2.
Response
to
Comments
2.9
Individual
Responses
to
Comments
from
Organizations
the
30
years
of
the
HCP
monitoring
program.
Based
on
the
lack
of
significant
ponds
and
other
aquatic
habitats,
this
species
is
unlikely
to
be
present.”
San
Bruno
Mountain
represents
higher
quality
habitat
with
significantly
less
disturbance
than
the
Baylands.
The
assessment
that
San
Francisco
garter
snake
is
not
currently
present
appears
to
be
scientifically
accurate
based
on
field
work
at
San
Bruno
Mountain
and
the
study
conducted
on
the
Baylands
Project
site.
Past
remediation
efforts,
or
lack
of
such
efforts,
including
past
agreements
associated
with
such
remediation
would
not
occur
as
a
result
of
proposed
Baylands
development,
and
are
therefore
not
addressed
in
the
EIR
as
impacts
of
proposed
Project
Site
development.
See
for
discussion
regarding
analysis
of
past
actions
within
the
Baylands
that
may
have
affected
wetlands.
See
9
for
discussion
of
the
variability
of
wetland
areas
over
time.
As
noted
in
9,
Mitigation
Measure
4.C-2c
has
been
revised
to
provide
for
mitigation
for
loss
of
wetlands,
recognizing
changes
in
wetland
areas
over
time.
The
surveys
conducted
for
the
Draft
EIR
consisted
of
reconnaissance
level
surveys
used
to
characterize
the
onsite
habitats
shown
in
Figure
4.C-1.
The
surveys
were
used
to
help
identify
the
general
boundaries
of
multiple
habitats
including
wetland
habitats,
not
to
produce
a
formal
delineation
of
wetlands.
The
months
that
occur
during
the
spring
season,
including
March
and
April,
represent
appropriate
timing
that
maximize
opportunities
to
observe
site
conditions
across
multiple
habitat
types
during
a
site
characterization
effort
to
establish
a
baseline
condition
for
a
program
EIR
analysis.
As
discussed
in
on
page
4.C-2
of
the
Draft
EIR,
reconnaissance
surveys
were
conducted
in
2007,
2011
and
2013
during
the
months
of
March
and
April.
Please
see
9
pertaining
to
wetlands
for
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
methods
and
approach
to
documenting
wetlands
at
the
Baylands.
The
comment
cites
the
statement
in
the
Draft
EIR
that
“Wetlands
and
Waters
are
regulated
by
both
the
Corps
and
RWQCB.”
Section
4.C,
Biological
Resources,
of
the
Draft
EIR
includes
a
discussion
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
which
is
the
mandate
enforced
by
the
Corps
of
Engineers
and
the
RWQCB.
Also
included
in
Section
4.C
is
a
discussion
of
BCDC
jurisdiction,
which
is
based
on
State
statutes,
rather
than
the
federal
Clean
Water
Act
as
suggested
in
this
comment.
Page
4.C-26
of
the
Draft
EIR
notes
that
state
policy
“...
prefers
mitigation
which
would
expand
wetland
acreage
and
enhance
wetland
habitat
values.”
However,
although
expansion
of
wetland
acreage
and
enhancement
of
wetland
habitat
values
may
be
preferred
,
there
is
no
state
requirement
for
a
mitigation
ratio
greater
than
1:1.
The
federal
Clean
Water
Act
requires
no
net
loss
of
wetlands
as
a
result
of
project
development.
Please
see
Brisbane
Baylands
Final
EIR
2.9.2-36
May
2015