J_/ 8.2 BIOLOGICALRESOURCES o This sectiondescribes biological resourcesin the vicinity ofthe RussellCity EnergyFacility (RCEC)and the AdvancedWastewater Treatment (AWT) Plant,and the potentialeffects of the projecron them. Section8.2.1 discusses the affected environnr€nt, including a regionaloverview of vegetation,sensitive plantcommunities, wedands, wildlife, economically imporfant wildlife species,and special stahrs species.Section 8,2,1 also discusses methods and results ofbiological field surveysat theRCEC and AWT plant site, and alongeach of the linear facilities. Section8.2.2 discusses the effectsthat constructionand subsequent operation of thenew facilities may have on specialstatus plant and animal speciesand sensitive habitats. Section 8.2.3 evaluates any potential cumulative impacts to biological resourcesin fte projectvicinity andSection 8.2.4 addresses proposed mitigation measures. Section 8.2.5 presentsapplicable laws, ordinances,regulations and standards(LORS). Section8.2-6 presents agency contactsand Section 8.2.7 presents permit requirements and schedules. Section 8.2.8 contains references. 8.2.1 AffectedEnvironment Coastal habitats along the eastem shore of San Francisco Bay inelude salt marshes,brackish sloughs, coastal Prairies, and coastal sagescrub communities. The largest salt marsh community in California is locatedaround San FranciscoBay. Communitytypes in the project study areasinclude coastalsalt marsh, brackish sloughs, mud flats, emergentmarsh, and annual grassland. 8.2.1.1 RegionalBiological Resources fie proposed RCEC project is located on the alluvial coastal plain of the San Francisco Bay. The alluvial coastal plains have been largely converted to urban development, salt evaporation ponds, or ruderal (disturbed and weedy) areas. Rermmntsof the historic northem coastal salt rlarsh complex remain protected in parks and preserves@gure 8.2-1). These include the Hayward Regional Shoreline (west of the project site), the San Leandro Shoreline Park and Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline (northwest ofthe project site), the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (sourh of the project site), and CoyoteHills RegionalPark (southeastof the project site). Other biological resourcesinclude brackish sloughs sucb as Alarneda Creek, and brackish nmrshesand abandonedsalt evaporation ponds with the potential for restoration.

Biological resources located in the hills east of Hayward and San Leandro include Lake Chabot and Anthony Chabot Regional Park, and Garin Regional Park. Ecosystemsoccuring in these areas include those commonly encountered in the foothills of the Coast Ranges, such as oak woodland and valley/foothill grassland. 8.2.1.2 Vegetation Biological habitatswithin the project areaconsist primarily of coastalsalt marsh,brackish/freshwater marsh,salt productionfacilities (evaporationponds), ruderal areas, and urban landscapes with horticultural lreesand shrubs. Approxinratelyone-half.of tlre areawithin a l-mile radiusof the RCEC consistsof urbanizedand industrialareas within the City of Hayward. The otherhalf consistsprimarily of northemcoastal salt marshand brackish sloughs that havebeen variously preserved, converted to otheruses (sewage treatnent facilities, landfills, and salt evaporationponds), or areundergoing restoration.

RussellCity EnergyCenrer AFC. Vol. I 8_2-1 Biological Resources The dominantvegetation types at aheRCEC and AWT ptantsite areannual grassland and seasonal wetlanddominated by saltgrass(Dic ichlis spicata), andalkalai heath (Fran kenia salina).The transmissionline corridor, naturalgas pipelinq and waterpipelines cross urban landscapes dominated by ruderalspecies (i,e., weedyplants that grow in distu$ed areas)and horticultural treesand shrubs. 8.2.1.3 Sensitive Plant Communities The only sensitiveplant cormrunity found within the projectarea is the nonherncoastal salt marsh habitat. Representativespecies found in the salt marshcommunity include pickleweed(Salicomia virginica), salt gtass(Distichlis spicara),and alkali heath(Frankenia salina\. 8,2,1.4 Wetlands Thereare 1.68acres of seasonalwetlands on the 14.7-acreproject site- Much of the historic salt marsh communitywithin I mile of the site hasbeen altered or eliminatedby urbandevelopment, sewage treatrnentfacilities, salt evaporationponds, and the constructionofdikes and leveesto preventflooding and intrusionof saltwater. Remainingsalt marshin the projectirnpact area includes cogswell Marsh, managedby the EastBay RegionalPark District, the HaywardArea RecreationDistrict (HARD) marsh restorationproject, and severalbrackish/freshwater marshes. Creeks and sloughsdraining into the Bay includeMt. EdenCreek and two unnamedsloughs draining into HaywardLanding and Johnson l,anding. 8.2.1.5 Wildlife wildlife habitaton or within I mile of theproject sire and consists of urbanland, marginal freshwater/brackishmarsh communities, and the highly diversenonhem coastal salt marshcomnunities of the CogswellMarsh and the HARD Marsh- Listed speciesin the northerncoastal salt nrarsh communityinclude the salt marshharvesl nrtr:rrrse (Reithrodontontys raviventris), clapper mIl (Rallus longirostris obsoletus),and salt-marshwandering shre w (Sorexvagrans halicoetes). 8.2.1-6 Economically lmportant Wildlife Specles Thereare no economicallyimportant terrestrial wildlife specieswithin the impaca area ofthe proposed proje€t.

8.2.1,7 Special Environmental Areas in proiect Vicinity Specialenvironmental areas within a l-mile radiusofthe projectsite include Cogswell Marsh, managod by the EastBay RegionalPark District, the HARD marshrestoration project andShoreline Interpretive Center,and a small sectionof Mt. EdenCreek. 8.2.1.8 Special Status Species The designationof specialstatus includes all state-and federallyJistedspecies under the srateand federal EndangeredSpecies Acts (ESAs);species proposed for thoselistings; federalspecies of concem (sc); california speciesof special concem (csc); califomia Fully hotected speciesunder the Fish and Gamecode; andplant speciesdesignated as Rare,Threatened, or Endangeredby the califomia Native Plant Sociely (CMS). Speciesof concerninclude thosethat could be listed in the future and rhose currentlyprote.ted under other laws (e.g.,the Bald and GoldenEagle protection Act, and the Migratory Bird TreatyAct).

RussellCity EnergyCenter AFC, Vol. I 4.2-2 BiologicalResources ffiresff

l leuorGeg p4ap{o3

eulproqg;euo16og {sA rc Standatdreferences used for the biology and taxonomyof plantsand plant communitiesincluded CalifomiaDepartment ofFish andGame (1999); Hickman, ed. (1993); Holland (1986); Mason (1957); Munz(1959); and Skinner and Pavlik, eds. (1994). Standard references used for thebiology and taxonomyof wildlife includedBehler and King (1979);Ehrlich et al. (1988);Jameson and Peeters (1988);Jennings and Hayes (1994); Mayer and Laudenslayer, eds. (1988); McGinnis (1984); Peterson (1990);Stebbins (1985); Udvardy (1977); Vemer and Boss (1980); Whitaker (1980); and Zeiner et al. (1988;1990 a, b).

A computerizedsearch of the Califomia Natural Diversity Data Base(CNDDB/RareFind report, February2001) was conductedfor the SanLeandro, Hayward, Newark, and Redwood Point USGS topographicquadrangles (the "study Area")- This searchwas conducted to determineif therewere any occurrencesof state-or federallylisted speciesrecorded within or nearthe project study area. Known locationsof specialstatus species, based on the databasesearch, are mappedon Figure 8.2-2. Appendix 8.2-A containsthe CNDDB report. kr additionto the CNDDB/RareFindreporL a letter wassent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS), Sacramento Field Office, requestingfile dataon specialstatus speciesthat could occur in the project yiciniry. The USFWSresponse is presentedin Appendix 8.2-8. In additionto the literaturesources mentioned above, site-specific information was gathered during field surveysconducted in the springof 2001(Section 8.2.1.10). Speeial Status Plants Table8.2-l liststhe specialstatus plant species in thevicinity of theproject components, based on CNDDB/RareFindand USFWSdata. Brief descriptionsof specialstatus plant speciesthat may occurin the project areaare presented below- Habitatfor thesespecies occurs near the proposedproject site.

Afkafi mifk-vetch lAstragalus tener var. tener) . Habitat and Biologr: Annual herb; CNPSList lB; that occursin coastalmarch and other alkalinehabitats, such as playas,adobe clay valley and foothill grasslands,and alkalinevemal pools(Skinner and Pavlik 1994). . Blooming: March to June . Range: Sealevel to 300feet above msl. Knownfrom Alameda, Contra Costa, Merced, Monterey,Napa, San Benito, Santa Clara, SanFrancisco, San Joaquin, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus,and Yolo counties. . CNDDB/RareFind Records; Thereare six recordsfor this specieson the USGS7.5-minu0e Hayward,Newark, Redwood Point, andSan Leandro Quads. Thereis one extirpatedrecord within the project impact are4 mapped0.3 miles westofthe SouthemPacific Railroadadjacent to the traasmissionlines. . Habitat Present in Study Area: Habitatfor this speciesoccurs in the RCECand AWT plant site.

RussellCity EnergyCenter AFC, Vol. I 8.24 Biologica! R€sources rTable8.2-1. Specialstatus plant species potentially occurrino in the RCECproiecl area. FederaY Habltat ln State/ impact Sciediflc Name CommonName CNPS' Sourceb araa? Blooms Astragalus tener \ar. tencr Alkali milk-vetch sc/--nB 1,2 Yes Mar-May Atriplex depressa Bfinlescale sc/--l18 1 No May-Oct B a Isamo hiza mac ro I epi s Big-scale balsamroot -l--llB 2 No Mar-June var. macrolepis Cordylanthus maitimus Point Reyes bird sbeak sc/--llB t Yes Jun-Oct ssp.palustris Cordylant hus rnollis ssp. Hispid bird's beak sc/R./tB 2 Marginal Jul-Sep hispidus Fritillaria lilincea Fragrant fritillary sc/--i I B 2 No Feb Apr Helisnthella casmnea Diablo rock rose sg--/18 I No Apr-Jun Hemizonis parryi ssp- CongdoD'starylant sci--llB No Jun-Nov congdonii Horkelia cuneata ssp. Kellog's horkelia sc/--llB 2 No Apr-Sepr seicea Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields EJ.-/IB t', No Mar-Jun Iathyrus jepsonii Delta tule pea s(y--lt B I Marginal May-Jun Lilaeopsis masonii Mason's lilaeopsis SC/R/IB l No Apr-Oct Plagiobothrys glaber Hairless popcorn flower sc/--llA Yes Apr-May Suaeda califumica Califomia seablite PEt--/18 I Marginal Jul-Oct ' StahE Caaesod€s: Rder"l slalusdetemined from e USFWSlener (KniShl 20OI, pflsonal communi€tior). SLaEsrahs dct€rminedfrom Specr'a,Plartr Ltt (June1999), and/or Sratu 6nd FederallyLisred Entlan?creil, mrcareneL and RarePlants of Catilomila (Apdl | 99), prcpoftd by CDFG NaturalDv€tsity DaraBase. CNPSstatus del€rmined f.om CIVPS/aventory of Rareand Eadaag.redvatcular Flanls of Colifomia (S|flmP.f*fr Pavlik 1994), Codesusrd in rablear€ as follows: D = EndangFrcd;T = Threatened;R = Cslifomia Rare;PE = ProposedEndangered C = Caodidale:Td\a for which the UsFwS hass[Ificient biological fonoation 10support a p$posal to list as endangeredoa . threatened. SC = UsFwS SPecie,sof Comem: Taxafor which existing infonnation may warrantlisting, but for which substantialbiological information to supporta proposedrule is lacking. 'Species SSC = CDFG of SpecialConcem" CNPSUst: lA = I'resurnedErtinct in CA; lB = Rareor Endangeredin CA and elsewhef,€;2 = R/3 in CA and Inorc common elsewherci3 = NeedInorc information;4 = Plantsof limited distribution. - = Speciesoot slatelistcd. o Egglfgr I = FIom USFWSletrer (Ituighr 2001,personal communicttion). 2 = From CNDDB/ RareFind-

Hispid bird's beak (Cordylanthue morris$p. tisprdus) . Habitat and Biologr: Annualherb, hemiparasitic; CNPS List lB; alkalinemeadows and playas, . Blooming: Juneto September . Range: Alameda,Kem, Merced,Placer, and Solanocounties. . CNDDB/RareFind Records: No recordsfor this specieson the USGS?.s-minute San lrandro Quad. . Habitat Present in Study Area: Marginal habitatoccurs in alkaline soils in the projectsite and adjacentstormwater retention pond. Also in playasin CogswellMarsh and I{ARD Marsh.

RussellCity EnergyCerter AFC, Vol. I 8.2-5 Biological Resources EVAPOT4TOA$ ro =;r{: t- * I Stated -*.'.

{cati*omia Leoend Point Reyes bird\ beak (Cordylanthus marftimus ssg, patustris\ . Habitat and Biology: Annual herb; FederalSC and CNPS Li st l B; found in coasralsalr marshesassociated with pickleweed, saltgrass, and jaumea. . Blooming: June to October . Range: Restricted to coastal salt marshesin California and Oregon. . CNDDB/RareFind Records: There are six records for this species on the USGS 7.5-minute Ilayward, Newark, Redwood Point, and San Leandro Quads. . Habitat Present in Study Area: Potential habitat for this species occurs in the salt marsh habiats in Cogswell Marsh and IIARD Marsh.

Oefta tufe pea (l.athyrua lepsonii van jepsonlll . Habitat and Biologr: Perennial herb: Federal SC, CNPS List lB; found in brackish marsh (Skinnerand Pavlik 1994). . Blooming: May to June . Range: Alameda" Contra Costa, Fresno, Marin, Napa, Sacmrnento, San Benito, Santa Clara, San Joaquin,and Solanocounties. . CNIIDB/RareFind Records! There are no records for this species on the USGS 7.5-minute Hayward, Newark, Redwood Point, and San Leandro Qqads. . Ilabitat Present in Study Area: Potential habitat occurs in brackish/fteshwater marshesand sloughs in the western part of the prcject impact area.

Mason's lilaeopsis (llilaeopsis masoniit . Habitat and Biologr: Perennial herb; State R, Federal SC, CNPS List lB; found in brackish marshes,swamp areas,and riparian scrub (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). O . Blooming: April to October . Range: South SacramentoValley and northeastSan Francisco Bay. . CNDDB/RareFind Records: No records on the USGS 7.5-minure San Leandro Quad. . Habitat Present in Stldy Area: Potential habitat occurs in brackish/freshwater marshesand sloughs in the western part of the project impact area. Hairfes$ popcom tlower (Plagiobothrys glaherl . Habitat and Biologr: Annual herb; Federal Endangeredand CNPS List lA; found in meadows, seeps,marshes and swamps. Especially thought to prefer coastal salt marshesand alkaline meadows- . Blooming: April to May . Range: holated to alkaline meadows and coastal salt marshes in northem Califomia. . CNDDB/RareFind Records: Ttere are two records for rhis species on the USCS 7.5-minute Hayward, Newark, Redwood Point, and San Leandro Quads. . Habitat Present in Study Area: Potential habitat occurs in alkaline soils in the project site.

Califomia seabfite (Suaecla calitomical . Habitat and Biology: Perennial shrub: Federal Endangeredand CNPS List 1B; found along margins of coastal salt marshes- . Blooming: July to October . Range3 Formerly known from San Francisco Bay area where thought to be extirpated. Currently known from Alamed4 San Luis Obispo, and Santa Clara counties.

Rus$ll Cily EnergyCenter AFC, Vol. I 8.2-7 Biological Resources ' CNDDB/RareFind Records: There is onerecord for this specieson the USGS7.5-minute Hayward,Newark, Redwood Point, and SanLeandro Quads- . Habitat Presentin Study Area: Marginal habitatoccurs along marginsof alkalinesoils of CogswellMarsh and HARD Marsh. Special Status Wildlite Specles Table 8.2-2 lists the specialstatus wildlife speciesin the vicinity ofthe RCECproject components,based on CNDDBlRareFindand USFWSdata. Locationsof specieshistorically locatedwithin I mile of the RCECproject componentsare mappedon Figure 8.2-2. Brief descriptionsof specialstatus wildlife speciesthat may occur in the project areaare presentedbelow in the following order: mammals,birds, rePtiles,amphibians, fish, and invertebrates.Habitat for thesespecies occurs near the projectsite, but doesnot occuron theplant site- Mammals: Safl-marshharvest mouse (FeJthrodontomys nviventrisl . Habitat and Biologr: Fomgeson leaves,seeds, and stemsof plantsthat occurin salt marsh habitats. In winter, this speciesprefers fresh greengrasses. Pickleweed and saltgrass are the rirainfood sources(Teiner 1990). Doesnot burrorv. Builds nestsof grassand sedgeson the ground. . Range: Restrictedto saltmarsh habitats around San Francisco Bay. . CNDDB/RareFind Records: Thereare 24 recordsfor this specieson the USGS7.5-minute Hayward,Newark, Redwood Point, and Sankandro Quads. Two recordsoccurred within the project vicinity; in the City of Haywardsalt marshsouthwest of the RCECplant site, and along Mt. &len Creek. . Nesting/ForagingHabitat Presentin Study Area: Breedingand foraginghabitat for this speciesexists within the salt marshhabitars in CogswellMarsh, the HARD Marsh,the City of Haywardsalt marsh,and Mt. &len Creek. Brackishmarshes and salt evaporatingponds, provide marginalhabitat for lhis species. Salt-marshwandering ehrew (Sorex vagrans haticoetes' . Habitat and Biology: Feedsmainly on invertebrates,insects, worms, snails, slugs, and spiders- Also eatsfungi, small mamrnals,roots, youngshoots, and probably seeds. Forages under litter on moist surfaces,underg'ound, and in moist accumulationsof deadplant material. Prefers denselitter or groundcover and uses vole runways- . Range: Restrictedto salt rmrsh habitatsaround San Francisco Bay. . CNDDB/RareFind Records: Thereare sevenrecords for this specieson the USGS7.5-minute Hayward,Newark, Redwood Point, and SanLeandrc Quads. One recordoccurred within the projectvicinity, in theCogswell Marsh. . Nesting/ForagingHabitat Presentin Study Area: Potentialhabitat for this s;reciesoccurs in the CogswellMarsh, the HARD salt ma$h, andthe City of HaywardMarsh sourhwestof the projecrsite.

RussellCity EnelgyCenrer AFC, Vol. I 8.2-8 Biological Resources Table8.2-2, Specialstatuswildlife proiect speciesevaluated in the RCEC .- areas. Federau Habitatin Scientlfie Name CommonName State" impactarea? Soutceb Mammals Co ry no rhinu s t ow n se nd ii Pacific western big eared bat sc/csc townsendii Eumnps perotis califo micvs Greater western mastiff-bat sc/csc No Myotis evotis Long eared bat sry-- No Myotis tlrysanodcs Fringed myotis bat sc/-- No Myotis volans Long legged myotis bat sc/-- No Myotis ywnanensis Yuma myotis bat sc/csc No Neotona l4s cipes annectens San Francisco duslgr footed sgcsc No woodrat Re it hrodonto mys ruv iv en t ris Salt-marsh harvest mouse EIE Yes Sorex vagrans halico etes Salt-marsh wandering shrew sc/csc Yes 1,2 Birds A cc i p ete r stiatu s (nesljng) Sharprshinned hawk -/ssc No Agelaius ticolor (nesting colony) Tricolored blackbird sc/csc No 72 Amphispizn belli belli Bell's sagesparrow sc/csc No I Aquila chrysaetos (nesting & Golden Eagle --lssc No 2 wintering) Ardea herotlias (rookry) Great blue heron No z Asio flammeus (tesing) Shofl-eared owl --lssc No 2 't) Athene cunicularia lrypugea Western burrowing owl SC/CSC Yes (burrow sites) Brunta carude nsis le ucopareia Aleutian Canadagoose T/-- No I Buteo regalis Femrginous hawk SOCSC Winter foraging I Charadrius elemndrinus nivosus Western snowy plover T/CSC No t't (nesting) Circus cyaneus (nesting) Northem harrier --ICSC Yes 2 E la n u s I euc u r us Qresting) White-tailed kite --/-- Yes Falco peregrinus anatum American pereg"ine falcon --lE Yes-foraging 1 G eothlyp is t richas sinuoso Saltmarsh common S9CSC No-foraging r,2 yellowthroat ^tlE Haliae etus leucocephalus Bald eagle No 1,2 Laterullus jamaicensis cotumiculus California black rail SC/T No Me lospiza mzlodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow sgcsc Yes I P elecanus occidentali s caWr nica California brown pelican E/E No l Phalacrocorat auritas Double-clested cormorant --lssc No 2 Rallus longirostris obsoletus California clapper rail No 1,2 Ryrchops niger Black Skimmer --lssc Yes 2 Ri p aria rip a r i a (rcsaing) Bank swallow No 2 Stenm antillantm brawni (ne,sting California least tem WE No 1t> cololy) Reptiles Clemnrys marmorata mar morqta Northwestern pond turtle sc/csc Marginal l Clemntys nar orata pallida Southwestern pond tudlo sc/csc Marginal I

RussellCity EnergyCenter AFC, Vol. I 8.2-9 Biological Resources Table8.2-2. (continued) FederaU Habitat in Scientilic Name CommonName Staie" impact area? Source b Reptiles (cont.) Masticophislau ralis eLrymnthus Alameda *tripsnake TN No 1J Phrytnsoma coronatum frontele California horned lizard sc/csc No 1 Amphibiars Ambystomacalifumiense California tiger salamander c/csc No I Ranaaurora draytonii California red legged frog T/CSC No I Ranaboylii Foothill yellow legged Fog sc/csc No I Fish Hyp ome s us trarup a cifi cu s Delta smelt T/T No I ' Oncorhynchuskisutch Coho salmon E No I Oncorlrynchusnrykiss * Central California Valley TIE No I sleelhead Oncorhynchusmykiss * Central California Coast TIE No I steelhead On c o r hync hius ts hary sc ha Winter run chinook salmon E]E No I Po gonicht lrysnac rolepotus Sacramentosplinail PT/CSC No I Spii nc hu s Iha I e ic ht lry s Longfin smelt sc/csc No I Invertebraaes Branchinectatytchi Vernal pool fairy skimp "ft-- No I Danausplexippus Monarcb bdterfly No 2 Hydrochoraickseckei Ricksecker's scavengerbeetle sq- Marginal 1 Tryonia imitamr Mimic kyonia (Califomia sc/-- Marginal 2 brackishwater snail) ' Ststus Crteqorlos: Rderal staausdetermided from the USFWSlett€r- Saaresrarus detemined fro tu Stuteand FederaIIJbsAd EndanEeredond Threatened Annwtls of Califomia (lanuary 1999)and spe.r:alArt .|,tr (March t998), prEparedby DFG Narurd Diversiry DataBase- Codesus€d in rable areai followsi 'nrreatened; E = Endaigeren;T = R = Califohia Rare;PT = ProposedTh€atened C = Candidate:Taxa fot which lhe USFws hassufiicient biological fofilation to supporta proposalro list as endang€iedor rhrcaten€d. SC = USFWSSpeci€s of Comem: Taxa for which existinginfonnation may v,arrantlisting, but for which substantialbiological informationto suppofi a proposedmle is lacking- SSC = CDFC "Speciesofspecial Conccrn" FP=CDFG'Fu y holect d" CNPSList lA = PesornedEttincl in CA; 1B = Rar€or Endang€redin CA andelse*'lrtei 2 - R/E in CA and morc corrirnol elsewherc; 3 = Needrmre informlrion; 4 = Plan6 of limited disnibotion. - = Spociesnot state-list€d- D EgSSq: I = Frcm USFWSlett€r (Knight 2OOl,personal communicarion). 2 = From CNDDB/ RateFind- 3 = Field observalion. ' fte O- r?tltisr taxonhas an EcologicalSi$ificanr Unit (BSU) designation,based on gEn€ricisotation r€sultinS from geoglaphicsepaiation.

RussellCity EnergyCener AFC, VoL I 8.2-lO Biological Resources Birds: California clapper rail (Baltus longirostris obsoletus) . Ilabitat and Biolory: Foragesin marshvegetation, along vegetation and mud flat interface,and alongcreeks- Along coast,feeds on crab,mussels,.clams, snails, insects, spiders, and worms. Will alsotake mice during high tides. hefers enrergentwetland vegetation dominated by pickleweedand cordgrass,and brackishemergent wetlands dominated by pickleweed,cordgrass, and bulrush. Requiresshallow water andmudflats for foragingwith adjacenthigher vegetation for coverduring high waterperiods. . Range: Locally commonyear-long in coastalwetlands and brackish areas around San Francisco, Monterey,and Morro bays. . CNDDB/RarcFind Records: Thereare I I recordsfor this specieson the USGS7.5-minute Hayward,Newark, Redwood Point, and SanLeandro Quads. This speciesis known to occur in theCogswell Marsh and the I{ARD Marsh. . Nesting/ForagingHabitst Presentin Study Ar€a: Suitablehabitat for this speciesoccurs in the salt marshand brackish marsh habitats within the studyarea.

Cafitornia bfack rail lLatenllus iamaicensis coturnlculusl . Habitat and Biologr: Occursmost cornrnonly in tidal emergentwetlands dominated by pickleweed,or in brackishmarshes supporting bulrushes in associationwith pickleweed.In freshwater,usually found in bulrushes,cattails, and saltgrass. Usually found in immediate vicinityof tidal sloughs.Typically occurs in highwetland zones near upper limit of tidal flooding, not in low wetlandareas with considerableannual andlor daily flucmationsin water levels. During extremehigh tides,may dependon upperwetland zone and adjoiningupland or freshwaterwetland vegetation for cover. Nestsar€ concealed in densevegetation, often pickleweed,near upper limits of tidal flooding. . Range: Rarely seen,scarce, year-long resident of saline,brackish, and freshemergent wetlands in the SanFrancisco Bay area,Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, at Morro Bay anda few other coastalsouthern Califomia locations,the SaltonSea area, and the lower ColoradoRiver area. . CNDDB/RareFind Records: Thereare five recordsfor this specieson rheUSGS 7.5-minute Hayward,Newark, Redwood Point, andSan Leandro Quads. Only one of theserecords occurred within the project impact area,in the salt marshnear Hayward Landing. . Nesting/ForagingHabitat Presentin Study Area: Suitablehabitat for this speciesoccurs in the project areain the tidal sloughsin the vicinity of HaywardLanding andJohnson Landing. Westem burowing ow3(Athene cunicularia hypugeal . Habitat and Biology: Foragesday andnight in opendry grasslandand desert habitats, and in grass,forb, and openshrub stages of pinyon-juniperand ponderosa pine habitats. Nestsin old burrowsof groundsquirrels or other smallmammals. Eats mostly insects;also feeds on small mammalsreptiles, birds, and carrion. Shortvegetation may increaseprey availability, enhance predatordetection, and attrdctburaowing mammals that providenest sites for bunowing owls- Burrowingowls usuallymigrate from their nestingsite during the winter, but may usetheir burrow or other burrowsas winter shelter. Breedsfrom March throDghAugust- Yearlong residentin CA. . Range: CenhalValley, Siera Nevada,and Coastrarges.

RussellCily EnergyCenter AFC, Vol. I 8.2-11 Biological Resources . CNDDB/RareFind Records: Thereare eight recordsfor this specieson the USGS7.5-minute Hayward,Newark, Redwood Point, and Sankandro Quads,none of which occurredwithin the projectimpact area. . Nesting/ForagingHabitat Presentin Study Arear Suitablenesting and foraging habitat for this speciesoccurs in thehoject site. Beptiles: Northweslern pond turtle (Cremrnysmarmorata mamorara) and Southwestem pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida) . Habitat and Biology: Associatedwith permanentor nearlypermanent water in a wide variety of habitattypes, normally in ponds,lakes, streams, irigation ditchesor p€nnanentpools along intermittentstreams (Zeiner et al- 1988). Eatsaquatic plant material,aquatic invertebrates, fish, andfrogs (Nussbaum et al. 1983;Stebbins 1985). . Range; Northwesternpond turtles occurthrouglrout northem Califomia west of the Siena- Nevada(Stebbins 1985). Southwestempond turtles occurfrom the SanFrancisco Bay regron, southto northwestemBaja Califomia, chiefly west ofthe Cascade-Sierrancrest (Stebbins 1985). . CNDDB/RareFind Records: Thereare no recordsof either subspecieson rhe USGS7.5-mirute Sanlrandro Quad. . Nesting/ForagingHabitat Presentin Study Area: Suitablebreeding and foraginghabitat for this speciesexists within theemergent werland habitats in theproject vicinity. 8.2.1.9 Field Survey Methods Biological field surveysfor the RCECproject wereconducted by biologist Brett D. Hartmanon February 27 andMarch 25,20O1, and on April 24,2001by BrettD. Hartmanand Dean Carrier (qualifications are presentedin Appendix 8.2-C). The areasurveyed included a I -mile radiusfrom the hoject site,and at least 1,000feet in eachdirection from the electrictransmission line, naturalgas supply pipeline, and wastewaterpipeline rights-of-way centerlines. The EastshoreSubstation and surroundingvacant land (si!eof thesubstation expansion) (Figure 8.2-3 in mappocket) were also surveyed. This section describesthe field surveymethds usedto determinebiological resourcesthat could be affectedby projectactivities and the resultsof thosesurveys for eachof the project areas.

Additional surveysof the RCECplant and plant AWT site,wilt be conducredin the late springand sumrnerof 2@1. Thesesurveys will be necessaryto identify endangeredand threatenedflowering plants and migratorybird sp€ciesthat may not be presentor readily identifiablein other seasons. Vegetation Vegetationsurveys included the following tasks: . Site surveys10 determine the type and locationof vegetationcommunities . Vegetationmapping o Preparationof plant lists Activities associaiedwith the specialstatus plant specieszurveys included the following: . Consultationwith CDFG and USFWSregarding potential occurrence of state-and federalty- listedplant species on or nearthe pmject area . Determinationof CNPSstatus of specialstatus plant speciesusing the CNPSelectronic inventory{Skinner and Pavlik 1994)

Russell City Energy C€Dter AFC, Vol, I 8.2-12 Biolosical Resources . Determination of habitat preference and flowering times of special status plant species r Field surveys ofthe RCEC and AWT plant site, transmission line corridor and substation extension site, natural gas pipeline route, and water supply and wastewater renrm pipelines, during February and March of 20O1. A list of plant species observed at the project site and linear facilities during 20Ot botanical surveys is presented in Table 8.2-3. Due to their bloom time, certain species with potential habitat in the pmject area of potential effects could not be surveyed during the time in which this AFC was developed.

Additional surveys will be undenaken in June and July to determine whether or not Hispid's birds beah Point Reyes bird's beak, or Delta tule pea ;ue present in the project area and would be affected by project construction or operation. Of these, Point Reyes bird's beak and Delta tule pea are true salt malsh or brackish marsh species, or speciesunlikely to occur in more upland situations such as the RCEC power planl and AWT site. Hispid's bird's beakis more likely to be presentthan Point Reyesbird's beakor Delta tule pea, since this plant's natural habitat consists of alkaline playas and meadows and the project site containsalkaline soils near brackishmarsh- Surveysfor this plant could rakeplace in June. California seablight also has a post-April blooming period, but is a perennial shrub that is identifiable outside of the blooming period.

Wildlite Surueys Wildlife surveysfor the RCEC project were conductedduring the spring of 2001 by biologists Brett D. Hartman and Dean Canier. Wildlife specieswere observed in the early moming and late aftemoon hours at the project site, the open land belonging to Waste Management Corporation and the City of Hayward stormwater retention basin to the south of the power plant site, the EastshoreSubstation and sunounding open land, and along the interpretive trails of the Cogswell Marsh and HARD Marsh. Trapping was not conducted for the salt marsh harvest mouse becauseof the Iack of suitable habitat (pickleweed) on site. Habitat evaluationis the standardmethod for identifying the likely presenceor absenceof this species due to the unreliability of trappingas an indicator (Dan Buford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,personal communication,April 30, 2001).

A list of wildlife speciesobserved during surveysof the project site and associatedfacilities is provided in Table 8-2*4.

Wetland Delineation A wetlanddelineation was perfonrrd for the RCEC andAWT planr site. Sandardrnerhodology as definedin rheCorps of EngineersWetlands Delineation Manual (1987) was used. Wetlanddelineation included the following tasks: o Reviewof availabledata on the site, including:National Wetlands Inventory map for the San Leandroquadrangle; Soil Surveyof AlamedaCounty, CA, WestemPart (1981); and Hayward ShorelineEnvironmental Enhancernent Program (HASPA, 1993) o Fieldsurveys ofthe projectsite on February28,2001, and completion of wetlanddata forms (Appendix8.2-D) . Aerial photointerpretation and delineationof wetlandson a t-foot contourtopographic map o Consultationand field verificationof rhe wetlanddelineation with Mark DAvignon of the Army Corpsof Engineers,San Francisco District, on April 24, 2001

RussellCity EnergyCenrer AFC, Vol. I 8.2-13 Biological Resources 3:EI -r.l Eil \) \\ \ \ : F;-l\\\ \\ \\ \ \\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ o UJ o E- EI E E E FE E F{ Ei;c Eeic*e A-E*,;a€5€= *$$9*u b5 .! ElE" l $Es ssiEF *i*;e 5FaE E; ;FFEt* i:F - - z, z ---zz z __,_ z _ 1H'rz - -Z

(J

(5 ': 'r g ilt EEJ.,s*tFs e .FEsFS,.= r F- ss o ts3 t gEi p*,F.irs$gts$Eg it: lD **l si$ $ ES.s$*E o -i s - E- - s

* a5 =it (L EIFsssssssse*sss$EssFis $sssEs (, I E ol .. s.g fle frfix,, ? ao I Fls+g ggssE gcFgFE5gEE 5 8.2.1.1ORCEG Plant Slte Survey The project site is bordered on the north by Enterprise Avenue and the City of Hayward Water Pollution Control Facility (or WPCF), on the east by Whitesell Street and the Mag Trucking terminal, on the south by an Alameda County Flood Control District stormwater channel and City of Hayward stomwater retention pond, and on the west by a warehouse and truck terminaydistribution center. Figure 8.2-3 (in map pocket) shows biological resourcesnoted within 1 mile of the plant sire and I ,00Ofeet of the project Iinear facilities.

Table8.2.4. Wildlife observed 2001wildlife Porverplant Naturalgas Commonl,lame And AWTgitE Transmlssionline piFetine Alanreda soog sparrow v Avocet Bam swallow Black-necked stilt Brewer's blackbird Cmada goose Common Crow t/ ./ Common raven tl yr Connorant (in flighi) Killd€Er Oadwall Great egret kast sandpiper t ng-billed dowitcher Ma ard Mouming dove Northem harrier R€d-winged blackbird Red-tailed hawk Rock dove Ruddy duck Stacilia Turkey rulture rlfestem Gull Westem meadowlark

Vegetation The project plant site is dominated by business/industrial developnent, annual grassland, and seasonal wetland vegetation (in addition to the industrial activities at the Runnels Industries parcel). Table 8.2-5 lists the approximate acreageof habitat types at the plant site. Annual grassland vegetation is dominated by introduced annual grassessuch as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and Italian wild rye (Lolium muhiflorum), and ruderal species such as black mu saard(Brassica nigra),tru1.lmallow (Matva nicaeensis), and filarce (Erodium cicutarium). Two native grass speciesare present: three-week fescue

RussellCity EnergyCenter AFC, Vol, I 8.2-15 Biological Resources (Vulpia microsmchys) and wild barley (Ilordeum leporinum), with coyote brush (Baccharis pilulais) along the bordersof tbe property.

Table S.r-S. Habitat Habitat type Acres

Operindustrial lot (RunnelsIndushies) J.O Grassland/ruderalareas 9.4 Wetlandvesetation l-7 Totals 14.7

Seasonalwetland vegetation on the project site is dominated by salt-tolerant speciessuch as saltgrass (Distichlis spicam) and alkalai heath (Frankenia salina), with curly dock (Rume.xcrispus),Italian ryegrass(Inlium multiflorum), wildrye (Leymus sp.) and spikerush (Eleocharis sp.) as associates. The City of Hayward's stormwater retention pond, located southwest of the project site, is dominated by pickleweed (Sa/icamia virginica) and brass buttons ( Cotula coronopifolla), intermixed with uplands dominated by Italial ryegrass (Ialiam multiflorum) and other ruderal species. Wildlife Wildlife speciesobserved foraging at the Project site and adjacent stormwater retention pond included Canadageese, red-winged blackbirds, westem gulls, mallards,and least sandpipers.Black+ailed jackabbits and ground squirrel burrows and runs were noted, with several apparently unoccupied burrow holes in the embankment to Enterprise Avenue on the nonhem end of the propeny- No burrowing owls were observed during surveys nor was there evidence of burrowing owl activity at the burrow sites. No mounds suitable for burrowing owl use were found elservhereon the property. Wetlands The project site is mapped as palustrine, emergent, temporarily flooded, diked/impounded wetland. The soils are mapped as Reyes Clay, drained. These are very deep, pocdy drained soils on ddal flats- The water table has been lowered to a depth of about four feet. There are eight srnall ponded areas that meet the soils, hydrology,and vegetationcriteria ofjurisdictional wetlands(subject to Corpsof Engineers regulation under the Clean Water Acr). However, freld surveys revealed that substantial portions of the property havebeen filled, or are Willows Clay, drained. Theseare very deep,poorly drainedsoils on basinrims. Theseupland areasdid not meetthe criteria 1obe classedas wetlands. Figure 8.24 showsa wetland delineation of the RCEC and AWT project site. Wetlaads were found in eight separateareas that totaled 1.68 acres. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, verified the wetland delineation conducted for the property in the freld on April 24, 2ffi1 .

The stormwater retention pond near the project site to the south, while cut off from tidal influence, retains renmant elements of the tmnsitional zone between the northem coastal salt marsh community and adjacent uplands- The area is characterized by srnall mud flats intermixed with uptand areasdominated by ruderal species. Hydrologic inputs to lhe system include overflow from the Alameda Flood Control channelthat runs south ofthe site, and runoff from the Project site. Electric Transmission Line and Eastshore Substation Expansion The electric transmission line corridor traversesurban areas and parking lots for most of the route and will not affect biological or wetland resources- The substation is located in a lot dominated by ruderal

RussellCity EnergyCenter AFC. vol- I 8.2-16 Biological Resources

RussellCity Energt Center AFC

May 2001 species.Ruderal vegetation includes non-native species that colonizedisturbed areas, including disturbedmargins around sah marsh habitats. Ruderalspecies include annualnon-native species such as wtld oat(Avena faaa), ripgut grass(B romus diandnn),ltalian rye gass (lr lium muhiflorum), and tarplarnt(H e mi zo ni a sp.). Natural Gas Pipeline The naturalgas trarsmission line corridor runs in EnlerpriseAvenue, crosses Clawiter Road,and then runs in a gravel-coveredright-of-way through the BerkeleyFarms facility. Thereare no biological or wetlandresources located along this route- WastewaEr netum Pipeline The proposedpipeline will be installedwithin EnterpriseAvenue and will not affecrbiological or wetlandresources. This areais dominatedby horticulturaltrees 4nd shrubs,and ruderal vegetation. Ruderalspecies include annualnon-native species such as wild oat (Avena fatua), rjpgut gfass(Brrm# diandrus), andltalian rye grass(Inliwn multiflorum). Construction Laydown and Worker Pa*ing Areas T$o ofthe proposedconstruction laydown areas are currently truck parkingterminals with little or vegetationor wildlife habitat. As mentionedabove, the openland sunoundingthe Eastshoresubstation domiDatedby ruderalspecies. Ruderal vegetalion includes non-native species that colonizedisturbed areas,including disturbed margins around salt marsh habitats. Ruderal species include annual non-native speciessuch as wild oat (Avenafatua), ripgut grass(Bromus diandrus),Italian rye grass(Lolium multiflorum), andtarplant (Hemizonia sp.).

8.2.1.11 AWT Plant Site Survey The A\ffT plant will be situatedadjacenr to the RCECplant site and consisrsof the sametypes of vegetation,wildlife, and wetlands habitats. Impacts to thesebiological resources ar€ the same as those projectedfor theRCEC planr site. 8.2.2 EnvironmentalConsequences 8.2.2.1Slgnilicance Criteria Potential direct and indirect project impacts to biological resources associatedwith construction, operation, and maintenanceof the RCEC were evaluated. An impact would be considercd significant if it result€din the takeof a listed speciesor its habirar;resulted in take of sensitivespecies or its habitarrhat jeopardizedits viability, either locally or range-wide;or resultedin loss of speciesor populations necessaq/to rnaintain current distribution.

8.2,2,2 RCEC Plant Site constructionof lhe RCECfootprint wilt result in the permanentloss of apptoximately9.4 acresof disturbedruderal vegetation and approximarelyl 68 acresofjurisdictional wetlands(Table 8.2-5). No specialstatus plant species were found at theRCEC plant site and none will beaffected by construction of theplant. Construclionof thisFoject will likely resultin theloss of individualsof severalwildlife speciesoccupying this site or dependentupon this site for specificphysiological and ecological requirements.However, these species have no sprecialprotection status, are corrmon to manyareas, and areprimarily limited to burrowingrodents (i.e., grounds qtinel lspernophylassp.l, pocketgophers lThomomyssp.l and voles lMicrotis sp.7).Due to the existing level of traffic on EnterpriseAvenue, and

RussellCity Energji Cenrer AFC, vol. I 8.2-18 Biological Resourcqt the low level of wildlife use in this highly urbanized area, construction taffic is not expected to result in increased wildlife road kills. Noise and activity from construction activities will have a negligible and temporary effe{t on wildlife use of this area. Electric Transmission Line and Eastshore Substation Expanaion Upgradingof rheelectric transmission line is notexpected to havea significanteffect on biological or wetlandresources- The project would involve constructingnew transmissionsupport towers and adding new conductors.The l-l-mile route tmvemesexisting areas within the HaywardIndustrial Conidor. Natural Gas Pipeline Constructionof the naturalgas pipeline is not expecte.dto resultin any significant andlong-term effects on biological resources.The pipeline routeruns in EnterpriseAvenue and under a graveledpipeline righl-of-way on the BerkeleyFarms property. Wastewater Betun Pipeline Constructionof the wastewaterreturn line would not resultin any sigrrificantand long-termeffects on biological resources.This pipeline runs approximately260 feet acrossEnterprise Avenue from the RCECpower plant site underexisting pavedstreets.

Construction Laydown and Worker Parking Areas Constructionlaydown and worker parkingwould not havesignificant effects on biological or wetland resources,since the fucking terminalson Depotand Enterprise are devoid of vegetationand the open Iandsurrounding the EastshoreSubstation consists of ruderalvegetation and doesnot containwetlands or biologicalresources. o AWT Plant The sanr impactsprojected for the RCECplant site alsoapply to the AWT plant. The backupwater coolingsupply pipeline runs in theWPCF's access pad, and would not affectbiological resources. Other pipelinesto and from the Awr (waer supply,Ro waste,microfiltration waste,and stormwaterrunoff), alsorun underpaved areas,

8.2.2.3 Operation Phase lmpacts RCEC Plant Site Onceconstructed and operational,the facility will havea minimal effect on wildlife resourcesin the area. Treesand shrubsplanted for landscapescreening around the RCEC,and the RCECarchitectural treafinentstructures themselves, could provideperching or nestingsites for raptorialbirds (hawksand falcons)and eggpredators (crows andravens). These could, in tum, usethe facility as a basefor predationagainst sensitive species living nearby(such as salt rnarshharvest mouse, leasi lem, etc.): This potentialeffect could be easilycontrolled, however, by lirniting treesplanted to smalterspecies or speciesthat do not provide strongsupport for largenests, and by installing deviceson possibleperching placesat the powerplant (for example,on the architecturalscreen) that would discourageraptoriat birds from perching.

Operationof the RCEC would producesorne noise, as described in Section8.7 (Noise). Due ro the close proximity of existing industrialplants, city streets,and railroad tracks, the noisegenerated during operationofthe RCECfacility is not expectedto boostnoise levels 1o a de$eethat would significantly affect wildlife in the vicinity of the plant. C\rrent noiselevels at the site arewell abovethose of more

Russ€llCity Energ)'CeDter AFC, Vol. I 8.2-19 Biological Resources isolate.dexamples of natural salt marsh, yet species appear to have habituated to it. Elimination of some current facilities causing noise (i.e., the sand-blasting operation) ftry compensatesornewhat for increasednoise from the facility itself.

Human activity at the facility should have no significant affect on the adjacent salt marsh habitats as long as screeningis provided. Lighting would be designedto reduceglare (Section8.13, Visual Resources). Electric Transmisslon Llne and Eastshorc Substation Expansion Potentialeffects of addirionalelectric transmissionconductors on bird speciesutilizing this areacould include collision and ele€trocution. These effects would likely continue throughout the life of the facility. There is no evidence, however, that this is currently a significant problem or that additional conductors on an existing transmission line would increase mortality to a level of signifrcance. Bird collisions with electric conducting wires occur when the birds are unable to see the lines, especially during fog and rain events, and if flushed suddenly from the ground. Factors that affect the risk of collision include weatherconditions, behavior of the speciesof bird, and location of the line. The transmission line that will be upgraded is currently almost entirely located in an urban, developed area- NaturalGas Pipeline Operationofthe gas pipeline would not result in impactsto specialstatus ptants, animals, or wetlands unlessa leak occurred. A rupture or leakageof the pipeline could result in reducedair quality and, in severecases, a fire, but any potential effectson.native vegetation or wildlife, would be temporary. Wastewaf€r netum Pipel i ne Operation and maintenance of the wastewaler retum line would not affect biological resources. This pipeline runs appmximately 260 feet across Enterprise Avenue from the RCEC under existing paved str@ts- Construction Laydown and Worker Parking Areas Construction laydown and worker parking areas would return to their pre-construction uses after constructionis completed. Hence,there would be no operationimpacts. AWI Ptant Once constructed and operational, the facility will have a minimal effect on biological resourcesin the area.

8,2.2,4. PotentialStack EmissionEffects on Soil and Vegetatlon Emissions from tbe IIRSG stacks and cooling tower drift will not significantly affect vegetation and soils surrounding the RCEC project area. The following paragraphspresent the results of an analysis of the HRSG stack and cooling tower emissions for the RCEC project. The AWT plant will not produce any emissionsof concem-

The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the potential detrimental effects that the projected HRSG stack and cooling tower emissions lrom the RCEC plant site will have on surrounding vegetation. Potential pollutant slack emissions included in this analysis include carbon monoxide (CO), inhalable pafticulales (PM16),and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur (NOx and SOz). No pollutant emissions are predicted to result in concentrations exceeding the U-S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) significant impact levels, for either short-term or annual averaging

Russell City Energy Center AFC, Vol. I 8.2-20 Biological Resources periodsfor CO,PM16, NO1, and SO2. Table 8-2-6 presents the total maximum impact concentrations for the RCECproject, as discussed in Section8.1 (Air Quality).

Table8.24. BCECoperational effects from HRSG stack and coolinq tower emissions. MaximumProject StaleAmbient Air Ouality Pollutant AveragingPeriod Concentrationr(Ig/m3) Standards(rrgy'm) CO l-hour 7671 23.000 8-hour 3847 10,000 NOx I -hour 376 470 Annual 42 100 SOa l-hour 125 650 3-hour 56 1,300 24-hour l9 109 Annual 5.3 80 PMro 2#hour 92 50 Annual 24.5 30 'Maximum project concedtmtions include reF€s€nhtive bactgound concentrations J.tglm3= microgrBms pcr cubic neter

Carbon Monoxide Plants metabolize and produce carbon monoxide (CO). Few studies on thresholds for derrimental effects on vegetation have been conducted- Most available studies use very high CO concentrations (above l0O partsper million .[ppm]). Soil microorganismsprobably actsas a buffering systemand sink for CO. There are no known detrimental effects on plants due to CO concentrations of 10,000 to 230,000 pglm3 (USEPA 1979). Zmrnerman et al. (1989) exposeda variety of plant speciesto CO at concentrationsof I 15,000pg/mr to 11,500,00Opg/mr from 4 to 23 days. While practically no growth retardationwas noted in plants exposed at the lower level, retarded stem elongation and leaf deformation were observed at the higher concentrations.Pea and beanseedlings also exhibitedabnormal leaf formation after exposureto CO at 27,00Opglmr for severaldays (USEPA 1979).

Comparatively low levels of CO in the soil have been shown to inhibit nitrogpn fixation. Concentrations of I 13,000pg/m3 have beenshown to reducenitrogen fixation, while 572.00Oto 1,142,000pg/mr result in nearly completeinhibition (USEPA 1979).

Maximum predicted l-hour and 8-hour CO emissions have been calculated from the RCEC HRSG exhauststack. The maximum l^hour CO concenrrationis 1231 pglm3. Adding this impact to the maximum l-hour CO background concenfation of 62140pglm1 measuredat the nearest nanitoring stationresults in a total predictedI -hour CO concentrationof 7671Fglmr. This figure is significantly lessthan the CO concentrationof 115,000Fg/mr determinedlo result in minimal growth retardationin plants,as well as the 113,000pglm' concentrationfound to result in slight reductionof nitrogenfixation. Therefore, predicted CO emission levels from the RCEC are not expected to result in adverse effects on vesetatiOn.

RussellCity EnergyCenter AFC, Vol- I 8.2-21 Biological Resources Sultur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides SO, and NO" are the major airborne pollutants of concem for the RCEC project. The extent of their effect on soils and vegetation would be directly related to a variety of factors, including wind speed, direction and frequency, air temperature, humidity, the geomorphology of lhe area, and the location of the proposed project in relation to sensitive plant comrnunities in the zone of impact. Sulfirr dioxide tends to convert to sulfite and sulfate during chemical transformation in soils. Interpretation of the results of investigations published to date has engenderedconsiderable controversy due to the complexity of tenestrial ecosystems. However, the effects of acidified precipitation containing sulfate (SO4) on terrestrial ecosystemshave been investigated with respect to alteration of soil chemistry as it relates to vegetation health. High levels of SOamay reduce soil pH, thereby decreasing the availability of certain essential nutrients and increasing the concentrations of soluble alumiirum, which reducesplant growth.

In soils where nitrate-nitrogen is not limiting plant $owth, excessnitrate may percolate through the soil column, carrying basecations and exerting an acidifying effect, Increased atmospheric contributions of nitrate may influence vegetation in a species-specific way, with some species taking advantageof its fertilizing characteristics while others (such as those occurring in nitrogenJimited soils) are adversely affected.

Sulfur is a major plant nutrient and can be directly absorbedinto the soit. Therefore,an increasein SO2 in the soil (particularly at levels below thresholdlimits) would not have an adverseeffect on vegetation.

SO2can affect vegetarion directly (as a gas) or indirectly by meansof its principal reaction product, SOa (e.g.,acidification of soils). In addition,a third mechanismof impact is the formation of acid mist. Direct effects of injury can be manifested as foliar necrosis, decreasedrates of growth or yield, predisposilionto disease.and reducedreproductive capaciry.

Environmental factors, such as temperature, light, humidity, and wind speed, influence both the rate of gas absorption and the plant physiological responseto absorbedquantities. The higher the humidity, the higher the absorption of gases. Exposure duration and frequency are also important factors that determine the exrent of injuries.

Guidelines for air emission impact assessmentprovided in tbe technical literature are diverse and threshold dosagesrequired to causeinjury are extrernely variable. This is due to the variety of factors affecting plant responsesto phytotoxic gases. Consequently, in caseswhere emissions are below lower thresholdlimits, decreasedyields can result in the absenceofvisible injury iSprugel et al. 1980)and long-tem impacts should be addressed.

Among the different published attempts to define SO2thresholds for vegetation effects, two represent worst-casesituations. Loucks et a.l.( 1980)presented threshold ranges between l3l pglms and 262 yglmj SO2,and Mclaughtin (1981.1suggested values of | 310 Fg/mr SO2for the l-hour averageand 786 prglmr for the 3-hour average.

According to the dose-injurycurve for SO2-sensitiveplant speciesprovided by the USFWS (1978),the lowest 3-hour concentration expeeted to cause injury to plants is approximately 390 pg/mr, which is significantly higher than the projected emissions from the RCEC. However, these predicted values ate applicable only when plants are growing under the most sensitive environmental conditions and stage of maturity. Thresholdsfor chronic plant injury by SO2have been estimated at about 130 pg/mr on an

RussellCity Energ)'Center AFC, Vol. I 8.2-22 BiologicalResources annual average (USFWS 1978). The maximum annual averageconcentration modeled for this project (0.02 Fg/n3) is far below the USFWS threshold for chronic exposure, and the worst-case projected 3- hour maximum of about 3.67 Fglmr is substantiallybelow the Mclaughlin protection level of 786 pg/m3. Consequently, the projected concentration of SO2 is not expected to cause visible foliar injury or significant adverse chronic effects.

Nitrogen dioxide is potentially phytotoxic, but generally at exposures considerably higher than those resulting from rnost industrial emissions. Exposures for several weeks at concentrations of 280 to 490 pg/m3 can causedecreases in dry weight and leaf area, but I -hour exposures of at least I 8,000 pg/m3 are required to causeleaf damage. The modeled maximum RCEC emissions of NO2 impacts of 0.36 pglml are far below thesethreshold limits (219.0pg/m3 or0.l169 ppm). In addition, the total predicted rnaximum l-hour NO2 concenffationsof 169pg/mr would be significantly lessthan the l-hour threshold (7,500 pg/mr or 3,989 ppm) for 5 percentfoliar injury to sensitivevegeration (USEPA 1991). This indicates that NO^ emissions from the RCEC, when considered in the absenceof other air pollutants, would not adversely affect vegetation.

Airbome Pattlculates Particulate emissions will be controlled by inlet air filtration and use of natural gas. The deposition of airbome particulates (PMro) can affect vegetation through either physical or chemical rnechanisms. Physicalmechanisms include the blocking of stomataso that normal gas exchangeis impaired,as well as potentialeffects on leaf adsorptionard reflectanceof solar radiation. Information on physical effectsis scarce,presumably in part becausesuch effects are slight or not obvious except under extrenE situations (Lodge et al. l98l). Studies performed by Lerman and Darley (1975) found that particulate deposition rates of 365 g/m?year caused damageto fir trees, b\t rates of 274 $nflyear and 400{00 g/m?year did not damagevegetation at other sites. fie maxirmrmannual predicted concentration for PMlg from the RCEC is 0.22 pglmr. Assuming a deposition velocity of2 cm/sec (worst-case deposition velocity, as recommended by the California Air ResourcesBoard ICARBI), this concentrationconverts to an annualdeposition rate of 0.14 glmzlyear, which is-several orders of magnitude below that which is expected to result in injury to vegetation (i.e., 365 glm'lyear). The addition of the maximum predicted annual particulate deposition rate for the RCEC to the maximum background concentration of 24.3 pg/m3. measuredat the nearest rnonitoring station yields a total estimated particulate deposition rate of 15.5 glmzlyear, utrilizing the 2 cm/sec factor. This total is still approximately one order of magnitude less than levels expected to result in plant injury

The prirnary chemical mechanism for airbome particulates to cause injury to vegetation is by trace element toxicity. Many facoorsmay influence the effects of trace elements on vegetation, including temperature, pre€ipitation, soil type, and plant species(USFWS 1978). Trace elements adsorbed to particulates emitted from power plant emissions reach the soil through direct deposition, the washing of plant surfaces by rainfall, and the decomposition of leaf litter. Ultimately, the potential toxicity of trace elerrents that reach the root zone through leaching will be dependenton whether the element is in a form readily availableto plants. This availability is contmlled in part by the soil cation exchangecapacity, which is determined by soil texture, organic matter content, and kind of clay present. Soil pH is also an impofiant influenceon cation exchangecapacity: in acidic soils, the more rnobile,lower valenceforms of tface metals usually predominate over less mobile, higher valence forms- The sihy ctay and clay soils Iocated in the RCEC project area will have a lowerpotential for trdce element toxicity due to the o comparatively high soil pH commonly found in bay soils. RussellCity EDergyCenter AFC, Vol, I 8.?-23 BiologicalR€sourcer Perhaps the most important consideration in determining toxicity of trace elements to plants relates to existing concentrations in the soil. Several studies have been conducted relating endogenoustrace element concentrations to the effects on biota of emissions from model power plants (Dvorak et al. 1977, Dvorak and Pentecostet al. 1977,Vaughan et al. 1975). Thesestudies revealed that the predictedlevelg of particulate deposition for the area surrounding the model plant resulted in additions of trace elements to the soil over the operating life of the plant which were, in most cases,Iess than l0 percent of the total existing levels. Therefore, uptake by vegetation could not increase dramatically unless the forms of deposited trace elements were considerably more available than normal elernents present in the soi[. Cooli ng Tower Di sehargcs Cofltaminantswithin the RCEC cooling tower drift areexpected to consistalmost entirely of theminerals that are not removed by the AWT process. Metals and other chemicals of concem will be neutralized and removed from the cooling tower makeup water before it is introduced into the plant cooling water system.

PMln emissions from the HRSG stacks and cooling towers were calculated for the RCEC. The maximum annual deposition rate for the RCEC ol O-14 glmzlyear is several magnitudes below that which is expectedto result in mechanicalinjury to vegetation(i.e.,365 glmzlyear:see previous discussion on airbome particulates; Lerman and Darley 1975),

Various salts from cooling water and the pH neutralizing process (Table 8.15-3) are expected to be in the cooling tower water. Theselow levelsof saltsare not expecledto result in injury to the surrounding environment. Pahwaand Shipley (1979)exposed vegetation (com, tobacco,and soybeans)to varying salt deposition rates to sirmrlate drift from cooling towers that use saltwater (2G25 parts per thousand) circulation. Salt slress symptoms on the rnost sensitive crop plants (soybeans) were barely perceptible at a deposition nte of 2.98 glnf lyear(Pawha and Shipley 1979). Using an assumptionthat 100perc€nt of the airbome particulates from the RCEC emissions produce salts in the cooling tower drift, the calculated deposition rate of 0. I 4 g/m?year (which includes HRSG stack emissions) is more than one order of magnirude below the deposition rate that was shown to cause barely perceptible vegetation stressfrom salt mist. This highly conservative estimate of deposition and the fact that the RCEC cooling tower will use fresh water makes this evaluation much overstated. Therefore, cooling tower drift is not expecled to have any impact on vegetation in surrounding habitats within rhe maximum impact radius for the RCEC cooling tower drift.

8.2.2.5 Wastewater Discharges Whenthe plant is operatingat full capacity,approximately 3.33 million gallonsof secondaryeffluent. wastewaterper day will be pumpedthrough the cooling water supplypipeline from the City of tlayward Water Pollution Control Facility and treatedto lertiary quality in the AWT. Almost half of the water eventuallyends up in the cooling tower effluent. Effluent from the cooling tower blowdownwill retumedto the Water Pollution Control Facility via the waste\xaterretum pipeline. During normal operatingconditions, the RCECwill discharge53 gallonsper minute(0.O76 million gallonsper day) and at peakconditions, approximarely 66 gallonsper minute(0.095 million gallonsper day) will be dischargedto the wastewaterretum pipeline. The City of Haywarddischarges tbis effluent throughthe EastBay DischargersAuthority (EBDA) pipeline to the EBDA outfall in SanFrancisco Bay nearthe OaklandAirport. The RCECproject thusprovides a net benefitto waterquality in SanFrancisco Bay by

RussellCity EnergyCenter AFC, Vol. I 8.2-24 Biological Resources reducingthe amountof freshwatereffluent dischargedto the Bay, without increasingthe pollutant o loading of the warer discharged. 8.2.3 Cumulativelmpacts The RCECpoject would not result in significantcumulative effects on specialstatus plants, natuml plant communities,wetlands, or wildlife. Thoughthe project would result in a pennanentloss of 1.68 acresof seasonalwedands, this loss would be mitigatedby replacerrpntor enhancementof equalor largerquantiry of betterquality wetlandsin rhe generalproject area,a net benefit to the environnrnt. There would be no pennanentloss of specialstatus plants or sensitivewildlife habitats. As a result,the project is not expectedto result in any signifrcantcumulative impacts to biological resources. 8.2.4 ProposedMitigation Measures The following mitigation measureswould ensure that any potentially significant project environnrcntal impacts to biological resources would be mitigated below the threshold of significance. . The project will require an individual permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section404 of the CleanWater Aet, to fill the 1.68-acresof seasonalwetlands on site. The permit application will include a mitigation plan that identifies how the seasonalwetlands will be replaced in kind, eirher thfough a mitigation bank, by purchase of wetland propeny and dedication of a conservation easementfor that property, or by support of wetland and wildlife habitat restoration efforts in the pmject area. The mitigation plan will be developed in consultationwith the U.S. Army corps of Engineers,U.s. Fish and wildlife Service,and san Francisco Bay Regional Water ResourcesControl Board. o Wetlands adjacent to the construction site (the parcels south of the RCEC site) will be avoided. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be developed to ensure sediment from the Project site does harm not any adjacenl wetland areas. Mitigation neasures in the SWPPP will include the implementation of silt fence and other sediment control measures,and temporary fencingto ensureentry into sensitivesalt marshcommunities is avoided. This will be especiatly important on the southem boundary of the project construction area. Temporary fencing will be implemented to ensue entry into sensitive salt marsh areas south of the project site or other wildlife habitatsis avoided.

r Monitoring of construclion activities will be carried out by personnel trained to detect any potential and unforeseen impacts on listed, sensitive, or migratory wildlife and their habitats adjacent to the project site- If actual or potential effects are detected, the construction foreman will ceasethe aclivities that are potentially affecting these species and will consult with a professional biologist qualified to assessthe situation and make recommendationsto alter or alleviate any activities that are resulting in these effects. hoject biologists will conduct additional field surveys in June for the Hispid's birds beak, Point Reyes bird's beak, and Delta tule pea. In the event that these plants are identified on site during their blooming phases,additional consultation with regulatory agencies and rnitigation planning will be undertaken ro ensure that any potential impact to these speciesis mitigated to a level below significance. 8.2.5 ApplicableLaws, Ordinances,Regulations, and Standards Table 8.2-7 describes the applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards(LORS) penaining to biological resourcesfor the RCEC project.

RussellCity Energy Center AFC, Vol. I 8.2-25 Biological Resources o o € E^ tc cl ci g€ Di{n'*olN qcl '1 q-q{ 5.---*.rn -n .lqavt b4 ..r 6r = .{ ..1 c\ cl ..! cJ .1 ...1 'ED .9A rlooooH@co co od ol 3 Nl) !3 3 ? 6 g o ,zo^aF.E_e I ! q k,=.= t c z E: tr I - 6 tgsEi*;gol 1- x oo -L -o r = EE;E#:= i e o'l i c R c I q,.F i 9= - g 4.9.e 4.9 5F ;,=.9 ;,E,9* P EE o.=:3oE oo .c4 €E;H5€E ;€=;.gE €EE;i€Ei Eg oo < b UD EE 3 3 < 6 Ef 5E X z X3 X E€ 8

er 6 E(J OA '=2E€ b F: G 5E^ E.'i;]: e n.:3 ,- = s< eeH o. EE XE vlA dE s '= i r,/ a. bts t5; 3 d'E =:id 33 E.SE o aIIP =d! q?.qG E Ele +E! Bn=3 9L ot 4.9 PEF9 e EtP 38i ,i3 E 3n; F E t 5-A

c{ (.n U' z

ta B B a) CA 3 10^ b 6'O ? ;gg :g 'a ,; f'1 6 qt.A .! o ;r hoF ts9oe Fl 5 F . *d E;Eq *€e E=;9 {,E = E!.9:r vfr.5eg_E erE= * d x.ti - qib=dI d)- 9: ay"-',9-o> = >r- -- 9gEiEEgH .gCE P &El E-* FEPfE #isn€Str-': :a;1,,= -6 +3FE€=BgEF;*EgEfEestiE E'-E r 9=t g (n q = E,9= 9 d,s 3 F-E c G.g0 6

- .E \J tlr *^ _ oq[ toU s :lc-'r Fe3 I - = E c.r ;i t* .i v g iftsgE=fr;ir xl: o\ ;i .-< b;:R EI b.i H3; - 'tt fiE?$r?-#El .*v>-- o :i o E r€'o!l* :{R E (J e, o .:=-=F a h-o o E E=:a'Je F< EH!1S J rE g"e6E-is B*t 3F{e8 6(A 3>5A I 8l € Eal q .! c.l .! I g C.l ..1 .' c.l

€ Hl= ".g >-? q 6l€ S.b z I >rG * 9 E IF *E5 $ G lz.'Qi- -aa € .6 EEeE=:EEgE;: v- t;;;i: = E = i c 9 o.F i -! E.Y :.E,9* 3 d.9 -b9:E E 3E E gE;H!€E EE3E8 o.:t=(/)=x= f;ElriE€iEtE< d 3D UE U FeEaHga !ta XE E

,le E.: -C { SIE .q< s< 4t(J \r t0 U E eiq \J CO €(s oo .=o &l.a -3 bt5 h; i3 -3 =lcy ?e *as Eo d-9 HE3 Hg El$ 42 A .6= J? "H c- a.l HI .l el () otl ,E llq gtx ct) 3tx vtE -l: L)

orE h e9 IE5€Vi E r oo8 '=- ea2, e 6 g5F:3, E3s €5E E€ IF eff o'i I 'ci : FE E Z r d EE E E AE d.EEt E €.gFs slE qr ,{ E F €$gEE f F.$ EF€ ;v-! ils 6 EE TEE ,-J OE o 6 .9^ E tr. ; v&R.- 6 H+R U l-F. t6 99 .a; F- 95iq cv: . FYR 90 ti 9(. < !2 io E ;:ss = x- E ,5EE l+ ?4" .Ei g* o .b.q3 E EIE:i E\o e&E sl#, o FH.Ee I l^ 3 .d € cel* l.s TT !? .l cl ct Eal+ aa co .E€lT o .'rc 9':qneq.1 Pr? ".. ":=-'a1!.!cl c{ cq c{ N t! i!) c.t .j to ..i .gdlFSsi$ cd iE dt od o<, ii cd cd il cd

EI"l I l:E -:e eEcr#r eE;E#: E IHEEgE;. gE; EEIEEEHEgE iEEig=xL4xE: ;tlerrs EE5 ia€;EtE< 6 U> EE 3 < 6 AD XE 5 -l€ 5lE F< \,la \JR< " CA gl: -1 -' 'El??a 4i -69L 9r .Y 6-v .FlE* J3E

e'l rl c\ BI al Elo Rlh Elo U E

| =: c9 ? ge,O 9; c E.o dd9_- =e a E A ftP c lg€E ulig€Eg gEE,.E.EEir;s;Esx d: u;E! c: A|;*?g sEiEean OE9,!,Y-9; ElEsEs AEEEFE3 EgeE[;ac U ls !t eZ -9 ai u xd- lElq,E 9 >- s>, E€g >,8 >, 9,9 (, ,;?- lYp ti E:e fi F ti .99 Fa; Ho'* .2= t tr.' Q el;ia;sEHFEelL.zl< l\ elA o q 9l E^ cl h-9 c] c'! q q .1 c'l ,E N ('l v') -1 .e =o .'! oi e c'l etatN 6g o/j o 'Q- d :'a (! F rq L'o <,i 6 >r? * e ah E-EA g" €EHE E O X 6.= vEq* E $I93r 6 ? E E€; E r oi of e € t P1ts, EE;E;: E =C- 95.9 cg:.E:6 rC ! f P.9 ;i 39.= AE EE.EeflE-91-",? o{, -c o- FFAEggE f':q"E5E oo #PgEE f,s€Ex E'F 8..83 eeEaHtE * Ea

e-fr e A3E E.4 €E€5E dIE ts p E s \Js< I'E F:H 14 .QEE,Es .FgsE o.Y s =<=b F .=- ? E siE.; B; o E'o E q a :Ef E" 3i F.$€ p;S *;3E R=qEs ! E .96UE Hh q, 6t _:- - L : *,98 6.v o. i#FEf ,:? E

c-'l (, E a.l ao o ttt rI< .EFan v) a't ."F:eld E*ES> FF7 AE O 88Eg I

3c -s, f ifr ,24 5 Pg - t ?= F ..b pF :f;iE€E E5.qE . ;€€E3g€E;sn-EE€?i;,Ea-gfi H#:EE $s+;;a= $€EE-e o E e i Ee 3 U d'c j EtgEqs (o ;a w65 h 6:?.9 6 o r *: f; Eg € f H€;iEAtiE; s" XEi-s=€ gEi€EeEEFEgHgEE+EgEf;E A n.E.- 9 E € e"gl E X.SFE.E ; EE S 5>= =.gE€ E;.1 I

oE .99 d E Fa .oE 3s UFF 6?o\ €€ h *fi EE!i' .9BE = c.l e fl< .9 -O. EI \J! C 7!?o R+ P-(J EP at =-i i; E g o a-3 E ca< z

o a I R< .q< o. \-, 10 c >> -3 o OR pai E gh o d,9 iz .v 4

o q) E o) (! a E t't FP ;F) o #6 ad E DU

Eb ; € '=a d oo 99'6 ]-, c IsixrE €["rse: *EEH.FP ;E 5 EET o €EEiE€;'s"FiEEs5. o E; o E*:€ q f g A eBEE$ge EEE#€E .u cl E t- (J

lt) s d* F?g rd o U' -o E o 9X J 8.2,6 InvolvedAgencies and AgencyContacts There are a numberof agenciesthat are involved with biological resourcesand specialstatus species. The agenciesand persons to contact for each of these agenciesare shown in Table 8.2-8-

Contact Ti e Telephone U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Dan Buford BranchCbief, Bay and (9r6) 414-6600 FederalBuilding Delta Branch 2800Cottage Way, RoomW-26O5 Saramento,California 95825 Califomia Department of Fish and Game CarlWilcox Wildlife Biologist (707)944-5500 7329 SilveradoTrail Napa , CA 94558 Mail: P.O. Box 47, Yountville. CA 94599 U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers Ed Wylie South SectionChief (.4r5)977-8464 333 Market Street Mark DAvignon Wedand Specialist (rsj SanFrancisco, CA 94105 w-8446 SanFrancisco Bay RegionalWater Quality Keith Lichen Contactsfor sMace water (5lO) 622-23W Control Board Dale Bower non-pointsources, 15l5 Clay Streer,Suite 1400 AlamedaCounty cA 94612

8,2.7 PermitsRequired and Schedule Applicablebiological resources permits required for theproject are listed below and in Table8.2-9-

TableQ_.a-9. Permits required and permitschedule. PermiuApprovalRequ lred Agency Schedule CleaDWater Act. Section 404. U.S.Army CorpsofEngineers, San Application concurrent with AFC Individuat ProjectPermit to fill FranciscoDistrict filing, data adequacy,and jurisdictional wetlands approximately fou-month review CleanWater Act, Section401, Water Regional Water Quality Conrol Application concurrent with AFC QualityCertification (for filling Board filing, dataadequacy, and jurisdictionalwetlands) approximately four-month review

Information requirements for these permits include: . Complete characterization of the wetlands on wetland delineation forms (Appendix 8.2-D) r Site maps showing the wetland delineation and location of the wetlands to be filled o A descriptionof the project that will fill the wetlands . Construction methods that will be used and their potential effects on water quality in adjacent water bodies

. A completemitigation plan, including an assessmentof the quality of the wetlandsfill and aplan to replacethe filled wetlandsat an acreageratio of l: I or betterwitb wetlandsof equivalentor betterquality, as near as possibleto the location of the filled wetlands.

RussellCiay Energ]' Center AFC, Vol. I 8.2-31 BiologicalResources 8,2.8 References Avian PowerLine InteractionCommittee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating bird collisions with power lines: Thesrate of the art in 1994. FAtsonElectricInstitute. Washington,D.C. Abrams,L. 1923,1944,1951,1960. Illustratedflora of thePacilic states. Stanford University Press. Stanford,CA.

Behler,J. L. and W. King. 1979. TheAudubon Society field guideto North Americanreptiles and amphibians-Alfred Knopf. New York, NY.

Brown, W. andR. Drewien- 1995. Evaluationof two powerline markersto reducecrane and waterfowl collisionmonality . WildlifeSociery Bulletin 23(2):217-227 .

Califomia Departnrcntof Fish and Game(CDFG). 1984. Guidelinesfor assessingthe ffects of proposeddevelopments on rare and endangeredplnnts and plant communities. Califomia Native Plant Society(CNPS). 199 I . Mitigation guidelinesregarding impacts to rare, threatenedor endangeredplants. California NativePlant Sociery,February 1991. CalifomiaNatural Diversity Dala Base (CNDDB). 1999.Califomia Narural Diversity Data Base- Rarefind,April 1999.

CalifomiaRegional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). 1994. The Warer Qualify Plan (Basin Plan) for the Califomia RegionalWater Quality Control BoardCentral Valley Region. Third Edition. TheSacramento River Basin and the SanJoaquin River Basin. Dvorak,A.J. andE.D. Pentecost, et al. 1977.Assessment of theheatth and environmental effects of powergeneration in the Midwest. Vol. II, ecologicaleffects. Preparedby ArgonneNational Laboratory,Afgonne, Ill. (Draft report).

Dvorak,A.J., et al. 197?.The environmental effects ofusing coal for generaringelectricity. NUREG- 0252. hepared by ArgonneNational Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., for the U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission.221 pp.

Ehrlich, P., D. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. Thebirder's handbook,Simon and Schuster.New York, I{Y.

EnvironnrenralLaboratory. 1987. Corpsof Engineerswetlnnds delineation manuaL Technicalreport Y08?-1. U.S. Army EngineerWaterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg MS. Hickman,J.C. 1993. TheJepson manual: Higher plants of Califomia. University of California Press. University of Califomia.

Holland, R.F, 1986. Preliminary descriptionsof the tenestinl naturcl communitiesof Califomia. California Departmentof Fish andGame, Non-game Heritage Program, Sacramento, CA.

Jameson,E.W. and H.J. Peeters.1988. Califomia mammals.IJnivercity of Califomia Press. Berkeley, CA.

Jennings,M. and M. Hayes. 1994-Amphibian and reptile speciesof specialconcem in Califomia. Preparedfor the California Departmentof Fish and Garne,Illand FisheriesDivision.

RussellCity EnergyCent€r AFC, Vol, I 8.2-32 Biological Resources Lerman,S.L. and E.F. Darley. 1975.Particulates, pp. 141-158.In:. Responsesof plantsto air pollution, editedby J.B. Mudd and T.T. Kozlowski. AcademicPress. New York. Lodge,J.P. Jr., A.F. Waggoner,P.T. Klodt, and C.N. Crain. 1981.Non-health effects of airbome panicufatefixrtter. Atmospheic Environment15:431482.

Loucks,et af. 198O.Crop andforest lossesdue to cunent and projectedemissions lrom coal-fired powerplants in the Ohio River Basin USEPA,Office of Researchand Developmenr, Washington, D.C.

Mason,H. L957. A llora of the marshesof California. University of CaliforniaPress. Berkeley,CA. Mayer, K.E. and W.F. Laudenslayer,Jr., eds. 1988. A guide to wildlife Inbiats of Califurnia. Califomia Departmentof Forestryand Fire Protection,Sacranrnto, CA.

McGinnis, S.M. 1984. Cooling water supplyand wast€ )ater retumfishes of Califomia. Universityof CalifomiaPress. Berkeley, CA,

Mclauglin, S.B. 1981. SuIfur dioxide,vegetation effects, and the air quality standanl: Limits of interpretationand application. SP38,the ProposedSulfur Dioxide ald ParticulateStandard SpecialtyConference, September 1980. Air PollutionControl Associarion, Atlanta, GA. Munz,P. 1959.A Califomiaflora. Universityof CalifomiaPress. Berkeley, CA. Pahwa,S. andB. Shipley. 1979:A pilot studyto detectvegetation stress around a coolingtower. Paper TP7903.Presented at the 1979Cooling Tower Institute Annual Meeting, Houston, fi. Peterson,R.T. 7990. AJield guide to westembirds. HoughronMifflin Company.Boston, MA. Sawyer,J. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A manualof Caldomia vegetation.Califomia Native Plant Societypublication.

Skinner,M.W. andB.M. Pavlik eds. 1994.Inventory of rareand endangered vascular plants of Califomia. Califumia Native Plant SocietySpecial Publication Number I (Fifth Edition). Sacramento,CA.

Sprugel,D.G., J.E. Miller, R.M.Miller, eral. 1980.Sulfur dioxide effecrs on yieldand seed quality in field-grownsoybeans. Phytopathology 7O (12):1129-1133.

Stebbins,R.C. 1985. A field guide to testern reptilesand amphibr'cru.Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston,MA.

Steinhart,P. 199O.Caffimia's wild heritage,threatened and endangeredanimals in the GoUenState. Califomia Departmentof Fish and Game.

Thelander,C- 1994.Life on theedge, a guideto Califurnia'send.angered natural resources: Wildlife. BioSystemsAnalysis, Inc.

Udvardy,M, 1977. TheAudabon Society field guideto North Americanmammals. Alfred Knopf. New York, NY.

RussellCity EnergyCeDter AFC, Vol. I 8.2-33 Biological Resources United StatesDepartrnent of Agriculture (USDA). 1988. Soil suney of AlamedaCounty. Califomia. Soil ConservationSewice.

U.S.DrugAdrninislration (USDA). 1992. Field office official list of hydric soil mapunits for Alameda County,CA.

U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA). 1979.Air quality criteiafor carbonmornxide. Office of Researchand Development,Washington, D.C.

U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Air quality criteria for oxidesofnitrogen. Office of Researchand Development,Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish andWifdlife Service(USFWS). 1978. Impactsof coal-firedpower plants onfish, wildlife, and their habitats. U.S. Departmentof the Interior, FWSIOBS-78D9,26O pp. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). 1989. USFWS wetland inventory maps. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). 1989. Wetland Inventory Maps for NewarkUSGS Quadrangle. U.S. Fish andWildlife Service(USFWS). 1994. Wildlife of the SacramentoNational Wildlife Refuge Complex.U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

U'S' Fishand Wildlife Service(USFWS). 1995. Sacramentosan Joaquin Delta native fishes recovery plan. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service,Portland, OR. U.S'Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). 1996. Interim survey guidelines to permitteesunder Section I O(aXI XA) of the EndangeredSpecies Act for the EndangeredConservancy : Fairy Shrimp, LonghomFairy Shrirnp,Rivenide Fairy Shrimp,Vernal Pool TadpoleShrimp, and the threatened Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp. April 19. Vaughan,8.E., et al. 1975.Review of potenlialimpact on healthand environmental quality from metals enteringthe environmentas a result of coal utilization. BattelleEnergy Progress Report, Pacific NorthwestLaboratories. Battelle Memorial Insritute,Richland, WA. 75 pp.

Vemer,J. andA. Boss. 1980.Califomia wildlife andtheir habitats: Westem Sierra Nevada. General Terhnical ReportPSW-37. USDA ForestService, Pacific SouthwestForest and Range ExperimentalStation, Berkeley, CA.

Whitaker,Jr. J. 198O.The Audubon Society freld guiile ro North Ameican mammak. Alfred Knopf. New York,NY.

Wistrorn,G.K. andJ.C. Ovard. 1973.Cooling tower drift, its nrasurement,control and Environmental effects.Paper TP73-01. Presented at the 1973Cooling Tower Instirure Annnal Meeting, Houston,

Tniner,D- 1988. Califumia's wildlife, volumeI: Amphibiansand reprila.r. Califomia Statewide Wildlife HabitatRelationships Sysrem.

Zeiner,D. l990a. Califumia'swildlift, volumeII: Birds. CalifomiaStatewide Wildlife Habitat RelationshipsSystem.

RussellCity EnerS' CenrerAFC, Vol. I 8.2:i4 Biological Resources Zeine\D. l990b. Calfornia's wildlife, volumeIII: Mammals. Califomia StatewideWildlife Habitat RelationshipsSystem.

Zimmerman,P.A., et al. 1989. Polymorphicregions in plant genomesdetected by an Ml3 pmbe. Genome32:824-828.

RusscllCity EnergyCenter AFC, Vol. I 8.2-35 BiologicalResources

8.6 LANDUSE

This sectionprovides a discussionofland useat andwithin the vicinity ofthe proposedRussetl City EnergyCenter (RCEC) andAdvanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) plantsite andits linear facilities, and assessesthe potentialeffects of the RCECconstruction and operationon land use. Section8-6.1 discussesthe regionaland local land usesetting focusingon land usewithin onemile of the project site and0.25 mile of the project's linear facilities. It alsodiscusses applicable land useplanVcontrols that apply to the project,and presentsa brief summaryof future landuse projections for the region. Section 8.6.2discusses potential environmental effects as they relateto land usecompatibility and development. Section8.6.3 discusses cumulative impacts and Section8-6.4 presents proposed mitigation measuresfor any impactsdetermined to be significant. Section8.6.5 presents applicable laws, ordinances,regulations, and standardsrelated to land us'e,and Section8.6.6 references agency contacts. Section 8.6.7 presents permit requtementsand schedules,and Section 8.6.8 contains a list of referencescited. 8.6.1 Aftected Environment 8.6.1.1Regional Setting The projectis locatedin the city of Haywardin Alanrda county, which is situatedin the EastBay Subregionof the SanFrancisco Bay Area in california. Atamedacounty encompassesapproximately 472,00oacres (califomia Departmentof FinancelcDoll 1999a).Incorporated cities in Alameda Countyinclude Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Dublin, Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Oakland,Piedmont, Pleasanton, San l-eandro, Union City, andNewark. Regionalland useis diverse,with portionsof AlamedaCounty including major urbancenters- For example,the City of Oaklandhas a populationof approximately399,9O0 Califomia Depanmentof Finance2001 (CDOD. SanLeandro has a populationof 76,?00,Fremont has a populationof 203,60O, o andthe unincorporutedareas of AlamedaCounty have population a of I 34,800. Haywardhad a populationof 129,600in 2000,which is increasingslightly everyyear (CDOF 1999b). In 1995,approximately 26 percentof AlamedaCounty's land area was developed urban land (e.g., residential,commercial, and industrial),compared to 14.7percent for the Bay Area asa whole (AssociationofBay AreaGovemrrents [ABAG] 1997).other landuses draw upon the area's close proximity to tlre SanFrancisco Bay, includingcoastal ports andharbors (e.g., port of oakland), military uses,and salt production. The strongmilitary presencein the EastBay regionhas been reduced through implementationof the BaseRealignment and Closureprogram on mostof the military instatlationsin the Bay Area, including the Mare IslandNaval Shipyard;Oakland Army Base;Naval Air Station,Alameda; Oak Knoll Naval Hospital,Oakland; and the Naval Fleet hrdustrialSupply Center, Oakland, In the southemreaches of the county,a large salt productionindustry has developed. Large, flat coastalareas arediked to allov/ seawaterto enterand eventually evaporate, leaving salt. Approximately18 percentof the greaterBay Area is devotedto agricultumlproduction (ABAG 1997). In 1997,the toral valueof agriculturalproduction in AlamedaCounty was $47.4 million, ranking,146 in the Stare(Califomia Depafir:rnt of Food andAgriculture 1999). The top five crops,by value,were (wine) grapes($10.39 million), (cut) flowers ($9.32million), treesand shrubs(98.29 million), beddingplants ($6.46 million), andcattle/calves ($5.66 million).

A significantportion of otherundeveloped land in the regionis designatedpmtected open space; this is particularlytrue in the EastBay. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) administers the 21,500- o acreDon EdwardsSan Francisco Bay Nationalwildlife Refuge,located along the edgeof the Bay ro the RussellCity EnergyCenter AFC, Vol. I 8.Gl knd Us€ south of Hayward. The Hayward Area Recreation District (HARD) managesthe l,8(Dacre Hayward Regional Shoreline wetland open spacearea, Iocated one-mile northwest of the project site. Numerous community parks also contribute to the open spacelandscape- 8.6,1.2 Local Settlng RCECPlant Site The power plant site is located in the City of Hayward Industrial Corridor, directly across Enterprise Avenue from the City's water Polhtion Control Facility (WPCF) (wastewater treatem€nt plant), arnong heavy and light industrial and ofhce uses. The RCEC is consistent with existing uses of neighboring properties, such as the Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), the Rohm and Haas paint polynrrs plant (located apprbximately 2,00Ofeet southeast),and a multi-company rrucking warehouse facility (locatedimmediately west). Figure 8.Gl showsexisting land useswithin one mile of the project site. The Hayward Industrial Corridor extends to the north for about 1.5 miles to the Hayward Air terminal; and to the east for about the sarnedistance. Large industdal facilities to the easrinclude the Gillig bus manufacturing plant and Berkeley Farms dairy processing facility. A variety of smaller warehousing and industrial businessesline Enterprise Avenue, Wlitesell Street, and Depot Road, the nearest streets. A pocket of unirrcorporated County land that contains a number of automobile salvage yards lies between Depot Road and the WPCF.

The nearest residential uses to the project consist of an apartment complex Iocated northeast and approximately 0.82 miles from the project site, and a single-family dwelling located on Depot Road east of clawlter Road, also about 0.82 miles away. There are severatresidences remaining within the Hayward and County Industrial zones on McCone Avenue and Dunn Road. These are approximately 0.8 miles or nrore from the project site. The amount of housing within a one-mile radius of the project is very small and, other than the McCone Avenue and Dunn Road residences.is confined to aheMt. Eden residential area east of Industrial Boulevard.

Open land lies to the south and west of the project site, between the proje€t site and State Route 92. This area includes a stormwater retention pond that is o*,ned by the city of Hayward. This pond is used to regulate slormwaier flow into marshlandsfurther south, including the HARD marsh and a salt marsh harvest mouse lneserve that is located further south, along State Route 92. The HARD marsh is a reclamation project that involves the restoration of forrner salt evaporation ponds to brackish nmrsh using secondary treated wastewater from the Union Sanitary District (USD) Alvarado Treatment Plant. Other Iand uses to the south and west include recreational uses at the Hayward shoreline Regional park (managedby East Bay Regional Parks Districi) and the Shoreline Interpretive Center that is run by the HARD. Tbe Shoreline Interpretive Center is located about 0.73 miles from the plant at the end of Breakwater Drive, adjacent to State Route 92. From that location, hiking trails extend further west to the bay and north along the bay shore.

Major surface roads within the vicinity of the proposed project include State Route 92, Clawiter Road, Enterprise Avenue, Industrial Avenue, and Depot Road. Union Pacific Railroad industriat spur tracks abuts the southem boundary of the project. Refer to Section 8.12 for firrther details regarding transponation facilities.

Nearbyschools are locatedin th6 MountEden and GlenEden areas at distancesot approximately1 mile or morefrom the RCECsite. Morespecitically, Chabot Community collegeis iust overone mileeast-northeast ot the site. The Lffechiropractic west collegeis locatedeast-northeast of the projectsite at the

Russ€llCiry EnergyCenter AFC, Vol. I 8.6:2 Land Use

Russell City Energt Center AFC

May 2001

Russell City Energt Center AFC

May 2001

Russell City Energt Center AFC

May 2001 cornerof Clawiterand DepotRoad, a distanceof0.75 nriletiorn thc RCECsite. For a discussionof sensitivereceptors rvithin one rnile ofthe proposedproject site, rel'er to Section8.9 (PublicHealth).

ElectricT.ansmission Line and EastshoreSubstation Expansion-There are4 eKistingtransmission line towersbetween the projectsite and State Route 92, and2 to\versbetween State Route 92 and PC&E EastshoreSubstation. These towers will be replaced,at the samelocations, with new tubulartowers- The first tower is locatedat 3458Enterprise Avenue at Bay CitiesRebar Company, lvhile a secondtower is locatedon the TuscaroraCorporation's property at 3440 EnterpriseAvenue. A third tower is locatedon the propertyofJohnson Controls. The fourthtower is locatedin a Caltransparking lot within the State Route92 right-of-way overpassembankment- The two towers southof StateRoute 92 are also situatedin areasthat are zonedand usedfor industrialpurposes. The electricaltransmission line route covers I . I rnilesand connects with the EastshoreSubstation, south ofStale Route92 off Arden Road. The PG&E substationand surrounding area lies withi the HaywardIndustrial Corridor and is alsozoned for industrialuse, but this areacontains more office and light industrialuses compared with the heavy indusfial usesnear the RCECsite (e.g., the City of Hayward'sWPCF, and the Rohmand Haaspaint polymersplant), north of StateRoute 92. lndustrial developmentsnear the PG&E substationand off Eden Landing Road rvereconstructed more recentlythan thosenear the RCEC.

NaturalGas Pipeline-The pipelineroute lies entirely in the Hayr.vardlndustrial Corridor. The proposed routewill run eastfrom theRCEC sitealong Enterprise Avenue, across Clawiter Road to the Berkeley Farmsfacility, and then continue east along the southemproperty line of BerkeleyFarms to the eastside of theUnion PacificRailroad right-of-way, where PG&E's gasdistribution Line | 5l is located.Land use alongEnterprise Avenue consists of a largetruck lerminal, the City of Hay.rvardWPCF, automotive and nretalfabricating, and orher light industrialuses. 'the WastewaterReturn.Pipeline wastewaterdischarge pipeline will exlendacross Enterprise Avenue to the City of Flapvard'sWPCF. Currentuse nearby includes the KFAX radiostation transmitter, the WI'CF,and the warehouse-tr[ckterminal immediately west of the RCECsite, AWT Plant The localsetting ofrhe AWTplant is substantiallythe sameas that ofthe RCECplanr site.

8.6.1.3 Land Use Planning and Controls 'Ihe City of HaywardGeneral Plan provides a generaland comprehensive statement of landuse policies thatwiil guidethc futuregrouth ofcities andcounties. The City'sordinances, in contrast,provide a specificregulatory mechanism used by theCity to implementits landuse policy. Zoningordinances give jurisdictionalproperties a zoningdesignation, which corresponds to a setof "permitted"and "conditional" uses,The City'sland use zones, or districts,are each subject to speciticdeveloprnent standards and restrictions.Zoning and general plan designations for the projectarea are shorvn in Figures8.6-2 and 8.6-3.respectively. In additionto thesebasic land use policies, there may be regionalland use controis in a particulararea that must also be corrsideredprior to development-

General Plan Designation and Zoning RCECPlant Site l he projectis locatedin theCity of llay'wardand hence is subjectto policiesstipulated in the Hayward GcneralPlan (City of Hayrvard.1998). Specifically,the LandUse Elementof the GeneralPlan defines PlanningAreas and establishes the dcscriptions,limits, and directiorrs for growth(Section 8.6,5).

RrtssullC rly llncrsv( crrtcr/\l ( . Vul. l 8.6-6 Land llsc The project site is part of the West IndustrialPlanning Area (WIPA) andhas been designated a part of the HaywardIndustrial Corridor in the GeneralPlan. As oneof severalPlanning Areas in Hayward,the WIPA haspotential for office, warehouse,and otherindustrial growth-

The project site is zonedIndustrial (t) (Figure8.62) underthe City of Haywardzoning ordinance. The purposeof this designationis to encouragethe developnentof industrialuses in suitable.areaswhile minimizing effectsto other areas. Manufacturing,warehousing, printing, publishing,research and development,research laboratories, and wholesalebusiness uses are permilted as primary usesin the Industrial District whennot adjacentto a residentiallyzoned property, when not specifiedas an administrativeor conditionaluse, and whenthe use is conductedcompletely within an enclosed building(s). Pertinentrestrictions in the Industrial zoneinclude a minimum lot sizeof 10,000sq. ft., minimum ftontageof 35 ft., and an averagelot width of 70 fi- Thereis no nraximumlot coveragelimit for industrial facilities, andno limit on the height of industrialbuildings. other predominantzoning designations within one mile of the project site areIndustrial (e, single- Family Residential(RS), andFlood Plain (FP) (city of HaywardZoning ordinance 1999). Also within one mile ofthe project site are two unincorporatedareas of AlanredaCounty that are entirely surrounded by the City of Hayward, An areaalong Depol Roadnorth of the project,for example,is zonedHeavy hdustrial (M-2) underthe county's zoningsystem. This areacontains several automobile salvage businesses.Areas further north along Clawiter Road and Industrial Boulevard are also under the County's zoningjurisdiction including both residential and industrial zones- ElectricalTransmission Line and EastshoreSubstation Expansion-From rhe new RCEC switchyard,power will be transmittedthrough new overheadtransmission lines to PG&E s existing EastshoreSubstation. Lands adjacent to the transmissionwires are zonedIndustrial andare designated IndustrialConidor in rhe GeneralPlan. The transmissionline will crossState Route 92. NaturalGas Pipollne--Thenatural gas pipeline will be installedwithin Enterprise Avenue, across Clawiter Road,and in a pipelineright-of-way within the BerkeleyFarms facility. Zoning designationsdo not apply to city streetrights-of-way. The City's GeneralPlan designates properties adjacent to the proposedpipeline aspart ofthe IndustrialConidor. They arezoned as Industrial(Figure 8-6i2). Tnning designationsfor all pmcelsadacent to the pipeline conidor arealso Industrial- Wastewaier Return Pipeline-The wastewaterretum pipelinelies within the GeneralPlan's Industrial Corridor. The zoningdesignations for parcelsadjacent to the wastewaterdischarge pipeline are Industrial. AYYTPlant The GeneralPlan ald zoningdesignations for the AWT plant arethe sameas to thosefor the RCECplant site.

Other Applicable Land Use Plans San FranciscoBay Plan Variousregional land usecontrols are operative in portionsof the project area. The Bay Conservation and Developm€ntCommission (BCDC), asthe local coastalmanagement agency, administers the local coastalrnanagenent program including the san FranciscoBay Plan. created in 1968,the Bay plan is an enforceableregulatory framework to guidethe future protectionand use ofthe SanFrancisco Bay and its shoreline.Key featuresof theBay Plan include regulation of filling anddredging in theBay andnew developrnentwithin 100feet of the shoreline,and protection of shorelineareas suitable for high priority

RussellCity EnergyCenter Arc, Vol. I 8.6-7 land Use water-orientated uses (i.e., ports and harbors). In order to car4r out the Bay Plan, a permitting system has beenestablished for certain activities on lands within the BCtrC's iurisdiction. which includesthe following areas; o The open water, marshes, and mudflats of greater San Francisco Bay, including Suisun, San Pablo, Honker, Richardson, San Rafael, San Leandro and Gdzzly Bays, and the Carquinez Strait . The first l0O feet inland from the shoreline around San Francisco Bay . The portion of the Suisun Marsh including levees, waterways, marshesand grasslands below the lO-foot contour line o Portions of most creeks, rivers, sloughs and other tributaries flowing into San Francisco Bay

. Sah ponds, duck hunting preserves,ganre refuges, and other managed wetlands that have been diked off from San Francisco Bay (BCDC 1999)

A permit from the BCDC is require.dif there are plans to perform any of the following activities within the BCDC jurisdictional area: o Place solid material; build or repair docks, pile-supported of cantilevered structures; or dispose of material or moor a vessel for a long period in San Francisco Bay or in certain tributariesthat flow into the Bay . Dredge or extract material from the bottom of the Bay o Substantiallychange the use of any structureor area . Construct,remodel, or repair a strucnlre . SuMivide property or gradeland (BCDC 1999).

According to the BCDC (Lisa Bennett,personal comrnunication, February 13,2ffi1), the RCEC site does not lie within BCDC jurisdiction. The marshlands(Hayward Area RecreationDistrict [HARD] marsh)to the south ofthe RCEC site are not within the Bay shorelinezone, because they are not tidally influenced. These are instead freshwater marshlands fed by runoff, treated wastewater from the Union Sanitary District, and periodic infusions of Bay water intentionally released into the area to create a brackish marsh. The BCDC jurisdiction under the McAteer-Petris Act and the San Francisco Bay Plan extends 100 feet from the actual Bay shoreline, about one mile west ofthe RCEC site. Hayward Area Shorellne Plan The Hayward Area Shoreline Plan was developed in 1974 and updated in 1993 by the Hayward Area ShorelinePlanning Agency (HASPA) GIASPA 1993). HASPA is ajoint cooperativeplanning agency with representativesfrom the City of Hayward, Fqsl lay Regional Parks District, Hayward Area Recreation District, Hayward Unified School District, and San Lorenzo Unified School District. HASPA's Planning Area consists of all land in the City of Hayward west of the Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the bayshore. HASPA's purpose is long-range planning of the shoreline area and the enhancementand environmental restoration of wetlands in public ownership near the shoreline. One of the key purposes of HASPA is to coordinate the managementand developrnent ofland held in public ownership within the Planning Area. HASPA is an advisory, rather than a jurisdictional or regulatory body.

RussellCity EnergyCenler AFC, Vot- I 8.e8 l,and Use HASPA's Planning Area includes about one{hird of the City of Hayward Industrial Corridor. Much of this land, particularly in the westem and southem areas,however, consists of rnarshland, tandfill, and salt evaporation ponds. Open land north of State Route 92, about one{uarter of the HASPA Planning Area, is mostly in public ownership(City of Hayward,East Bay Regionalparks, state of califomia). open land south of State Route 92 within the Planning Area is mostly privately held, and much of this is owned by the Cargill Corporation and operated as salt evaporation ponds.

HASPA is coordinating open spacedevelopment in lhe IIASPA Planning Area through implenrentatron of the Hayward Area shoreline Plan. As of 1998, HASPA had acquired 1,800 acres of shoreline property, sponsored marsh restoration (HARD Marsh, Triangle Marsh), and developed 8 miles of shoreline trails. The Shoreline Interpretive Center is a key educational ourreach facility for HASPA. The key program objectives of HASPA are: ' Protect environmental resources such as wetlands ard habitat for endangeredand threatened species

o Preservehistorical resources, such as landings and salt production sites o Promote education and research

o hovide recreational opportunities, particularly through the shoreline trail system r Encourage industrial development and traffic circulation improvements and prcmote industrial in- fill developmentin areasdesignated for indusrdaland public utiliJies + Support land managementefforts (mosquito abatement, shoreline erosion control, alien species management,etc.)

8.6.1.4 FutureLand UseTrends A considerableincrease in EastBay areagrowth is expectedover the next de.ade. AlamedaCounty's popufationis expectedro increaseby approximately22 percentfrom20tJo-2020 (ABAG projections 2000)with a populationof 1,654,485by theyear 2010. Increasesin populationwill undoubtedlyspur furtherresidential development in Haywardand elsewhere in thecounty. This growthis expectedlo continuewell into thefuture. An overflowof hightechnology activities from SiliconValley into the Haywardarea has caused significant industrial expansion and this trendis expectedto continueinto the future. Haywatdhas become an attractivelocation for high technologymanufacturing and researchand developmentfacilities becauseof appropriatelyzoned land andaccessibility to affordablehousing. Oneof the effectsof the Silicon Valley spillover hasbeen the increaseduse of the HaywardIndustrial Corridorforbusiness and office-related uses, Ieading to a higherdensity of employeesthan is usualfor a light and heavyindustrial area and resultingin higher thanplanned tmffic congestion,shortages of parking,and the conversionof warehousingspace to office spacewithin the krdustrialCoridor. The City of Haywardbas addressed these issues in a backgroundpaper developed as part of the Generalplan Updatethat will be completedduring 2001 (City of Hayward2001a). Recommendations have included: l) greatersegregation ofuses within the hdustrial Corridor (for example,more separationof manufacturing,warehousing, and business park usesor rezoningthe district for greatersegregation of uses);2) allowing automobileparking on the streetunder certain circumstances, 3) imposinga minimum lot sizeto preventthe excessivesuMivision of parcels,and 4) placinga high priority on increasedtransit accesswithin the Industrial Corridor.

RussellCity Erer8y Cenler AFC, Vol, I 8.69 land Use As part of the General PIan update, rhe ciry has also addressed"smart growth" principles (city of Hayward 2001b). Smart growth principles are intended to counteract what contemporary planners se€ as problems associatedwith urban sprawl. Higher density housing that is served by public transit, mixed development of housing and commercial uses,pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, and open space preservation and develoPment are seenas planning principles that will help to coordinate development and retain a strongsense of place,better quality housing,and higher quality of life. Examplesof transit- oriented development include the new housing complex located adjacent to the Hayward City Hall and Bay Area Rapid Transit station. The City has examined smarr growth principles in relation ro five key 'thange areas" in the City, one of which is the Industrial Corridor. Future planning efforts for the Industrial Corridor may include a better mix of residential, retail cormercial, and housing uses where appropriate, in portions of the Industrial Corridor that are occupied prinnrily by business parks and bffice uses.

Within the last eighteenmonths (11/l 5199- 5l5l}l]r.,the City of Hayward hasconducted discretionary reviewsand approvedthe following projectswithin 2 miles of the RCEC project site: ' Use p€rmit for a two-story offrce building at 25700 Industrial Boulevard near Depot Road . Staples and Walgreens commercial developrpnt at West Winton Avenue and Hesperian Boulevard

o Industrial development(50,000 square feet) at 24600Industrial Boulevard,adiacent to residential area

8.6.2 EnvironmentalConsequences Potential impacts to land use are evaluated by comparing project characteristics with the regional and local land use environment. A summaryof effectsto land use and zoning designationswithin one mile of the power plant site and within 0.25 mile of the project's linear routesis presentedin Table g.Gl.

GeneralPlan GP Zoning Fezone Othef ProlectFeatures Designalion Amendment? Designation Reguired? Requirements Electric IndustrialCorridor Industrial Encroachrnent transmission line pefmit Natural gas IndustrialCorridor Industrial Encroachment pipeline permit Water supply and IndusuialCorridor No Industrial No Encroachnent wastewater rehtrn pemit pipelines

AWT plant IndustrialConidor No Indusfrial No Encroachment permil

8.6.2.1 Slgnificance Crlteria Criteria usedin determiningwhether projecrrelated land useimpacts are significart arc consi$entwith standardindustry practice and California Code of RegulationsTitle 14,915065. An impacris determined to be significanrif it: r Physicallydivides an established community

RussellCity EnergyCenter AFC. Vol. I 8.6-10 L€nd Use o Conflicts with any applicableland use plans,policies, or regulationsofan agencywith jurisdiction over the project (including, bur not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environrnental effect

. Conflicts with any applicablehabitat conservation plan or natural communities' conservationplan 8.6,2.2 PotentialEftects on Land Use This section discussesthe general project effects on land use, followed by specific potential effects of eachproject element. As shownin Table 8.6-1,neither the project nor any of its associatedfacilities will require a General Plan amendrrent or zoning redesignation. An encroachment permit from the Ciry of Hayward will be required for the natural gas pipeline, or utility easement.

Consistency wlth the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance The proposed RCEC project is consistent with and fufthers in many respects the goals and policies of the City of Hayward General Plan. Specifically, the RCEC is an industrial land use within a designated Industrial Corridor, consistent with the General Plan.

The Russell City Energy Center would further key goals and policies stated in the General Plan's Land Use, Economic Development,and Growth ManagementElements, and is consistentwith the goalsand policies of the other elements,as notedbelow: o The Housing and Neighborhood Preservation section of the General Policies Plan identifies the West Industrial area of the City as representing great potential for industrial growth in Hayward.

o The Economic Development pofiion of the Hayward General Policies Plan recognizes the importanceof the economichealth of the City. This elernentstates that rhe City's fiscal health is dependent upon maintaining a dynamic economic clirnate and points out the importance of developing or increasing rhe Flayward tax base and employment opportunitiesin the City of Hayward. The EconomicDevelopment Element lists a number of policies based on these issues. The RCEC would promote achievement of Policy II ("createa soundlocal economywhich attractsinvestment, increases the tar base, creates employrnent opportunities for residents, and generatespublic revenues"), Pohcy m ("facilitate the development of employment opportunities for residents"), and Policy V ("attract new businesses").

o The Circulation Eleme of the General Policies Plan sets forth concerns about increased traffic genemtion from economic development, The RCEC is consistent with the Plan's goal of improving traffic circulation in rhar rhe RCEC is a relatively low traffic generator compared to other types of industrial developrnent. RCEC Ptant Site The proposedproject site will not havea significantimpact on the surroundingarea under the CEQA thresholdspresented above. The project will be locatedin an industrialarea that is separatedby design from the rest of the community,including residential developments found to the east. The nearest residentialarea is approximately0.82 miles from the RCECpropeny line, Sincethe project is industrial in natureand will be locatedin an industrialarea, it is consisientwilh surroundingland uses and would

Rus€ll City EnergyCeDter AFC, Vol- I 8.Gll knd Use not physically divide any elemenlsof the local community. The proposedarchirctural designof the RCEC would contribute to an enhanced appearanceof the City's westem gateway afea- The project is sited in an area where the neighboring land uses are most\ light and heavy industrial, including the City's wastewater treatment plant, Rohm and Haas paint polymers plant, Gillig bus manufacturing facility, and Berkeley Farms dairy products processing facility.

Section l0 of the City of Hayward's General Policies PIan statesthat determination of conformance of a proposeduse orzone with the GeneralPlan should include considerationofthe following questions: 1) Is the use specifically designated on the Policies Plan Map in the area where its location is proposed? Ansper Yes, the proposed RCEC is an industrial use, to be located in the area designated Industrial Corridor. 2) Are conditions in the area safe frorn potential flooding and geologic hazards not common to the entire Hayward Planning Area? Answer: Yes. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurancerate rlap (Community PanelNos.065033{019E and 065033-018E),the RCEC is located h Z,oneC (area of rninimal flooding) and is not within a I OGyear or 500-year floodplain. 3) Will cornmunity facilities and streets be available at City standards to serve the proposed propeny use? Answer: Yes. City streetsand City utilities servethe location. Water is availablefrom the City of Hayward, and treated wastewater would be available from the Hayward Water Pollution Control Facility. 4) Is the proposal consistent with policies, principles and standardscontained in the General Plan? Answer: Yes. The Energy Center fr.rrthersimportant goals and policies in the General plar, including the Economic Development and Gro*th Management elements. Conditions of certification specified in the California Energy Commission license for the RCEC, if granted, would ensurethat environmental,noise, and conservationelement policies would be attained. 5) Do social and economic conditions indicate that the proposed zoning or developnent is neededat this time? Answer: Yes. Califomia is cunently facing a significant energy shortage. Govemor Gray Davis is encouraging the development of new energy facilities. Hayward, and the San Francisco Bay Area in general, require additional local electric energy generation to avoid a decline in the reliability and quality of electric power service- 6) Does an evaluation of required environmental impact reports and any potintial public benefit analyses indicate that the use or zonejustihes any adverseimpact the proposal may have on the area involved? Answer The CEC licensing process provides a thorough evaluation of environmental impacts and analysesof potential public benefit. The CEC licensing process, under the Warren-Alquist Act, is equivalent to CEQA review at the level ofan Environmental Impact Report.

RussellCity EnergyCentel AFC, Vol, I 8.6-12 land Use The RCEC is consisrent with the City of Hayward Zoning Ordinance as a planned industrial use located in the Industrial Corridor, which is an Indusrrial District. As a manufachrring use, or a use very similar to manufacturing, the RCEC would be considered a permitted use, not requiring a General Plan Amendment, rezone, or variance. City of Hayward Depanment of Community and Economic Development Staff have prepared a Staff Report offering their opinion rhat rhe RCEC should be considered a permitted use similar to manufacturing (Appendix 8.6-A),

Land uses south and west of the project consist mainly of natural resource conservation. There is a vacant lot owned by the Waste Management Corporation immediately south of the RCEC site. Further south lies City property used as a stormwater retention basin. Still further south, across the flood control channel, is a natural brackish marshland owned by the City of Hayward, which connects with the salt marsh harvest mouse preserve along State Route 92. Further west is rhe HARD marsh, joindy managed by the East Bay Regional Parks District and Hayward Area Recreation District. These areas lie outside of the Industrial zone in the Floodplain zone. The RCEC will not significantly conflicr with these land uses. Noise levels from the enefgf center will b€ low such that wildlife can easily adapt (see Section 8.7, Noise). There are no significant levels of vibration frorn a faciliry such as the RCEC. Though the project could provide perching sites for predatory raptors, this could be easily mitigated. Recreational and educational use of the shoreline area will take place at a sufficient distance from the RCEC such that there will b€ no significantvisual or noise impactson recreationalusers in this zone(see Section 8.13,Visual Resources). Other potential effects on wildlife and, in general, the use of the neighboring area as a natural resources conservation area, would not be significant and would not conflict with these uses, with appropriate mitigation measures(see also Section8.2, Biological Resources).

Electrical Transmission Lin6 and Eastshore Substatlon Expansion{onslruction of the new tmnsmission towers will be performed segmentby segment,so as to disrupt traffic as little as possible- Most of the tower replacenEnt sites are located in parking lots or industrial lots of existing businesses. The electric transmission line will not conflict with local zoning regulations or with the goals of the General Plan for the City of Hayward.

Natural Gas Papeline-The proposednatural gas pipeline will be placedin EnterpriseAvenue, across Clawiter Road, and il a pipeline corridor near the south boundary of the Berkeley Farms property. Since the pipeline will be buried, it will not directly or p€rmanently affect surrounding land uses- Temporary, indirect impacts to nearby businesseswill occur due to standardconstruction practices that may slow and/or retoute traffrc. Pipeline construction will take lwo to three rnonths or less. Affected areaswill only experience short-term impacts since the pipeline will be constructed on a segment-by-segmentbasis. Once the pipeline is completed, there will be no impacts to local transportation pattems.

The City of Hayward's General Plan does not speciftcally addressregulation of underground utilities. The City's Industrial Corridor Plan govems land adjacent to the proposed pipeline route; pipeline construction and operation will not conflict with the goals and policies of this particular plan. Since local zoning regulations do not apply to street rights-of-way, the proposed natural gas pipeline will not conflict with local zoning regulations. The only permit required for construction of the gas pipeline will be an encroachnrentpermit issued by the City of Hayward.

Wastewater Return Plpeline-The wastewaterreturn line will cmss under EnlerpriseAvenue Io the City of Hayward Water Pollution Control Facility. There will be minimal impacts to local fansportation Pattems due to construction of the new pipeline. Since local zoning regulations do not apply to stfeet rights-of-way, the proposed wastewater pipeline will not conflict with local zoning regulations-

RussellCity EnergyCenter AFC, Vol. I 8.613 Land Use AW Plant Consistency of the AWT plant with the General Plan and zoning ordinances will be substantially similar to that of the RcEc plant site. 8.6.3 Cumulativelmpacts Sincethe project will not causesignificant land useimpacts, it will not contributeto significant cumulativeimpacts on land use. 8.6,4 ProposedMitigation Measures Thereare no significantland useimpacts related to the project site and the naturalgas pipeline. An .encroachrnentpermit will be obtainedprior to constructionof any project facilities, andall rnitigation measuresstipulated in any suchpermit will be followed 8.6.5 ApplicableLaws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards All applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and staadardsand their conformance measuresare detailed in the text below. Table 8.62 summarizes this information and provides agency contacts. Tabte 8.63 presents the land use permit schedule.

8.6.5,1 Federal The Federal Aviation Administration Act and its implementing regulations (14 CFR 77) apply to any structure taller than 200 feet above ground surface at lhe site of the stnrcture, within three nautical miles of the nearest runway. The RCEC exhaust stacks will b€ 145 feet tall and thus a permit from the FAr{ will not be required. 8.6.5.2 State StateLORS that apply to this project include: Warren-AlquistEnergy Resources Conservafionand Devetopment Act Provisions in the Warren-Alquist Energy ResourcesConservation and Development Act (Public ResourcesCode [PRC] 25000et seq.)are directly and indirectly relatedto land use. The provisionssrare, among other things, that:

Thefollowing areas of the state shall not be approved as a site for an energy generating facility, unless the commissionfinds that such use is not inconsistent with the pr tmry uses of such lands and that there will be no substantial adverse environmental $ects and the approval of any public agercy futving ownership or control of such lands is obtained: (a) State, regional, county and ciry parks; wild.erness,scmic or tatural resentes; areas for wildlde protection, recreation, historic presereation; ol tuttural presenation areas in existence on the $ective date of this division; and (b) Estuaries in an essentially naural and undeveloped state- In considering applications for ceftirtcafiort the commission shall give the greatest consideration to the needfor protecrtng areas of critical environmental concern, including, bat not limited to, unique anil irreplaceable scientific, scenic, and,educational wildlife habitats; unique hisnrical, archaeological, and aitural sites; lands of hazardous concern; and areas under consideration by the state or the United Statesfor wildemess, or wildlife and game rcseves. (PRC $2552?)

The proposed project will conform to PRC $25527 since project lands are not located in either of these areas.

RussellOty EnergyCenrer AFC, Vol, I 8.6-14 Land Use Table8.$?, Laws,ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS)- AFC Section Where Conformance ls LORS Documenl/Secllon Applicabllity Dlscus3ed Federal No permitsrequir€d Stale Eocroachmentpermit CA Stre€tsand Highways Encroachrnent peimit will S€clion8.6.2.2 for excavationin Code,Division 2, Chapter5.5, be necessaryfor publicroadway Sectionsl,l6Gl47o construclion of ponions of the naiural gas and water and wastewater refitm pipelines

General Plan HaywardGeneral Plan Dcvelopmentwithit the Section8.6.2.2 Designations jurisdiction of the city is subjectto provisionsin the GeneralPlan

McAteer-Petris Act TheMcAteer-Petris Act (califomiaGovemment code Title 7.2,966600 et seq.)established the Bay Conservationand Development Commission to administerthe FederalCoastal Zone Management Act in the SanFrancisco Bay fu"u, uno ,o tmplementthe san FranciscoBay plan. The BCDC's requirements arediscussed above, as incorporaledin the warren-Alquist Act and as they apply specificallyto power plants.BCDC's jurisdiction is theSan Francisco Bay, some adjoining drainage areas, and the bay's shorelineband. As mentionedabove, BCDC jurisdiction do€s not applyto theproject. Catilomla Streets and Highways Cocle Underthe califomia sheetsand Highways code, Division 2, chapter5.5, sections 146G147o an encroachnrntpermit is requiredif thereis an openingor excavationfor any purposein any county highway- The RCECwitl conformto Sectionl46G | 470 by obtainingan encroachmentpermit from tbe HaywardPublic Works Departnrentprior to naturalgas pipeline construction. 8.6.5.3 Local Local LORS that would applyto the project include the following: General Plan(s) Land useprovisions must be includedin everycalifomia city and countyGeneral plan (Govemment code $65302). Local governmentsrnay also adopt plans for sub.areassuch as communities and neighborhoods,and may adopt"special area plans" that detail implementationmeasures for an area requiring concentratedplanning attention (e.g., an historicaldistrict1. Sincethe project is locatedentiely within an Industrial areaand is consistentwith the intendeduses, plans,and policies of the IndustrialCorridot land usedesignation, it will conformto the HaywardGeneral Plan.The generationfacility will be the only usevisible after construction(since the pipelinewill be buriedunder city streets).The tallest structuresat the project site (145 fe€t) would be considerablylower thanthe existing KFAX radio towers(228 feet) and alsowould be lower thanthe staekat the Rohmand Haaspaint polymersplant nearby(180 feet). The project will not effect existinguses or opportunitiesin the Irdustrial Corridor sinceit will be on land that is currenrlvindustrial.

RussellCity EnergyCerter AFC, Vol. I 8.6-15 l-and Use Zoning Ordinance Zoning is the regulatorymechanism used to implementland usepolicy. Most ciry planningand building departmentsenforce zoning ordinances. The proposedproject is subjectto the HaywafdZoning Ordinanceand will comply with it. Haywardzoning designations in the project areaare shownon Figure 8.G2. The project site is currentlyzoned Industrial District, a usethat allows a broadrange of industrial activities' The city staff haveoffered their opinion that the RCECwould be a permitteduse in the IndustrialDistrict (see Appendix 8.6). San Francisco Bay Plan The san FranciscoBay Plan appliesto all areasunder the jurisdicrion of the BCDC. The plan is an enforceableregulatory rnechanism to guidethe futue protectionand use of the SanFrancisco Bay and its shoreline. The RCEC andAWT plant site arc not within BCDCjurisdiction or maritimepriority use arcas. 8.6.6 InvolvedAgencies and AgencyContacts Table 8.6-3 contains a list of agenciesand contact persons.

Agency Contact Telephone City of Hayward (5r0)s83-4208 Engineer City of Hayward Gary Calarne Sr. Plann€r (sto) 5834226

8.6.7 PermitsRequired and Schedule Table 8.6-4outlines the permit schedulerelated to land useissues for the RCECand AWT plant projecr. Informationrequired to obtaineach prermit is alsoincluded.

Table 8.5-4. scheduJe use- PermiUApplication Schedule Encroachment permit for water and natural I lo ? weeks ftom application submittal to approval by Public gaspipelines: Works Department r Site specificplan o Pipelineroutes o Road rights-of-way where pipelines will be constructed

8.6.8 Relerences Associationof Bay Area Govemrnents(ABAG). 1997. Bay Area firtures: where will we live andwork? Inlemet site: www.abag.ca.gov/planning/bayareafutureV

Associalionof Bay Area Govemnrents(ABAG), 2000. projections2000. Intemetsite: www.abag,ca.gov/

RussellCily EnergyCentei AFC, Vol. I 8.6-16 LaDdUs€ B4y Conservationand DevelopmentCommission (BCDC). 1999. CERESweb sire. Internetsite: www.ceres.ca.gov/bcdc/faq/fao.htm

Califomia Departmentof Finance. I 998. County populationprojections with race./ethnicdetail. Internet site:www.dof.ca.sov/html/Proj race.htm

CalifomiaDepanrnent ofFinance. 1999a.California county profile: AlarnedaCounty. Inlernet site: www.dof.ca.govlhtrnVfsdata,/profiles/alameda.xls

Califomia Departmentof Finance. 1999b. City/countypopulation estimates with annualpercent change, Januaryl, 1998and 1999. IntemetSite: ww\ff.dof.ca.sov/htmuDemosrap/e-1text-htm

Califomia Depanmentof Food andAgriculture. 1999. Alamedacounry information. Intemetsite: www.cdfa.ca.gov/countieVCounties/co-01.htm

City of Hayward- 1998. Hayward GeneralPolicies Plan, adopted 1986and as atnendedthrough Febnmry 24, 1998.

City of Hayward. Z:OOla.The new economyand the transfornation of the inilustrial corridor. City of HaywardAgenda Report. Preparedby Gary Calame,Senior Planner, City of Hayward Communityand Economic Development Department. Back$ound paperfor the GeneralPlan Update.Available on Intemetsite: www.ci.hayward.ca.us-

City of Hayward. 200lb. Smartgrowth principles and the GeneralPlan. City of HaywardAgenda Report. hepared by Gary Calame,Senior Planner, City of HaywardCommunity and EconomicDeveloprnent Departnent. Backgroundpaper for the GeneralPlan Update. Avdlable on Intemetsite: www.ci.hayward.ca.us.

HaywardArea ShorelinePlanning Agency. 1993. HaywardArea Shorelineplanning program: A sharedvision. HaywardArea ShorelinePlanning Agency, Hayward.

Russ€llCity EnergyCenter AlC, Vol. I 8.6-17 Land Use Russell City Energt (lenter AFC

Mq' 2ool