • Specific Measurable Targets • Components Needed to Achieve the Goals

Avoidance and Minimization Measures

• Developed specifically for HCP - cross referenced to existing AMMs the SFPUC has developed for other projects and documents.

• Integrates pre-activity surveys and systematic plant surveys, which may trigger additional AMMs.

27

Conservation Measures

• Proposed conservation will be carried out even if impacts are less than estimated by the impact analysis.

• Achieve biological goals and objectives: • Habitat restoration and enhancement • Species-specific management (if applicable) • Flow releases • Other: land protection and mitigation banks

28

Habitat Management

• Management of Restored/ Enhanced Sites • Removal of invasive

species

• Planting native species

• Grazing

• Fencing and other exclusion techniques

29

Stream Restoration

Potential Enhancement and Restoration Sites

30

Monitoring

• Ensure that the biological goals and objectives are being met

• Two main types of monitoring • Compliance monitoring

• Tracks the status of HCP implementation.

• Effectiveness monitoring • Assesses the biological

success of the HCP • Status and Trends • Effects of Management

31

Adaptive Management

32

33

Overview of Fish in the HCP and Integration with Other Processes

34

HEC-RAS UnSteady State Model

HEC-RAS Steady State Model

ASDHM Model Width-Flow Relationship

McBain and Trush Flows at 500’ Intervals

Between Nodes

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Model temperature

dissolved oxygen

% pool

% pool tailout

% glide

% l.c. riffle

% s.c. riffle

width

high flow

low flow

suspended sed

barrier passage

Flow at 12 Nodes

temperature

Model Relationships

35

Modeled Stream Reaches

Aquatic Model Methodology

36

Independent Science Review

• Early 2012 • Independent Science Review Panel • Review Advisory Committee

37

Next Steps and Schedule

38

Fall 2011 Fall 2012 Spring 2013 Draft Species Accounts and Chapters 4 and 5 posted on SFPUC public website



39

Questions & Answers

! ! ! !

SFPUC ALAMEDA WATERSHED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FACT SHEET

December 8, 2011

Background The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) operator of the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System, began drafting the SFPUC Alameda Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in 2002. The HCP will mitigate impacts of SFPUC activities on plant, fish and wildlife habitat within the watershed and serve as a regulatory mechanism for complying with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). This fact sheet provides information on the current status of the draft HCP, species currently recommended for coverage and projected timelines.

SFPUC Alameda Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan Update The first five chapters of the Alameda Watershed HCP have been drafted and are posted at http://sfwater.org/alamedahcp. All drafts are preliminary since information is still being collected and analyses have yet to be completed.

HCP Draft Chapters 1 - 3 The first three chapters of the HCP were posted January 2011. Comments from federal and state agencies and the public are also posted on the website. These chapters will be revised for the Public Draft. Chapter 1 ("Introduction") provides the scope, regulatory context, and methodology for selecting special-status species for coverage. Chapter 2 ("Covered Activities") addresses the evaluation and selection of covered activities associated with the SFPUC water supply system operations and maintenance in the study area, lease permitting and easement activities, and implementation of the HCP conservation strategy. Chapter 3 ("Physical and Biological Resources") covers the physical and biological setting for the Alameda Watershed HCP, the baseline conditions, and data collection methods.

HCP Draft Chapter 4: Impact Analysis Most covered activities that impact covered species are related to SFPUC operations within the SFPUC-owned portion of the Alameda watershed. Two distinct models were developed to estimate impacts on fish versus non-fish species (non-fish species include terrestrial wildlife and aquatic or semi-aquatic wildlife such as foothill yellow-legged frogs and western pond turtles). Impacts from covered activities to plants and wildlife (terrestrial and non-fish aquatic species) are being evaluated using a habitat-based land-cover model. This method estimates incidental take based on impacts to modeled habitat for each species. Impacts to covered fish species are currently being modeled based on estimated changes in habitat condition in Alameda Creek under several scenarios, including baseline, covered activity and conservation strategy conditions.

Draft Chapter 5: Conservation Strategy The conservation strategy addresses avoidance, minimization, mitigation, monitoring and adaptive management as one integrated program. Guidelines have been developed to minimize impacts from covered activities over the Plan’s 30-year permit term. A framework for mitigation, including identification of high-priority areas for restoration and enhancement is being developed. Examples of habitat-management actions include the following:

• plant riparian vegetation along target streams, • reduce invasive, nonnative wildlife and plants, • restore pond hydrology to support covered amphibians and reptiles, • enhance pond vegetation to support nesting tricolored blackbirds, • install basking sites in ponds for western pond turtles, and • increase Callippe silverspot host plant abundance through seeding and grazing modifications.

Impacts from SFPUC operations on covered fish species will be minimized by releasing water that could otherwise be stored or diverted. The water will restore and enhance habitats for fish, riparian trees and other aquatic species.

Currently Proposed Covered Fish and Wildlife Species

Fish and Wildlife

• Pacific lamprey • Tricolored blackbird • Central California Coast steelhead • Western burrowing owl • Fall and late-fall run Central Valley Chinook salmon • Callippe silverspot butterfly • California tiger salamander • Pacific Townsend's western big-eared bat • California red-legged frog • Western pond turtle • Foothill yellow-legged frog • Alameda whipsnake

Resident rainbow trout, though not proposed for coverage, will benefit from many HCP mitigation measures.

Plants Plant species currently proposed for coverage include: Additional plant species under consideration • Round-leaved filaree for coverage include: • Fragrant fritillary • Congdon's tarplant • Most beautiful jewelflower • Hospital Canyon larkspur

Several plant species previously considered for coverage in the HCP have been removed based on new information showing that these species do not occur, or are likely to not occur in the HCP permit area:

Tiburon Indian paintbrush, Presidio clarkia, Diablo helianthella and robust monardella.

Project Schedule


Draft Species Accounts and Chapters 4 & 5 posted on

SFPUC public website



Acronyms

AMM Avoidance and Minimization Measure GIS Geographic Information System

BMP Best Management Practice HCP Habitat Conservation Plan

BO Biological Opinion NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

DFG California Department of Fish and Game NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act O&M Operations and Maintenance Activities

CESA California Endangered Species Act Plan SFPUC Alameda Watershed HCP

CSC California species of special concern SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

EIR Environmental Impact Report Regional Board Regional Water Quality Control Board

EIS Environmental Impact Statement USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wildlife Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service

ESA Federal Endangered Species Act California Department of Fish and Game

For more information about the Alameda Watershed Habitat Conservation Plan, please go to the SFPUC website at !http://sfwater.org/alamedahcp, or email Joanne Wilson at [email protected].

Project Schedule


Draft Species Accounts and Chapters 4 & 5 posted on

SFPUC public website



Acronyms

AMM Avoidance and Minimization Measure Geographic Information System

BMP Best Management Practice HCP

GIS

Habitat Conservation Plan

BO Biological Opinion NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

DFG California Department of Fish and Game NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act O&M Operations and Maintenance Activities

CESA California Endangered Species Act Plan SFPUC Alameda Watershed HCP

CSC California species of special concern SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

EIR Environmental Impact Report Regional Board Regional Water Quality Control Board

EIS Environmental Impact Statement USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Wildlife Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service

ESA Federal Endangered Species Act California Department of Fish and Game

SFPUC ALAMEDA WATERSHEDHABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

(HCP)I am submitting a question to be answered attonight’s meeting

I am submitting a comment to be considered by theProject Team in development of the HCP

QUESTION / COMMENT CARD

Please Print Legibly Date:

Name Title

Organization or business (if applicable)

Address

City, State, Zip

Phone Fax

E -Mail

This is your chance to comment on key habitat conservation issues related to the SFPUC Alameda Watershed HCP includingthe impact analysis methodology and conservation strategies. Your input is encouraged and greatly appreciated. Please leave your comments on the sign-in table or mail to: Joanne Wilson, Alameda Watershed HCP Program Manager, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, 1657 Rollins Road, Burlingame, CA, 9410-2310.

Thank you for your interest and participation in the Alameda Watershed Habitat Conservation Planning process.

sfpuc awhcp - san francisco public utilities commission

Documents