Gilroy City Council
August 3, 2026

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-24 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
Invasive Plants and Wildlife
34BSPR BIO-9: Prevent Spread of Invasive Plants, Noxious Weeds, and Invasive Wildlife The project proponent will take the following actions to prevent the spread of invasive plants, noxious weeds, and invasive wildlife (e.g., New Zealand mudsnail):
 clean clothing, footwear, and equipment used during treatments of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, other debris or seed-bearing material, or water (e.g., rivers, streams, creeks, lakes) before entering the treatment area or when leaving an area with infestations of invasive plants, noxious weeds, or invasive wildlife;  for all heavy equipment and vehicles traveling off road, pressure wash, if feasible, or otherwise appropriately decontaminate equipment at a designated weed-cleaning station prior to entering the treatment area from an area with infestations of invasive plants, noxious weeds, or invasive wildlife. Anti-fungal wash agents will be specified if the equipment has been exposed to any pathogen that could affect native species;  inspect all heavy equipment, vehicles, tools, or other treatment-related materials for sand, mud, or other signs that weed seeds or propagules could be present prior to use in the treatment area. If the equipment is not clean, the qualified RPF or biological technician will deny entry to the work areas;  stage equipment in areas free of invasive plant infestations unless there are no uninfested areas present within a reasonable proximity to the treatment area;
 identify significant infestations of invasive plant species (i.e., those rated as invasive by Cal-IPC or designated as noxious weeds by California Department of Food and Agriculture) during reconnaissance-level surveys and target them for removal during treatment activities. Treatment methods will be selected based on the invasive species present and may include herbicide application, manual or mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, and/or herbivory, and will be designed to maximize success in killing or removing the invasive plants and preventing reestablishment based on the life history characteristics of the invasive plant species present.

Treatments will be focused on removing invasive plant species that cause ecological harm to native vegetation types, especially those that can alter fire cycles;
 treat invasive plant biomass onsite to eliminate seeds and propagules and prevent reestablishment or dispose of invasive plant biomass offsite at an appropriate waste collection facility (if not kept on site); transport invasive plant materials in a closed container or bag to prevent the spread of propagules during transport; and  implement Fire and Fuel Management BMPs outlined in the “Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land Mangers” (Cal-IPC 2012, or current version).

This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Project-Specific Guidance to Implement SPR BIO-9
 All plant materials used for revegetation will exclude any species listed on the Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory (CalIPC 2025, or current version) or designated as noxious weeds by the local Agricultural Commissioner’s Office.  Revegetation efforts will consider existing conditions, including existing vegetation type and burn severity, and will be designed to maintain or restore appropriate vegetation composition. In areas documented as native vegetation types according to the 2020 Santa Cruz and Santa Clara Fine Scale Vegetation Map (Tukman Geospatial and Aerial Prior to and during
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-25 Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
Information Systems 2023) and the 2018 San Mateo County Fine Scale Vegetation Map (Tukman Geospatial and Aerial Information Systems 2022), only native plant species characteristic of that vegetation type, as described in the Manual of California Vegetation, online edition (CNPS 2025), will be used. Exceptions may occur where a mapped native vegetation type reflects past lack of management (e.g., Douglas fir encroachment) or artificial plantings (e.g., plantations), in which case alternative native vegetation aligned with desired conditions may be selected. For revegetation efforts within 100 feet of special-status plant occurrences, a qualified RPF or biologist will review and approve plant species or seed mixes to ensure they do not result in mortality or degradation of occupied habitat from competition, shading, or changes to soil moisture or chemistry.

Where erosional risks to roads or structures require rapid stabilization, fast growing, nonnative but noninvasive species or seed mixes may be used. In areas mapped as developed, agriculture, or nonnative vegetation types (nonnative forest, herbaceous, or shrub; semi-natural alliances with a “SNA” state rarity rank), native species appropriate to the desired habitat type will be prioritized whenever feasible. However, when the use of local native species is not feasible, nonnative but noninvasive species may be used.

Wildlife
35BSPR BIO-10: Survey for Special-Status Wildlife and Nursery Sites If SPR BIO-1 determines that suitable habitat for special-status wildlife species or nurseries of any wildlife species is present and cannot be avoided, the project proponent will require a qualified RPF or biologist to conduct focused or protocol-level surveys for special-status wildlife species or nursery sites (e.g., bat maternity roosts, deer fawning areas, heron or egret rookeries, monarch overwintering sites) with potential to be directly or indirectly affected by a treatment activity. The survey area will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist based on the species and habitats and any recommended buffer distances in agency protocols.

The qualified RPF or biologist will determine if following an established protocol is required, and the project proponent may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS for technical information regarding appropriate survey protocols.

Unless otherwise specified in a protocol, the survey will be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the beginning of treatment activities. Focused or protocol surveys for a special-status species with potential to occur in the treatment area may not be required if presence of the species is assumed.

This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Project-Specific Guidance to Implement SPR BIO-10
Bay checkerspot butterfly
To avoid impacts on bay checkerspot butterfly, focused surveys for the species will be conducted before implementation of all treatment activities in habitat suitable for the species. If focused surveys for bay checkerspot butterfly are not conducted, presence of the butterfly may be assumed. Because the project area is within the range of the federally listed bay checkerspot butterfly, Mitigation Measure BIO-2e (bay checkerspot butterfly) would be implemented, regardless of the results of SPR BIO-10 surveys, although the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO2e would be informed by the results of the focused surveys if they occur.

No more than 14 days
prior to treatment,
unless otherwise
specified in a protocol
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-26 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
Crotch’s bumble bee
If avoidance of habitat pursuant to SPR BIO-1 is not feasible to avoid impacts on Crotch’s bumble bee, a habitat assessment will be conducted by a qualified biologist or RPF. If habitat suitable for the species is present, focused surveys will be conducted by a biologist or qualified RPF within habitat potentially suitable for Crotch’s bumble bee based on the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) or more recent guidance, prior to implementation of all treatment activities, or presence of this species in potentially suitable habitat will be assumed, and Mitigation Measure BIO-2g will be implemented.

Monarch butterfly
If it is not feasible to avoid mechanical, manual, herbicide, or prescribed burning treatments in grasslands, shrub, and oak woodland habitat during the period when monarch may be breeding (March 15-October 31) pursuant to SPR BIO-1, focused surveys for milkweed host plants (Asclepias spp.) will be conducted prior to implementing treatment activities. If milkweed is detected during focused surveys, further survey for monarch butterfly eggs, larvae, and pupae may be conducted or presence of monarch may be assumed. If milkweed host plants are detected during focused surveys and monarch butterfly is detected or assumed present, Mitigation Measure BIO-2e will be implemented.

California red-legged frog
Prior to implementation of prescribed burning, mechanical, manual, and herbicide application activities, a qualified RPF or qualified biologist will conduct protocol-level surveys for California red-legged frog pursuant to the Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-Legged Frog (USFWS 2005) within habitat potentially suitable for the species, or presence of the species will be assumed and Mitigation Measure BIO-2a will be implemented. If protocol-level surveys are conducted and California red-legged frogs are not detected within the treatment areas, then no additional mitigation for the species will be required and Mitigation Measure BIO-2a will not be required. If California red-legged frog is detected or assumed present, Mitigation Measure BIO-2a will be implemented.

California tiger salamander
If avoidance is not feasible pursuant to SPR BIO-1, to avoid impacts to California tiger salamander, a qualified RPF or qualified biologist with the appropriate permits will conduct protocol-level surveys for California tiger salamander according to the Interim Guidance of Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander (CDFW 2003) within habitat potentially suitable for the species (i.e., oak woodland and grasslands up to 1.3 miles from aquatic breeding habitat) prior to mechanical treatments and pile burning activities year-round and for broadcast burning, manual tree and snag removal, or herbicide application (other than cut-stump and basal bark application) during the dispersal season for the species (November 1–April 30), or presence may be assumed. If California tiger salamander is detected during surveys or assumed present, Mitigation Measure BIO-2a will be implemented.

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-27 Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
Foothill yellow-legged frog
If avoidance of habitat is not feasible (pursuant to SPR BIO-1) for manual treatments, mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, and herbicide application (other than cut-stump and basal bark application) that occur within 200 feet of Class I and Class II watercourses that may habitat suitable for foothill yellow-legged frog as assessed and determined by a qualified RPF or biologist, focused visual encounter surveys for foothill yellow-legged frog will be conducted prior to treatment activities within the 200-foot buffer, or the presence of the species may be assumed. If foothill yellow-legged frogs are not detected within the treatment area during focused surveys, then no mitigation for the species would be required. If foothill yellow-legged frogs are identified during focused surveys, or presence is assumed, Mitigation Measure BIO-2a would be implemented.

Southwestern pond turtle
If avoidance of habitat is not feasible (pursuant to SPR BIO-1) to avoid impacts on southwestern pond turtle, a focused survey for southwestern pond turtles and nests will be conducted by a qualified biologist or RPF. If southwestern pond turtles or nests are detected during focused surveys, Mitigation Measure BIO-2b will be implemented.

Special-Status amphibians and reptiles
If avoidance of habitat is not feasible (pursuant to SPR BIO-1) to avoid impacts on special-status amphibians and reptiles, a focused survey for special-status amphibians and reptiles will be conducted by a qualified biologist or RPF. If special-status amphibians and reptiles are detected during focused surveys or if the species are assumed to be present, Mitigation Measure BIO-2b will be implemented.

Bald eagle
To avoid impacts on bald eagle the following focused surveys will be conducted:
 For all treatments implemented during the nesting season (December 1 through July 31) conduct surveys for nesting bald eagles within approximately 1.0 miles of lakes and reservoirs with fisheries sufficient to support bald eagle nesting.
 For all treatments implemented during the overwintering (non-nesting season) conduct surveys for communal roosting trees within 0.5 miles of lakes and reservoirs with fisheries sufficient to support bald eagles.  If nesting or communally roosting bald eagles are detected during focused surveys, Mitigation Measure BIO-2a will be implemented.

Burrowing owl
 If it is not feasible to avoid manual treatments, mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, and prescribed herbivory during the burrowing owl overwintering season (September 1–January 31) in habitats suitable for the species, then a survey shall be conducted to determine whether burrowing owls occupy the portions of the treatment area subject to manual treatments, mechanical treatments, ground or human disturbance associated with prescribed burning (e.g., control lines, staging areas) and prescribed herbivory (e.g., fence lines, pens, watering infrastructure, staging areas).

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-28 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
 Within the yearlong range of the species, if it is not feasible to avoid manual treatments, mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, prescribed herbivory, and herbicide application during the burrowing owl nesting season (February 1–August 31) in habitats suitable for the species, pursuant to SPR BIO-1, a minimum of four surveys shall be conducted to determine whether burrowing owls occupy the treatment area.  Surveys will be conducted referring to Appendix D of the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prepared by the California Department of Fish and Game (now California Department of Fish and Wildlife) (CDFW 2012) or any subsequent updated guidance within 1,640 feet (0.3 miles) of treatment areas as access to adjacent property and visibility from accessible areas allows. If feasible, at least one survey should be conducted between February 15 and April 15, and the remaining surveys should be conducted between April 15 and July 15, at least 2 weeks apart.

Because burrowing owls may recolonize a site after only a few days, one of the surveys, or an additional survey, shall be conducted no less than 14 days before initiating treatment activities to verify that take of burrowing owl would not occur. Alternatively, following the first survey, any burrows that are potentially suitable for burrowing owl would be assumed to be occupied. If active nesting burrowing owl burrows are detected during protocol surveys or burrows are assumed to be occupied, Mitigation Measure BIO-2a will be implemented.

Least Bell’s vireo
If it is not feasible to avoid all treatments during the nesting season for least Bell’s vireo (February –August 31), as modified by a qualified RPF or biologist based on current conditions), pursuant to SPR BIO-1, protocol surveys for nests of least Bell’s vireo will be conducted following the Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines (USFWS 2001) within habitat suitable for the species prior to implementing treatment activities within 250 feet of that habitat during the nesting season. If nesting least Bell’s vireos are detected during surveys, Mitigation Measures BIO-2a will be implemented.

Tricolored blackbird
If it is not feasible to avoid all treatments during the nesting season for tricolored blackbird (February –August 31), as modified by a qualified RPF or biologist based on current conditions), pursuant to SPR BIO-1, focused surveys (i.e., nest searches) for nests of tricolored blackbird will be conducted in habitat suitable for the species prior to implementing treatment activities within 250 feet of nesting habitat during the nesting bird season. If nesting tricolored blackbirds are detected during focused surveys, Mitigation Measures BIO-2a will be implemented.

Other Special-Status Birds
If it is not feasible to avoid all treatments during the nesting bird season (from December 1 through July 31 for golden eagle, January 1 through August 31 for white-tailed kite, and February 1 through August 31 for other specialstatus nesting birds, as modified by the qualified RPF or biologist), pursuant to SPR BIO-1, focused surveys (i.e., nest searches) for nests of special-status (i.e., grasshopper sparrow, golden eagle, short-eared owl, log-eared owl, Swainson’s hawk, Vaux’s swift, northern harrier, olive-sided flycatcher, black swift, white-tailed kite, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, bald eagle, yellow breasted chat, loggerhead shrike, purple martin, and yellow warbler) will be conducted in habitat suitable for the species prior to implementing treatment activities during the nesting bird season. If nesting special-status birds are detected during focused surveys, Mitigation Measures BIO-2a or BIO-2b will be implemented depending on the species detected.

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-29 Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
American badger
To avoid impacts on American badger, focused den surveys in habitat determined to be suitable for denning by a qualified biologist or RPF will be conducted prior to implementing pile burning, installation of control lines and staging areas for prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, or the setup of infrastructure for prescribed herbivory activities year-round. Within the pupping season (February 15–July 1) surveys will be conducted prior to, manual treatments, as well as the other activities which require year-round survey. If American badger dens are detected during focused surveys, Mitigation Measure BIO-2b will be implemented.

Mountain lion
To avoid impacts on mountain lion, prior to implementing prescribed burning, manual tree and snag removal treatments, and mechanical treatments, nursery habitat suitable for the species will be identified by a qualified RPF or biologist through desktop analyses (e.g., review of land cover, slope, distance from development, coordination with local experts studying or tracking the species [if available], and field assessments). Potential mountain lion nursery habitat may include large natural cavities within rocky areas, downed trees, shrub thickets, or other areas with structures deemed appropriate for use by mountain lions based on size and other characteristics (e.g., proximity to human development, surrounding habitat). If nursery habitat is confirmed within the treatment area, use of the habitat will be assumed and Mitigation Measure BIO-2a will be applied. If nursery habitat is not identified within the treatment area, no additional measures will be required.

Ringtail
If it is not feasible to avoid manual and mechanical large tree and snag (i.e., greater than 12 inches DBH) removal or prescribed burning within habitat suitable for Northern California ringtail during the ringtail maternity season (pursuant to SPR BIO-1), focused surveys for ringtail will be conducted using trail cameras, track plates, or other non-invasive survey methods to determine whether ringtails are present within the treatment area. Surveys will be conducted by a qualified RPF or biologist with the appropriate permits as needed, or presence may be assumed. If ringtails are detected during focused surveys, or presence is assumed, Mitigation Measure BIO-2a will be implemented.

San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat
To avoid impacts on San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, focused surveys for the species will be conducted by a qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician within habitat suitable for the species year-round prior to implementation of traditional mechanical treatments; nest presence may be assumed for other treatment types including mechanical treatments using remote-controlled masticators. If San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests are detected during focused surveys or assumed to be present, Mitigation Measure BIO-2b will be implemented.

San Joaquin kit fox
To avoid impacts to San Joaquin kit fox, prior to implementation of pile burning and mechanical treatment activities year-round or any treatment activities during the pupping/natal season (February 1–September 30) within potentially suitable grassland, scrub, and oak savanna habitat, a habitat evaluation of the treatment area including one walking transect survey to identify potential dens following relevant portions of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol for the Northern Range (USFWS 1999) for San Joaquin kit fox would be conducted by a qualified RPF or

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-30 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
biologist prior to the start of treatment activities. If the habitat within the treatment area is suitable for the species and contains potentially occupied dens, Mitigation Measure BIO-2a will be implemented.

Special-Status bats
If it is not feasible to avoid prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, manual treatments, and herbicide application using power equipment within habitat suitable for special-status bat roosting during the bat maternity season (April 1 through August 31), or to avoid removal of potential roosts during the overwintering season (October 15- April 1) pursuant to SPR BIO-1, focused surveys for roosts will be conducted by a qualified RPF or biologist prior to implementing these treatment activities during the bat maternity and overwintering season. If special-status bat roosts are detected during focused surveys, Mitigation Measure BIO-2b will be implemented. 36BSPR BIO-11: Install Wildlife-Friendly Fencing (Prescribed Herbivory) If temporary fencing is required for prescribed herbivory treatment, a wildlife-friendly fencing design will be used.

The project proponent will require a qualified RPF or biologist to review and approve the design before installation to minimize the risk of wildlife entanglement. The fencing design will meet the following standards:
 Minimize the chance of wildlife entanglement by avoiding barbed wire, loose or broken wires, or any material that could impale or snag a leaping animal; and, if feasible, keeping electric netting-type fencing electrified at all times or laid down while not in use.
 Charge temporary electric fencing with intermittent pulse energizers; continuous output fence chargers will not be permitted.
 Allow wildlife to jump over easily without injury by installing fencing that can flex as animals pass over it and installing the top wire low enough (no more than approximately 40 inches high on flat ground) to allow adult ungulates to jump over it. The determination of appropriate fence height will consider slope, as steep slopes are more difficult for wildlife to pass.
 Be highly visible to birds and mammals by using high-visibility tape or wire, flagging, or other markers.

This SPR applies only to prescribed herbivory and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During prescribed
herbivory treatment
activities.

City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
37BSPR BIO-12: Protect Common Nesting Birds, Including Raptors The project proponent will schedule treatment activities to avoid the active nesting season of common native bird species, including raptors, that could be present within or adjacent to the treatment site, if feasible. Common native birds are species not otherwise treated as special status in the CalVTP Program EIR. The active nesting season will be defined by the qualified RPF or biologist.

If active nesting season avoidance is not feasible, a qualified RPF or biologist will conduct a survey for common nesting birds, including raptors. Existing records (e.g., CNDDB, eBird database, State Wildlife Action Plan) should be reviewed in advance of the survey to identity the common nesting birds, including raptors, that are known to occur in the vicinity of the treatment site. The survey area will encompass reasonably accessible areas of the treatment site and the immediately surrounding vicinity viewable from the treatment site. The survey area will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist, based on the potential species in the area, location of suitable nesting habitat, and type of treatment. For vegetation removal or project activities that would occur during the nesting season, the survey will be Conduct a survey for
common nesting birds (if
needed) at a time that
balances the
effectiveness of
detecting nests and the
reasonable consideration
of potential avoidance
strategies (typically no
more than approximately
14 days before
treatment); if an active
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-31 Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
conducted at a time that balances the effectiveness of detecting nests and the reasonable consideration of potential avoidance strategies. Typically, this timeframe would be up to 3 weeks before treatment. The survey will occur in a single survey period of sufficient duration to reasonably detect nesting birds, including raptors, typically one day for most treatment projects (depending on the size, configuration, and vegetation density in the treatment site), and conducted during the active time of day for target species, typically close to dawn and/or dusk. The survey may be conducted concurrently with other biological surveys, if they are required by other SPRs. Survey methods will be tailored by the qualified RPF or biologist to site and habitat conditions, typically involving walking throughout the survey area, visually searching for nests and birds exhibiting behavior that is typical of breeding (e.g., delivering food).

If an active nest is observed (i.e., presence of eggs and/or chicks) or determined to likely be present based on nesting bird behavior, the project proponent will implement a feasible strategy to avoid disturbance of active nests, which may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following:
 Establish Buffer. The project proponent will establish a temporary, species-appropriate buffer around the nest sufficient to reasonably expect that breeding would not be disrupted. Treatment activities will be implemented outside of the buffer. The buffer location will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist. Factors to be considered for determining buffer location will include: presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above ground, baseline levels of noise and human activity, species sensitivity, and expected treatment activities. Nests of common birds within the buffer need not be monitored during treatment.

However, buffers will be maintained until young fledge or the nest becomes inactive, as determined by the qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician.
 Modify Treatment. The project proponent will modify the treatment in the vicinity of an active nest to avoid disturbance of active nests (e.g., by implementing manual treatment methods, rather than mechanical treatment methods). Treatment modifications will be determined by the project proponent in coordination with the qualified RPF or biologist.
 Defer Treatment. The project proponent will defer the timing of treatment in the portion(s) of the treatment site that could disturb the active nest. If this avoidance strategy is implemented, treatment activity will not commence until young fledge or the nest becomes inactive, as determined by the qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician.

Feasible actions will be taken by the project proponent to avoid loss of common native bird nests. The feasibility of implementing the avoidance strategies will be determined by the project proponent based on whether implementation of this SPR will preclude completing the treatment project within the reasonable period of time necessary to meet CalVTP program objectives, including, but not limited to, protection of vulnerable communities.

Considerations may include limitations on the presence of environmental and atmospheric conditions necessary to execute treatment prescriptions (e.g., the limited seasonal windows during which prescribed burning can occur when vegetation moisture, weather, wind, and other physical conditions are suitable). If it is infeasible to avoid loss of common bird nests (not including raptor nests), the project proponent will document the reasons implementation of the avoidance strategies is infeasible in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during treatment implementation, if there is any change in the feasibility of avoidance strategies from those nest is observed,
implement avoidance
strategies prior to and
during treatment

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-32 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post-project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report).

The following avoidance strategies may also be considered together with or in lieu of other actions for implementation by a project proponent to avoid disturbance to raptor nests:
 Monitor Active Raptor Nest During Treatment. A qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will monitor an active raptor nest during treatment activities to identify signs of agitation, nest defense, or other behaviors that signal disturbance of the active nest is likely (e.g., standing up from a brooding position, flying off the nest). If breeding raptors are showing signs of nest disturbance, one of the other avoidance strategies (establish buffer, modify treatment or defer treatment) will be implemented or a pause in the treatment activity will occur until the disturbance behavior ceases.
 Retention of Raptor Nest Trees. Trees with visible raptor nests, whether occupied or not, will be retained.

This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Geology, Soils, Paleontology, and Mineral Resource Standard Project Requirements 38BSPR GEO-1: Suspend Disturbance during Heavy Precipitation The project proponent will suspend mechanical, prescribed herbivory, and herbicide treatments if the National Weather Service forecast is a “chance” (30 percent or more) of rain within the next 24 hours. Activities that cause mechanical soil disturbance may resume when precipitation stops and soils are no longer saturated (i.e., when soil and/or surface material pore spaces are filled with water to such an extent that runoff is likely to occur). Indicators of saturated soil conditions may include, but are not limited to: (1) areas of ponded water, (2) pumping of fines from the soil or road surfacing, (3) loss of bearing strength resulting in the deflection of soil or road surfaces under a load, such as the creation of wheel ruts, (4) spinning or churning of wheels or tracks that produces a wet slurry, or (5) inadequate traction without blading wet soil or surfacing materials. This SPR applies only to mechanical, prescribed herbivory, and herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Proposed Revision to SPR GEO-1
A revision to the SPR is proposed such that mechanical treatments would be suspended if (1) it is raining, (2) soils are saturated, or (3) soils are wet enough to be compacted by mechanical treatment activities and to suspend herbicide application if the National Weather Service forecast is a “chance” (30 percent or more averaged over each hour) of rain within the next operational day’s 12-hour period between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

An excerpt of the original language of SPR GEO-1 is as follows:

The project proponent will suspend mechanical, prescribed herbivory, and herbicide treatments if the National Weather Service forecast is a “chance” (30 percent or more) of rain within the next 24 hours.

Activities that cause mechanical soil disturbance may resume when precipitation stops and soils are no longer saturated (i.e., when soil and/or surface material pore spaces are filled with water to such an extent that runoff is likely to occur). Indicators of saturated soil conditions may include, but are not limited to: (1) areas of ponded water, (2) pumping of fines from the soil or road surfacing, (3) loss of bearing strength resulting in the deflection of soil or road surfaces under a load, such as the creation of wheel ruts, (4) During mechanical and
herbicide treatment
activities
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-33 Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
spinning or churning of wheels or tracks that produces a wet slurry, or (5) inadequate traction without blading wet soil or surfacing materials. This SPR applies only to mechanical, prescribed herbivory, and herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

The SPR revision modifies this sentence to state the following:

The project proponent will suspend prescribed herbivory and herbicide treatments if the National Weather Service forecast is a “chance” (30 percent or more) of rain within the next 24 hours (from 12:00 am to 12:00 pm) and will suspend mechanical treatments when (1) it is raining, (2) soils are saturated, and/or, (3) soils are wet enough to be compacted by mechanical activities. 39BSPR GEO-2: Limit High Ground Pressure Vehicles
The project proponent will limit heavy equipment that could cause soil disturbance or compaction to be driven through treatment areas when soils are wet and saturated to avoid compaction and/or damage to soil structure.

Saturated soil means that soil and/or surface material pore spaces are filled with water to such an extent that runoff is likely to occur. If use of heavy equipment is required in saturated areas, other measures such as operating on organic debris, using low ground pressure vehicles, or operating on frozen soils/snow covered soils will be implemented to minimize soil compaction. Existing compacted road surfaces are exempted as they are already compacted from use. This SPR applies only to mechanical treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During mechanical
treatment activities
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
40BSPR GEO-3: Stabilize Disturbed Soil Areas
The project proponent will stabilize soil disturbed during mechanical, prescribed herbivory treatments, and prescribed burns that result in exposure of bare soil over 50 percent or more of the treatment area with mulch or equivalent immediately after treatment activities, to the maximum extent practicable, to minimize the potential for substantial sediment discharge. If mechanical, prescribed herbivory, or prescribed burn treatment activities could result in substantial sediment discharge from soil disturbed by machinery, animal hooves, or being bare, organic material from mastication or mulch will be incorporated onto at least 75 percent of the disturbed soil surface where the soil erosion hazard is moderate or high, and 50 percent of the disturbed soil surface where soil erosion hazard is low to help prevent erosion. Where slash mulch is used, it will be packed into the ground surface with heavy equipment so that it is sufficiently in contact with the soil surface. This SPR only applies to mechanical, prescribed herbivory, and prescribed burns that result in exposure of bare soil over 50 percent of the project area treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During mechanical and
prescribed burn
treatment activities that
result in exposure of
bare soil over 50 percent
or more of the treatment
area
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
41BSPR GEO-4: Erosion Monitoring
The project proponent will inspect treatment areas for the proper implementation of erosion control SPRs and mitigations prior to the rainy season. If erosion control measures are not properly implemented, they will be remediated prior to the first rainfall event per SPR GEO-3 and GEO-8. Additionally, the project proponent will inspect for evidence of erosion after the first large storm or rainfall event (i.e., ≥ 1.5 inches in 24 hours) as soon as is feasible after the event. Any area of erosion that will result in substantial sediment discharge will be remediated within 48 hours per the methods stated in SPRs GEO-3 and GEO-8. This SPR applies only to mechanical, prescribed herbivory, and prescribed burning treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Prior to and during
mechanical and
prescribed burning
treatment activities
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-34 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
42BSPR GEO-5: Drain Stormwater via Water Breaks
The project proponent will drain compacted and/or bare linear treatment areas capable of generating storm runoff via water breaks using the spacing and erosion control guidelines contained in Sections 914.6, 934.6, and 954.6(c) of the California Forest Practice Rules (February 2019 version). Where waterbreaks cannot effectively disperse surface runoff, including where waterbreaks cause surface run-off to be concentrated on downslopes, other erosion controls will be installed as needed to maintain site productivity by minimizing soil loss. This SPR applies only to mechanical, manual, and prescribed burn treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During mechanical,
manual, and prescribed
burning treatment
activities
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
43BSPR GEO-6: Minimize Burn Pile Size
The project proponent will not create burn piles that exceed 20 feet in length, width, or diameter, except when on landings, road surfaces, or on contour to minimize the spatial extent of soil damage. In addition, burn piles will not occupy more than 15 percent of the total treatment area (Busse et al. 2014). The project proponent will not locate burn piles in a Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone as defined in SPR HYD-4. This SPR applies to mechanical, manual, and prescribed burning treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During mechanical,
manual, and prescribed
burning treatment
activities
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
44BSPR GEO-7: Minimize Erosion
To minimize erosion, the project proponent will:
(1) Prohibit use of heavy equipment where any of the following conditions are present:
(i) Slopes steeper than 65 percent.
(ii) Slopes steeper than 50 percent where the erosion hazard rating is high or extreme. (iii) Slopes steeper than 50 percent that lead without flattening to sufficiently dissipate water flow and trap sediment before it reaches a watercourse or lake.
(2) On slopes between 50 percent and 65 percent where the erosion hazard rating is moderate, and all slope percentages are for average slope steepness based on sample areas that are 20 acres, or less, heavy equipment will be limited to:
(i) Existing tractor roads that do not require reconstruction, or (ii) New tractor roads flagged by the project proponent prior to the treatment activity. (3) Prescribed herbivory treatments will not be used in areas with over 50 percent slope.

This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During treatment City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
45BSPR GEO-8: Steep Slopes
The project proponent will require a Registered Professional Forester (RPF) or licensed geologist to evaluate treatment areas with slopes greater than 50 percent for unstable areas (areas with potential for landslide) and unstable soils (soil with moderate to high erosion hazard). If unstable areas or soils are identified within the treatment area, are unavoidable, and will be potentially directly or indirectly affected by the treatment, a licensed geologist (P.G. or C.E.G.) will determine the potential for landslide, erosion, of other issue related to unstable soils and identity measures (e.g., those in SPR GEO-7) that will be implemented by the project proponent such that substantial erosion or loss of topsoil would not occur. This SPR applies only to mechanical treatment activities and WUI fuel reduction, non-shaded fuel breaks, and ecological restoration treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Prior to and during
mechanical treatment on
slopes greater than 50
percent
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-35 Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
Hazardous Material and Public Health and Safety Standard Project Requirements 46BSPR HAZ-1: Maintain All Equipment
The project proponent will maintain all diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment per manufacturer’s specifications, and in compliance with all state and federal emissions requirements. Maintenance records will be available for verification. Prior to the start of treatment activities, the project proponent will inspect all equipment for leaks and inspect everyday thereafter until equipment is removed from the site. Any equipment found leaking will be promptly removed. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Proposed Revision to SPR HAZ-1
A revision to the SPR is proposed to promptly stabilize any equipment found leaking and fix it on-site or remove the leaking equipment from the treatment area, outside of the Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones (WLPZs).

An excerpt of the original language of SPR HAZ-1 is as follows:

Any equipment found leaking will be promptly removed.

The SPR revision modifies the second to last sentence of the excerpt to state the following:

Any equipment found leaking will be promptly stabilized and fixed onsite or removed.

Prior to and during all
treatments.

City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
47BSPR HAZ-2: Require Spark Arrestors
The project proponent will require mechanized hand tools to have federal- or state-approved spark arrestors. This SPR applies only to manual treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During manual
treatment activities
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
48BSPR HAZ-3: Require Fire Extinguishers
The project proponent will require tree cutting crews to carry one fire extinguisher per chainsaw. Each vehicle would be equipped with one long-handled shovel and one axe or Pulaski consistent with PRC Section 4428. This SPR applies only to manual treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During manual
treatment activities
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
49BSPR HAZ-4 Prohibit Smoking in Vegetated Areas
The project proponent will require that smoking is only permitted in designated smoking areas barren or cleared to mineral soil at least 3 feet in diameter (PRC Section 4423.4). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During treatment City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
50BSPR HAZ-5: Spill Prevention and Response Plan
The project proponent or licensed Pest Control Advisor (PCA) will prepare a Spill Prevention and Response Plan (SPRP) prior to beginning any herbicide treatment activities to provide protection to onsite workers, the public, and the environment from accidental leaks or spills of herbicides, adjuvants, or other potential contaminants. The SPRP will include (but not be limited to):
 a map that delineates staging areas, and storage, loading, and mixing areas for herbicides;  a list of items required in an onsite spill kit that will be maintained throughout the life of the activity; Prepare SPRP prior to
beginning any herbicide
treatment activities;
implement measures
during herbicide
treatment activities
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-36 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
 procedures for the proper storage, use, and disposal of any herbicides, adjuvants, or other chemicals used in vegetation treatment.

This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance. 51BSPR HAZ-6: Comply with Herbicide Application Regulations The project proponent will coordinate pesticide use with the applicable County Agricultural Commissioner(s), and all required licenses and permits will be obtained prior to herbicide application. The project proponent will prepare all herbicide applications to do the following:
 Be implemented consistent with recommendations prepared annually by a licensed PCA.  Comply with all appropriate laws and regulations pertaining to the use of pesticides and safety standards for employees and the public, as governed by the EPA, DPR, and applicable local jurisdictions.  Adhere to label directions for application rates and methods, storage, transportation, mixing, container disposal, and weather limitations to application such as wind speed, humidity, temperature, and precipitation.  Be applied by an applicator appropriately licensed by the State.

This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Prior to and during
herbicide treatments
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
52BSPR HAZ-7: Triple Rinse Herbicide Containers
The project proponent will triple rinse all herbicide and adjuvant containers with clean water at an approved site, and dispose of rinsate by placing it in the batch tank for application per 3 CCR Section 6684. The project proponent will puncture used containers on the top and bottom to render them unusable, unless said containers are part of a manufacturer’s container recycling program, in which case the manufacturer’s instructions will be followed. Disposal of non-recyclable containers will be at legal dumpsites. Equipment will not be cleaned, and personnel will not be washed in a manner that would allow contaminated water to directly enter any body of water within the treatment area or adjacent watersheds. Disposal of all herbicides will follow label requirements and waste disposal regulations.

This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During and following
herbicide treatments
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
53BSPR HAZ-8: Minimize Herbicide Drift to Public Areas
The project proponent will employ the following herbicide application parameters during herbicide application to minimize drift into public areas:
 application will cease when weather parameters exceed label specifications or when sustained winds at the site of application exceeds 7 miles per hour (whichever is more conservative);  spray nozzles will be configured to produce the largest appropriate droplet size to minimize drift;  low nozzle pressures (30-70 pounds per square inch) will be utilized to minimize drift; and  spray nozzles will be kept within 24 inches of vegetation during spraying.

This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During herbicide
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-37 Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
54BSPR HAZ-9: Notification of Herbicide Use in the Vicinity of Public Areas For herbicide applications occurring within or adjacent to public recreation areas, residential areas, schools, or any other public areas within 500 feet, the project proponent will post signs at each end of herbicide treatment areas and any intersecting trails notifying the public of the use of herbicides. The signs will include the signal word (i.e., Danger, Warning or Caution), product name, and manufacturer; active ingredient; EPA registration number; target pest; treatment location; date and time of application; restricted entry interval, if applicable per the label requirements; date which notification sign may be removed; and a contact person with a telephone number. Signs will be posted prior to the start of treatment and notification will remain in place for at least 72 hours after treatment ceases. This SPR applies only to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Prior to, during, and 72
hours after herbicide
treatment activities
occurring within or
adjacent to public
recreation areas,
residential areas, schools,
or any other public areas
within 500 feet
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
Hydrology and Water Quality Standard Project Requirements 55BSPR HYD-1: Comply with Water Quality Regulations
Project proponents must also conduct proposed vegetation treatments in conformance with appropriate RWQCB timber, vegetation and land disturbance related Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and/or related Conditional Waivers of Waste Discharge Requirements (Waivers), and appropriate Basin Plan Prohibitions. Where these regulatory requirements differ, the most restrictive will apply. If applicable, this includes compliance with the conditions of general waste discharge requirements (WDR) and waste discharge requirement waivers for timber or silviculture activities where these waivers are designed to apply to non-commercial fuel reduction and forest health projects. In general, WDR and Waivers of waste discharge requirements for fuel reduction and forest health activities require that wastes, including but not limited to petroleum products, soil, silt, sand, clay, rock, felled trees, slash, sawdust, bark, ash, and pesticides must not be discharged to surface waters or placed where it may be carried into surface waters; and that Water Board staff must be allowed reasonable access to the property in order to determine compliance with the waiver conditions. The specifications for each WDR and Waiver vary by region. Regions 2 (San Francisco Bay), 4 (Los Angeles), 8 (Santa Ana), and 7 (Colorado River) are highly urban or minimally forested and do not offer WDRs or Waivers for fuel reduction or vegetation management activities. The current applicable WDRs and Waivers for timber and vegetation management activities are included in Appendix HYD-1. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Project-Specific Guidance to Implement SPR HYD-1
Vegetation treatment activities may result in discharges to waters of the state; therefore; compliance with Water Code sections 13260(a)(1) and 13264 are required. The project proponent will use the State Water Board’s Vegetation Treatment General Order, which provides a mechanism for Water Code compliance for projects that prepare a CalVTP PSA or PSA/Addendum. The project will be automatically enrolled (through implementation of SPR AD-7) in the State Water Board’s Vegetation Treatment General Order. The project’s automatic enrollment satisfies the requirements of SPR HYD-1.

During treatment City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
56BSPR HYD-2: Avoid Construction of New Roads
The project proponent will not construct or reconstruct (i.e., cutting or filling involving less than 50 cubic yards/0.25 linear road miles) any new roads (including temporary roads). This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During treatment City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-38 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
57BSPR HYD-3: Water Quality Protections for Prescribed Herbivory The project proponent will include the following water quality protections for all prescribed herbivory treatments:
 Environmentally sensitive areas such as waterbodies, wetlands, or riparian areas will be identified in the treatment prescription and excluded from prescribed herbivory project areas using temporary fencing or active herding. A buffer of approximately 50 feet will be maintained between sensitive and actively grazed areas.  Water will be provided for grazing animals in the form of an on-site stock pond or a portable water source located outside of environmentally sensitive areas.
 Treatment prescriptions will be designed to protect soil stability. Grazing animals will be herded out of an area if accelerated soil erosion is observed.

This SPR applies to prescribed herbivory treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Before and during
prescribed herbivory
treatments
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
58BSPR HYD-4: Identify and Protect Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones The project proponent will establish Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones (WLPZs) on either side of watercourses as defined in the table below, which is based on 14 CCR Section 916 .5 of the California Forest Practice Rules (February 2019 version). WLPZ’s are classified based on the uses of the stream and the presence of aquatic life.

Wider WLPZs are required for steep slopes.

Establish WLPZs during
design of treatment
project; implement WLPZ
protections during
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
Procedures for Determining Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone (WLPZ) widths Water Class Class I Class II Class III Class IV
Water Class
Characteristics
or Key
Indicator
Beneficial Use
1) Domestic supplies, including
springs, on site and/or within 100
feet downstream of the operations
area and/or
2) Fish always or seasonally present
onsite, includes habitat to sustain
fish migration and spawning.
1) Fish always or seasonally present
offsite within 1000 feet downstream
and/or
2) Aquatic habitat for nonfish
aquatic species.
3) Excludes Class III waters that are
tributary to Class I waters.

No aquatic life present, watercourse
showing evidence of being capable of
sediment transport to Class I and II
waters under normal high-water flow
conditions after completion of timber
operations.

Man-made watercourses,
usually downstream, established
domestic, agricultural,
hydroelectric supply or other
beneficial use.

WLPZ Width (ft) – Distance from top of bank to the edge of WLPZ < 30 % Slope 75 50 Sufficient to prevent the degradation of downstream beneficial uses of water.

Determined on a site-specific basis.
30-50 % Slope 100 75
>50 % Slope 150 100
Source: 14 CCR Section 916.5 [936.5, 956.5] (February 2019 version)

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-39 Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
The following WLPZ protections will be applied for all treatments:
 Treatment activities with WLPZs will retain at least 75 percent surface cover and undisturbed area to act as a filter strip for raindrop energy dissipation and for wildlife habitat. If this percentage is reduced a qualified RPF will provide the project proponent with a site- and/or treatment activity-specific explanation for the percent surface cover reduction, which will be included in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during treatment implementation, if there is any deviation (e.g., further reduction) from the reduced percent as explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post-project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report). This requirement is based on 14 CCR Section 916.4 [936.4, 956.4] Subsection (b)(6) (February 2019 version) and 14 CCR Section 916.5 (February 2019 version).  Equipment, including tractors and vehicles, must not be driven in wet areas or WLPZs, except over existing roads or watercourse crossings where vehicle tires or tracks remain dry.  Equipment used in vegetation removal operations will not be serviced in WLPZs, within wet meadows or other wet areas, or in locations that would allow grease, oil, or fuel to pass into lakes, watercourses, or wet areas.  WLPZs will be kept free of slash, debris, and other material that harm the beneficial uses of water. Accidental deposits will be removed immediately.
 Burn piles will be located outside of WLPZs.
 No fire ignition (nor use of associated accelerants) will occur within WLPZs however low intensity backing fires may be allowed to enter or spread into WLPZs.
 Within Class I and Class II WLPZs, locations where project operations expose a continuous area of mineral soil 800 square feet or larger shall be treated for reduction of soil loss. Treatment shall occur prior to October 15th and disturbances that are created after October 15th shall be treated within 10 days. Stabilization measures shall be selected that will prevent significant movement of soil into water bodies and may include but are not limited to mulching, rip-rap, grass seeding, or chemical soil stabilizers.  Where mineral soil has been exposed by project operations on approaches to watercourse crossings of Class I, II, or III within a WLPZ, the disturbed area shall be stabilized to the extent necessary to prevent the discharge of soil into watercourses or lakes in amounts that would adversely affect the quality and beneficial uses of the watercourse.
 Where necessary to protect beneficial uses of water from project operations, protection measures such as seeding, mulching, or replanting shall be used to retain and improve the natural ability of the ground cover within the WLPZ to filter sediment, minimize soil erosion, and stabilize banks of watercourses and lakes.  Equipment limitation zones (ELZs) will be designated adjacent to Class III and Class IV watercourses with minimum widths of 25 feet where side-slope is less than 30 percent and 50 feet where side-slope is 30 percent or greater. An RPF will describe the limitations of heavy equipment within the ELZ and, where appropriate, will include additional measures to protect the beneficial uses of water.

This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified
Responsible Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-40 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
Proposed Revision to SPR HYD-4
A revision to the SPR is proposed to establish the WLPZs for only the watercourses within 300 feet of the manual, mechanical, prescribed pile burning, and herbicide treatments.

An excerpt of the original language of SPR HYD-4 is as follows:

The project proponent will establish Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones (WLPZs) on either side of watercourses as defined in the table below, which is based on 14 CCR Section 916 .5 of the California Forest Practice Rules (February 2019 version).

The SPR revision modifies the SPR to state the following:

The project proponent will establish Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones (WLPZs) within 300 feet of mechanical, manual, herbicide application, and prescribed pile burning treatment or staging areas on either side of watercourses as defined in the table below, which is based on 14 CCR Section 916 .5 of the California Forest Practice Rules (February 2019 version). 59BSPR HYD-5: Protect Non-Target Vegetation and Special-status Species from Herbicides The project proponent will implement the following measures when applying herbicides:
 Locate herbicide mixing sites in areas devoid of vegetation and where there is no potential of a spill reaching non-target vegetation or a waterway.
 Use only herbicides labeled for use in aquatic environments when working in riparian habitats or other areas where there is a possibility the herbicide could come into direct contact with water. Only hand application of herbicides will be allowed in riparian habitats and only during low-flow periods or when seasonal streams are dry.  No terrestrial or aquatic herbicides will be applied within WLPZs of Class I and II watercourses, if feasible. If this is not feasible, hand application of herbicides labeled for use in aquatic environments may be used within the WLPZ provided that the project proponent notifies the applicable regional water quality control board no fewer than 15 days prior to herbicide application. The feasibility of avoiding herbicide application within WLPZ of Class I and II watercourses will be determined by the project proponent and may be based on whether doing so will preclude achieving CalVTP program objectives, including, but not limited to, protection of vulnerable communities. The reasons for infeasibility will be documented in the PSA.  No herbicides will be applied within a 50-foot buffer of ESA or CESA listed plant species or within 50 feet of dry vernal pools.
 For spray applications in and adjacent to habitats suitable for special-status species, use herbicides containing dye (registered for aquatic use by DPR, if warranted) to prevent overspray.  Application will cease when weather parameters exceed label specifications or when sustained winds at the site of application exceeds 7 miles per hour (whichever is more conservative).  No herbicide will be applied during precipitation events or if precipitation is forecast 24 hours before or after project activities.

This SPR applies to herbicide treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During herbicide
treatment activities
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-41 Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
60BSPR HYD-6: Protect Existing Drainage Systems
If a treatment activity is adjacent to a roadway with stormwater drainage infrastructure, the existing stormwater drainage infrastructure will be marked prior to ground disturbing activities. If a drainage structure or infiltration system is inadvertently disturbed or modified during project activities, the project proponent will coordinate with owner of the system or feature to repair any damage and restore pre-project drainage conditions. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Mark existing stormwater
drainage infrastructure
prior to ground
disturbing activities; if a
drainage structure or
infiltration system is
inadvertently disturbed
or modified during
treatment, coordinate
with owner to repair
damage, and restore
pre-project drainage
conditions
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
Noise Standard Project Requirements
61BSPR NOI-1: Limit Heavy Equipment Use to Daytime Hours The project proponent will require that operation of heavy equipment associated with treatment activities (heavy off-road equipment, tools, and delivery of equipment and materials) will occur during daytime hours if such noise would be audible to receptors (e.g., residential land uses, schools, hospitals, places of worship). Cities and counties in the treatable landscape typically restrict construction-noise (which would apply to vegetation treatment noise) to particular daytime hours. If the project proponent is subject to local noise ordinance, it will adhere to those to the extent the project is subject to them. If the applicable jurisdiction does not have a noise ordinance or policy restricting the time-of-day when noise-generating activity can occur noise-generating vegetation treatment activity will be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday and federal holidays. If the project proponent is not subject to local ordinances (e.g., CAL FIRE), it will adhere to the restrictions stated above or may elect to adhere to the restrictions identified by the local ordinance encompassing the treatment area. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During treatment City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
62BSPR NOI-2: Equipment Maintenance
The project proponent will require that all powered treatment equipment and power tools will be used and maintained according to manufacturer specifications. All diesel- and gasoline-powered treatment equipment will be properly maintained and equipped with noise-reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations. This SPR applies to all activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During treatment City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
63BSPR NOI-3: Engine Shroud Closure
The project proponent will require that engine shrouds be closed during equipment operation. This SPR applies only to mechanical treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During mechanical
treatment activities
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-42 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
64BSPR NOI-4: Locate Staging Areas Away from Noise-Sensitive Land Uses The project proponent will locate treatment activities, equipment, and equipment staging areas away from nearby noise-sensitive land uses (e.g., residential land uses, schools, hospitals, places of worship), to the extent feasible, to minimize noise exposure. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During treatment City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
65BSPR NOI-5: Restrict Equipment Idle Time
The project proponent will require that all motorized equipment be shut down when not in use. Idling of equipment and haul trucks will be limited to 5 minutes. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

During treatment City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
66BSPR NOI-6: Notify Nearby Off-Site Noise-Sensitive Receptors For treatment activities utilizing heavy equipment, the project proponent will notify noise-sensitive receptors (e.g., residential land uses, schools, hospitals, places of worship) located within 1,500 feet of the treatment activity.

Notification will include anticipated dates and hours during which treatment activities are anticipated to occur and contact information, including a daytime telephone number, of the project representative. Recommendations to assist noise-sensitive land uses in reducing interior noise levels (e.g., closing windows and doors) will also be included in the notification. This SPR applies only to mechanical treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Prior to mechanical
treatment activities
within 1,500 feet of
noise-sensitive
receptors
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
Recreation Standard Project Requirements
67BSPR REC-1: Notify Recreational Users of Temporary Closures If a treatment activity would require temporary closure of a public recreation area or facility, the project proponent will coordinate with the owner/manager of that recreation area or facility. If temporary closure of a recreation area or facility is required, the project proponent will work with the owner/manager to post notifications of the closure at least 2 weeks prior to the commencement of the treatment activities. Additionally, notification of the treatment activity will be provided to the Administrative Officer (or equivalent official responsible for distribution of public information) of the county(ies) in which the affected recreation area or facility is located. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

If a temporary closure
of a public recreation
area or facility is
required, post
notifications at least 14
days prior to treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
Transportation Standard Project Requirements
68BSPR TRAN-1: Implement Traffic Control during Treatments Prior to initiating vegetation treatment activities the project proponent will work with the agency(ies) with jurisdiction over affected roadways to determine if a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) is needed. A TMP will be needed if traffic generated by the project would result in obstructions, hazards, or delays exceeding applicable jurisdictional standards along access routes for individual vegetation treatments. If needed, a TMP will be prepared to provide measures to reduce potential traffic obstructions, hazards, and service level degradation along affected roadway facilities. The scope of the TMP will depend on the type, intensity, and duration of the Prepare TMP prior to
treatment and
implement during
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-43 Standard Project Requirements Timing Implementing Entity Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
specific treatment activities under the CalVTP. Measures included in the TMP could include (but are not be limited to) construction signage to provide motorists with notification and information when approaching or traveling along the affected roadway facilities, flaggers for lane closures to provide temporary traffic control along affected roadway facilities, treatment schedule restrictions to avoid seasons or time periods of peak vehicle traffic, haultrip, delivery, and/or commute time restrictions that would be implemented to avoid peak traffic days and times along affected roadway facilities. If the TMP identifies impacts on transportation facilities outside of the jurisdiction of the project proponent, the TMP will be submitted to the agency with jurisdiction over the affected roadways prior to commencement of vegetation treatment projects. This SPR applies to all treatment activities and treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Smoke generated during prescribed burn operations could potentially affect driver visibility and traffic operations along nearby roadways. Direct smoke impacts to roadway visibility and indirect impacts related to driver distraction will be considered during the planning phase of burning operations. Smoke impacts and smoke management practices specific to traffic operations during prescribed fire operations will be identified and addressed within the TMP. The TMP will include measures to monitor smoke dispersion onto public roadways, and traffic control operations will be initiated in the event burning operations could affect traffic safety along any roadways. This SPR applies only to prescribed burn treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Public Services and Utilities Standard Project Requirements 69BSPR UTIL-1: Solid Organic Waste Disposition Plan
For projects requiring the disposal of material outside of the treatment area, the project proponent will prepare an Organic Waste Disposition Plan prior to initiating treatment activities. The Solid Organic Waste Disposition Plan will include the amount (e.g., tons) of solid organic waste to be managed onsite (i.e., scattering of wood materials, generating unburned piles, and pile burning) and transported offsite for processing (i.e., biomass power plant, wood product processing facility, composting). If the project proponent intends to transport solid organic waste offsite, the Solid Organic Waste Disposition Plan will clearly identify the location and capacity of the intended processing facility, consistent with local and state regulations to demonstrate that adequate capacity exists to accept the treated materials. This SPR applies only to mechanical and manual treatment activities and all treatment types, including treatment maintenance.

Prepare an Organic
Waste Disposition Plan
prior to mechanical or
manual treatment
activities; implement
plan during mechanical
or manual treatment
activities
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-44 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
Aesthetics
70BMitigation Measure AES-3: Conduct Visual Reconnaissance for Non-Shaded Fuel Breaks and Relocate or Feather and Screen Publicly Visible Non-Shaded Fuel Breaks
The project proponent will conduct a visual reconnaissance of the treatment area prior to implementing nonshaded fuel breaks to observe the surrounding landscape and determine if public viewing locations, including scenic vistas, public trails, and state scenic highways, have views of the proposed treatment area. If none are identified, the non-shaded fuel break may be implemented without additional visual mitigation.

If the project proponent identifies public viewing points, including heavily used scenic vistas, public trails, recreation areas, and state scenic highways with lengthy views (i.e., longer than a few seconds) of a proposed non-shaded fuel break treatment area, the project proponent will, prior to implementation, attempt to identify any feasible change in location of the fuel break to reduce its visibility from public viewpoints. If no feasible location changes exist that would reduce impacts to public viewers and achieve the intended wildfire risk reduction objectives of the proposed non-shaded fuel break, the project proponent will implement, where feasible, a shaded fuel break rather than a non-shaded fuel break, if the shaded fuel break would achieve the intended wildfire risk reduction objectives. With the shaded fuel break, the project proponent will thin and feather adjacent vegetation to break up the linear edges of the fuel break and strategically preserve vegetation at the edge of the fuel break, as feasible, to help screen public views and minimize the contrast between the fuel break and surrounding vegetation.

Conduct visual
reconnaissance prior to
implementing nonshaded fuel breaks; if
public viewing points
identified, attempt to
relocate, or implement
a shaded fuel break, if
feasible
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
Air Quality
71BMitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement On-Road Vehicle and Off-Road Equipment Exhaust Emission Reduction Techniques
Where feasible, project proponents will implement emission reduction techniques to reduce exhaust emissions from off-road equipment. It is acknowledged that due to cost, availability, and the limits of current technology, there may be circumstances where implementation of certain emission reduction techniques will not feasible. The project proponent will document the emission reduction techniques that will be applied and will explain the reasons other techniques that could reduce emissions are infeasible.

Techniques for reducing emissions may include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Diesel-powered off-road equipment used in construction will meet EPA’s Tier 4 emission standards as defined in 40 CFR 1039 and comply with the exhaust emission test procedures and provisions of 40 CFR Parts 1065 and 1068. Tier 3 models can be used if a Tier 4 version of the equipment type is not yet produced by manufacturers. This measure can also be achieved by using battery-electric off-road equipment as it becomes available. Prior to implementation of treatment activities, the project proponent will demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant equipment. A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification or model year specification and operating permit (if applicable) will be available upon request at the time of mobilization of each unit of equipment.

During treatment City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-45 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
 Use renewable diesel fuel in diesel-powered construction equipment. Renewable diesel fuel must meet the following criteria:
 meet California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standards and be certified by CARB Executive Officer;  be hydrogenation-derived (reaction with hydrogen at high temperatures) from 100 percent biomass material (i.e., non-petroleum sources), such as animal fats and vegetables;  contain no fatty acids or functionalized fatty acid esters; and  have a chemical structure that is identical to petroleum-based diesel and complies with American Society for Testing and Materials D975 requirements for diesel fuels to ensure compatibility with all existing diesel engines.
 Electric- and gasoline-powered equipment will be substituted for diesel-powered equipment.  Workers will be encouraged to carpool to work sites, and/or use public transportation for their commutes.

Off-road equipment, diesel trucks, and generators will be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOX and PM.

Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources 72BMitigation Measure CUL-2: Protect Inadvertent Discoveries of Unique Archaeological Resources or Subsurface Historical Resources
If any prehistoric or historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits, including locally darkened soil (“midden”), that could conceal cultural deposits, are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all grounddisturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources will be halted and a qualified archaeologist will assess the significance of the find. The qualified archaeologist will work with the project proponent to develop a primary records report that will comply with applicable state or local agency procedures. If the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, a data recovery plan will be prepared. If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because the find constitutes a unique archaeological resource, subsurface historical resource, or tribal cultural resource), the archaeologist will work with the project proponent to develop appropriate procedures to protect the integrity of the resource.

Procedures could include preservation in place (which is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to archaeological sites), archival research, subsurface testing, or recovery of scientifically consequential information from and about the resource. Any find will be recorded standard DPR Primary Record forms (Form DPR 523) will be submitted to the appropriate regional information center.

During grounddisturbing activitiesCity of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
Biological Resources
73BMitigation Measure BIO-1a: Avoid Loss of Special-Status Plants Listed under ESA or CESA If listed plants are determined to be present through application of SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-7, the project proponent will avoid and protect these species by establishing a no-disturbance buffer around the area occupied by listed plants and marking the buffer boundary with high-visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway), exceptions to this requirement are listed later in this measure.

Prior to and during
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-46 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
The no-disturbance buffers will generally be a minimum of 50 feet from listed plants, but the size and shape of the buffer zone may be adjusted if a qualified RPF or botanist determines that a smaller buffer will be sufficient to avoid killing or damaging listed plants or that a larger buffer is necessary to sufficiently protect plants from the treatment activity. The appropriate buffer size will be determined based on plant phenology at the time of treatment (e.g., whether the plants are in a dormant, vegetative, or flowering state), the individual species’ vulnerability to the treatment method being used, and environmental conditions and terrain. For example, painton or wicking application of herbicides to invasive plants may be implemented within 50 feet of listed plant species without posing a risk, especially if the listed plants are dormant at the time of application. Consideration of factors such as site hydrology, changes in light, edge effects, and potential introduction of invasive plants and noxious weeds may inform the determination of buffer width. If a no-disturbance buffer is reduced below 50 feet from a listed plant, a qualified RPF or botanist will provide the project proponent with a site- and/or treatment activity-specific explanation for the buffer reduction, which will be included in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during treatment implementation, if there is any deviation (e.g., further reduction) from the reduced buffer as explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post-project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report) with a science-based justification for the deviation. No fire ignition (and associated use of accelerants) will occur within 50 feet of listed plants.

For species listed under ESA or CESA, if the project proponent cannot avoid loss by implementing no-disturbance buffers, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1c.

The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or botanist, in consultation with CDFW and USFWS, as appropriate depending on species status and location, that the listed plants would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some of the listed plants may be lost during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to listed special-status plants, the qualified RPF or botanist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources), and the substantial evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to listed plants, no compensatory mitigation for loss of individuals will be required.
74BMitigation Measure BIO-1b: Avoid Loss of Special-Status Plants Not Listed Under ESA or CESA If non-listed special-status plant species (i.e., species not listed under ESA or CESA, but meeting the definition of special-status as stated in Section 3.6.1 of the Program EIR) are determined to be present through application of SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-7, the project proponent will implement the following measures to avoid loss of individuals and maintain habitat function of occupied habitat:
 Physically avoid the area occupied by the special-status plants by establishing a no-disturbance buffer around the area occupied by species and marking the buffer boundary with high-visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway). The no-disturbance buffers will generally be a minimum of 50 feet from special-status plants, but the size and shape of the buffer zone may be adjusted if a Prior to and during
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-47 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
qualified RPF or botanist determines that a smaller buffer will be sufficient to avoid loss of or damaging to special-status plants or that a larger buffer is necessary to sufficiently protect plants from the treatment activity.

The appropriate size and shape of the buffer zone will be determined by a qualified RPF or botanist and will depend on plant phenology at the time of treatment (e.g., whether the plants are in a dormant, vegetative, or flowering state), the individual species’ vulnerability to the treatment method being used, and environmental conditions and terrain. Consideration of factors such as site hydrology, changes in light, edge effects, and potential introduction of invasive plants and noxious weeds may inform an appropriate buffer size and shape.  Treatments may be conducted within this buffer if the potentially affected special-status plant species is a geophytic, stump-sprouting, or annual species, and the treatment can be conducted outside of the growing season (e.g., after it has completed its annual life cycle) or during the dormant season using only treatment activities that would not damage the stump, root system or other underground parts of special-status plants or destroy the seedbank.
 Treatments will be designed to maintain the function of special-status plant habitat. For example, for a fuel break proposed in treatment areas occupied by special-status plants, if the removal of shade cover would degrade the special-status plant habitat despite the requirement to physically or seasonally avoid the specialstatus plant itself, habitat function would be diminished and the treatment would need to be modified or precluded from implementation.
 No fire ignition (and associated use of accelerants) will occur within the special-status plant buffer.

A qualified RPF or botanist with knowledge of the special-status plant species habitat and life history will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA because implementation of the treatment would not maintain habitat function of the special-status plant habitat (i.e., the habitat would be rendered unsuitable) or because the loss of special-status plants would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a special-status plant species. If the project proponent determines the impact on special-status plants would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss of special-status plants or degradation of occupied habitat would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure BIO-1c will be implemented.

The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or botanist that the special-status plants would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some of the non-listed special-status plants may be killed during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to non-listed special-status plants, the qualified RPF or botanist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources), and the substantial evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to special-status plants, no compensatory mitigation will be required.

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-48 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
75BMitigation Measure BIO-1c: Compensate for Unavoidable Loss of Special-Status Plants If significant impacts on listed or non-listed special-status plants cannot feasibly be avoided as specified under the circumstances described under Mitigation Measures BIO-1a and 1b, the project proponent will prepare a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that identifies the residual significant impacts that require compensatory mitigation and describes the compensatory mitigation strategy being implemented and how unavoidable losses of special-status plants will be compensated. The project proponent will consult with CDFW and/or any other applicable responsible agency prior to finalizing the Compensatory Mitigation Plan to satisfy that responsible agency’s requirements (e.g., permits, approvals) within the plan. If the special-status plant taxa are listed under ESA or CESA, the plan will be submitted to CDFW and/or USFWS (as appropriate) for review and comment.

The first priority for compensatory mitigation will be preserving and enhancing existing populations outside of the treatment area in perpetuity, or if that is not an option because existing populations that can be preserved in perpetuity are not available, one of the following mitigation options will be implemented by the project proponent instead:
 creating populations on mitigation sites outside of the treatment area through seed collection and dispersal (annual species) or transplantation (perennial species);  purchasing mitigation credits from a CDFW- or USFWS-approved conservation or mitigation bank in sufficient quantities to offset the loss of occupied habitat; and
 if the affected special-status plants are not listed under ESA or CESA, compensatory mitigation may include restoring or enhancing degraded habitats so that they are made suitable to support special-status plant species in the future.

If relocation efforts are part of the Compensatory Mitigation Plan, the plan will include details on the methods to be used, including collection, storage, propagation, receptor site preparation, installation, long-term protection and management, monitoring and reporting requirements, success criteria, and remedial action responsibilities should the initial effort fail to meet long-term monitoring requirements. The following performance standards will be applied for relocation:
 the extent of occupied area will be substantially similar to the affected occupied habitat and will be suitable for self-producing populations. Re-located/re-established populations will be considered suitable for selfproducing when:
 habitat conditions allow for plants to reestablish annually for a minimum of 5 years with no human intervention, such as supplemental seeding; and
 reestablished habitats contain an occupied area comparable to existing occupied habitat areas in similar habitat types in the region.

If preservation of existing populations or creation of new populations is part of the mitigation plan, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands and actions (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement, restoration or enhancement actions), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanisms (e.g., Prior to and during
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-49 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
holder of conservation easement or fee title). The project proponent will submit evidence that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the project proponent has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory plant populations will be preserved in perpetuity.

If mitigation includes dedication of conservation easements, purchase of mitigation credits, or other offsite conservation measures, the details of these measures will be included in the mitigation plan, including information on responsible parties for long-term management, conservation easement holders, long-term management requirements, funding assurances, and success criteria such as those listed above and other details, as appropriate to target the preservation of long term viable populations.

If mitigation includes restoring or enhancing habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored habitat.

If the loss of occupied habitat cannot be offset (e.g., if preservation of existing populations or creation of new populations through relocation efforts are not available for a certain species), and as a result treatment activities would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of listed plant species, then the treatment will not qualify as within the scope of this Program EIR.

Compensatory mitigation may be satisfied through compliance with permit conditions, or other authorizations obtained by the project proponent (e.g., incidental take permit for state-listed plants), if these requirements are equally or more effective than the mitigation identified above. 76BMitigation Measure BIO-2a: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Listed Wildlife Species and California Fully Protected Species (All Treatment Activities) If California Fully Protected Species or species listed under ESA or CESA are observed during reconnaissance surveys (conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-1) or focused or protocol-level surveys (conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-10), the project proponent will avoid adverse effects to the species by implementing the following.

Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance of Individuals
The project proponent will implement one of the following two measures to avoid mortality, injury, or disturbance of individuals:

1. Treatment will not be implemented within the occupied habitat. Any treatment activities outside occupied habitat will be a sufficient distance from the occupied habitat such that mortality, injury, or disturbance of the species will not occur, as determined by a qualified RPF or biologist using the most current and commonlyaccepted science and considering published agency guidance; OR

2. Treatment will be implemented outside the sensitive period of the species’ life history (e.g., outside the breeding or nesting season) during which the species may be more susceptible to disturbance, or disturbance could result in loss of eggs or young. For species present year-round, CDFW and/or USFWS/NOAA Fisheries Prior to, during, and
after treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-50 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
will be consulted to determine if there is a period of time within which treatment could occur that would avoid mortality, injury, or disturbance of the species.
 For species listed under ESA or CESA, if the project proponent cannot avoid mortality, injury or disturbance by implementing one of the two options listed above, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c.

Injury or mortality of California Fully Protected Species is prohibited pursuant to Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code and will be avoided.

Maintain Habitat Function
 The project proponent will design treatment activities to maintain the habitat function, by implementing the following:
 While performing review and surveys for SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-10, a qualified RPF or biologist will identify any habitat features that are necessary for survival (e.g., habitat necessary for breeding, foraging, shelter, movement) of the affected wildlife species (e.g., trees with complex structure, trees with large cavities, trees with nesting platforms; dens; tree snags; large raptor nests [including inactive nests]; downed woody debris; food sources). These habitat features will be marked and treatments applied to the features will be designed to minimize or avoid the loss or degradation of suitable habitat for listed species during treatments.

Identification and treatment of these features will be based on the life history and habitat requirements of the affected species and the most current, commonly accepted science.  If it is determined during implementation of SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-10 that listed or fully protected wildlife with specific requirements for high canopy cover (e.g., Humboldt marten, fisher, spotted owl, coastal California gnatcatcher, riparian woodrat) are present within a treatment area, then tree or shrub canopy cover within existing suitable areas will be retained at the percentage preferred by the species (as determined by expert opinion, published habitat association information, or other documented standards that are commonly accepted [e.g., 50 percent for coastal California gnatcatcher]) such that habitat function is maintained.

A qualified RPF or biologist will determine if, after implementation of the impact avoidance measures listed above, the habitat function will remain for the affected species after implementation of the treatment. Because this measure pertains to species listed under CESA or ESA or fully protected species, the qualified RPF or biologist will consult with CDFW and/or USFWS/NOAA Fisheries regarding the determination that habitat function is maintained. If the responsible agency determines after consultation that the treatment will not maintain habitat function for the special-status species, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c.

Project-Specific Guidance to Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2a California Red-Legged Frog
If California red-legged frog is assumed present or detected during protocol-level surveys (pursuant to SPR BIO10), the following measures will be implemented:
 Pretreatment surveys and biological monitoring. Pretreatment visual surveys will be performed daily by a qualified RPF, biologist, biological technician, or trained designee prior to implementation of prescribed

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-51 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
burning, mechanical treatments, and manual treatments within 300 feet of Class I or Class II streams and within or adjacent to other sensitive habitat areas (e.g., wet intermittent streams, wet seeps) during the dispersal season (October 1–April 1) or within 24 hours following a rain event greater than one-quarter inch.

Surveys and monitoring will be performed year-around prior to any activities within 30 feet of Class I or Class II streams and within or adjacent to other sensitive habitat areas (e.g., wet Class III streams, wet seeps).  If a California red-legged frog is found during pretreatment surveys or enters the project site during treatment activities, all work will stop within a no-disturbance buffer of 100 feet around the individual unless it is determined by the qualified RPF or biologist that a different-sized buffer is appropriate to avoid disturbance, injury, or mortality. Treatment activities will cease within the buffer until the animal leaves on its own and the occurrence will be reported to the qualified biologist and USFWS.  If California red-legged frog is found during pretreatment surveys or enters the project site during treatment activities, the specific habitat features used by the frog when detected will be evaluated by a qualified RPF or biologist for habitat retention, if habitat retention will meet the project goals.  If operators need to move or treat large woody debris greater than 12 inches in diameter, that piece of woody debris (if located within 300 feet of a Class I or Class II water) will be evaluated for California red-legged frog by a qualified biologist, qualified professional, RPF, RPF-supervised designee, or a contractor who has been through the environmental awareness training.
 All mechanized equipment will shut down for 24 hours following any precipitation event of 0.20 inches to less than 1 inch, 48 hours following any precipitation event 1 inch to less than 2 inches, and 72 hours following any precipitation event greater or equal to 2 inches. Manual treatments, mechanical treatments where the machinery is operated on established roads and masticator heads are kept 12 inches from the ground, and stationary chipper operations from compacted surfaces may continue.  No mechanized operations will occur year-round (including track chippers unless on an existing road) in a Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone (WLPZ) of a Class I or Class II watercourse, within 30 feet of a Class III watercourse, or adjacent to other potential sensitive habitat areas (e.g., wet seeps). Only manual treatments may occur in these areas. If manual treatments are proposed, a qualified RPF or biologist must conduct a pretreatment survey in the area no more than 7 days prior to operations.  No heavy equipment shall be fueled within 65 feet of any watercourse.

California tiger salamander
If the treatment area includes California tiger salamander suitable upland habitat (as identified by a qualified RPF or biologist and defined in SPR BIO-1) and the species is assumed present or confirmed present based on the results of SPR BIO-10 surveys, the project proponent will implement the following measures:
 Pretreatment visual surveys will be performed daily by a qualified RPF, qualified biologist, or biological technician during the dispersal season (November 1–April 30) for manual tree and snag removal, mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, or herbicide application other than cut-stump and basal bark application within upland habitat suitable for the species.

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-52 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
 If a California tiger salamander is found during pretreatment surveys or enters the project site during treatment activities, all work will stop within a no-disturbance buffer of 100 feet around the individual unless it is determined by the qualified RPF or biologist that a different-sized buffer is appropriate to avoid disturbance, injury, or mortality. Treatment activities will cease within the buffer until the animal leaves on its own, the occurrence will be reported to the qualified RPF or biologist, and both CDFW and USFWS will be notified.  Surveys for mammal burrows potentially suitable for use by California tiger salamander will be conducted by a qualified biologist or qualified RPF in upland habitat determined to be suitable for California tiger salamander prior to mechanical treatments conducted off of compacted surfaces or pile burning during any time of year.  Mechanized equipment that may cause burrow collapse (tracked and other heavy equipment) will be driven on compacted surfaces or greater than 50 feet away from mammal burrows determined to be suitable for use by California tiger salamander by a qualified biologist or qualified RPF  Burn piles will not be placed within 50 feet of mammal burrows within upland habitat suitable for California tiger salamander, as determined by a qualified biologist or qualified RPF.

Foothill yellow-legged frog
 If focused surveys pursuant to SPR BIO-10 detect foothill yellow-legged frogs within the treatment area, or presence is assumed based on suitable habitat within the treatment area, daily inspections will be required.  Daily inspection of the day’s treatment area within suitable habitat will be performed by the qualified biologist, qualified RPF, biological technician, or trained designee. The training for designees will include identification of foothill yellow-legged frog, procedures to follow for daily inspection of appropriate habitat features immediately before treatment occurs, and proper procedures to implement if a frog is present (e.g., establish a no-disturbance buffer zone of a size that will appropriately avoid foothill yellow-legged frog where treatment will not occur until the frog has left the area, halt activities if a foothill yellow-legged frog is observed during treatment, allow foothill yellow-legged frogs to move out of the treatment area on their own accord, notify CDFW if foothill yellow-legged frogs are observed).

Bald eagle
 If active bald eagle nests are detected during focused surveys, a no-disturbance buffer of at least 0.5 miles will be established for ground and aerial treatment activities. For helicopter and drone operations, this buffer will be a vertical buffer as well as a horizontal buffer (0.5 miles of horizontal distance or 2,640 feet AGL). No treatment activities will occur within this buffer until the chicks have fledged or the nest is otherwise no longer active as determined by a qualified RPF or biologist. The buffer may be adjusted by a qualified RPF or biologist based on vegetative and topographic screening and other factors.  If active bald eagle communal roosts are detected during focused surveys, a vertical and horizontal nodisturbance buffer of 1,000 feet for helicopter and drone operations will be implemented.  Trees where communal roosts are detected during focused surveys will be retained.

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-53 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
Burrowing owl
 If an active burrowing owl burrow or a potentially active burrow that is assumed to be occupied is detected in the overwintering season (September 1–January 31) during SPR BIO-10 surveys, a no-disturbance nest buffer of 250 feet will be placed around the burrow. No mechanical or manual treatments, or ground or human disturbance associated with prescribed burning (e.g., control lines, staging areas) and prescribed herbivory (e.g., fence lines, watering infrastructure, staging areas) would occur within this buffer until all burrowing owls have left the burrow (i.e., surveys indicate that no owls have used the burrow for 7 consecutive days) as determined by a qualified biologist or RPF. The buffer distance may be modified by a qualified RPF or biologist based on presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above ground, baseline levels of noise and human activity, and expected treatment activities in coordination with CDFW.  Within the year-round range of the species (in the far eastern portion of the WSCLRP area), if an active burrowing owl burrow is detected in the nesting season (February 1–August 31) during SPR BIO-10 surveys, a no-disturbance nest buffer of 1,640 feet will be established around active burrowing owl burrows. If the same burrow is active during the overwintering season (September 1–January 31), a no-disturbance nest buffer of 250 feet will be placed around the burrow during the overwintering season. No mechanical or manual treatments, or ground or human disturbance associated with prescribed burning (e.g., control lines, staging areas) and prescribed herbivory (e.g., fence lines, watering infrastructure, staging areas) would occur within this buffer until all burrowing owls have left the burrow (i.e., surveys indicate that no owls have used the burrow for 7 consecutive days) as determined by a qualified biologist or RPF. The buffer distance may be modified by a qualified RPF or biologist based on presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above-ground, baseline levels of noise and human activity, and expected treatment activities in coordination with CDFW.

California condor
 Project activities will be temporarily halted if any California condors are observed within the project area prior to the start of work. California condors will be allowed to depart on their own before project activities resume.

California condors that arrive in the project area or approach work crews while work is on-going will be hazed (additional details regarding hazing are described under SPR BIO-2). Work crews will inform the project biologist should any California condor-related work stoppages take place.  Garbage removal will be required in all contracts. Work crews involved in all project activities will remove all trash associated with this project and ensure that it is disposed of properly.  All personnel involved in implementing the project will be briefed on the importance of not leaving hazardous materials exposed and daily removal of all garbage fragments to maintain condor health.  Work crews will store all project materials, tools, hardware, equipment, and loose items in a manner that will prevent their removal or ingestion by California condors and other wildlife.  Work crews will place all materials that are liquid, granular, or powder in sealed leak-proof containers and store in a manner that prevents access by California condors and other wildlife.  Work crews will keep all parked vehicles and equipment free of leaks.

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-54 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
Least Bell’s vireo
To avoid impacts to least Bell’s vireo, if protocol surveys for nests of least Bell’s vireo detect an active nest, a nodisturbance buffer for ground and aerial treatment activities of at least 250 feet will be established around the active nest. For helicopter and drone operations, this buffer will be a vertical buffer as well as a horizontal buffer, 250 feet above ground level (AGL). No treatment activities will occur within these buffers until the chicks have fledged or the nest is otherwise no longer active as determined by a qualified RPF or biologist. These buffers may be adjusted by a qualified RPF or biologist based on vegetative and topographic screening and other factors.

Tricolored blackbird
To avoid impacts tricolored blackbird, if protocol surveys detect an active nest, a no-disturbance buffer for ground and aerial treatments activities of at least 250 feet will be established around the active nest. For helicopter and drone operations, this buffer will be a vertical buffer as well as a horizontal buffer, 250 feet AGL.

No treatment activities will occur within these buffers until the chicks have fledged or the nest is otherwise no longer active as determined by a qualified RPF or biologist. These buffers may be adjusted by a qualified RPF or biologist based on vegetative and topographic screening and other factors.

Other Special-Status Birds
If active special-status bird nests are detected during focused surveys, a no-disturbance buffer for ground and aerial treatments activities of at least 1 mile will be established around active nests for golden eagle, 0.5 miles for bald eagle nests and Swainson’s hawk nests, and 0.25 miles for white-tailed kite nests. For helicopter and drone operations, this buffer will be a vertical buffer as well as a horizontal buffer (e.g., for golden eagle, 1 mile of horizontal distance or 5,280 feet AGL). No treatment activities will occur within these buffers until the chicks have fledged or the nest is otherwise no longer active as determined by a qualified RPF or biologist. These buffers may be adjusted by a qualified RPF or biologist based on vegetative and topographic screening and other factors.

Mountain lion
 Within 14 days prior to the start of and manual tree and snag removal treatments, mechanical treatments, or prescribed burning, a qualified RPF or biologist will inspect suitable nursery habitat (as determined pursuant to SPR BIO-10) in the part of the treatment area scheduled to be treated during that 14-day period for mountain lion or signs of mountain lion nurseries. The qualified RPF or biologist will also use publicly available data on recent mountain lion sightings, or survey for signs of mountain lion (e.g., tracks, scat, prey items such as a fresh kill) in the vicinity of potential nursery habitat to help determine whether the area may contain an active mountain lion nursery. If no mountain lion or sign of a nursery is observed, treatment activities may begin. If signs of a mountain lion nursery are observed, further investigation will be required to determine if a mountain lion nursery is present (see below).
 If signs of a mountain lion nursery are found during review of publicly available data or during surveys, further investigation will be required to determine if a mountain lion nursery is present. No treatment will occur in the area while further investigation is occurring. Survey methods will include the use of trail cameras, listening for calling kittens and/or other noninvasive methods, as well as coordination with local experts tracking the

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-55 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
species (if available). Surveys using these noninvasive methods will be conducted for five days and five nights to determine whether a nursery may be present.
 If a nursery is known to occur in the area or further signs of a nursery are detected based on the surveys described above (e.g., lactating adult females or cubs on camera, repeated detections of an adult female in the area, growls or calls from kittens), no-disturbance buffer of at least 2,000 feet (Wilmers et al. 2013) will be applied for 10 weeks. The duration of the buffer may be shortened by the qualified biologist or RPF based on evidence (e.g., trail camera images) that kittens are old enough to move out of harm’s way independently of the female. Treatment activities will not occur within this buffer during this time to avoid disturbance, injury, or mortality of mountain lion nurseries.

Northern California Ringtail
 To avoid mortality or injury to ringtail the following will be implemented when manual and mechanical large snag (i.e., greater than 12 inches DBH) removal or broadcast burning are implemented during the maternity season (April 15–June 30).
 Within 14 days prior to the start of manual and mechanical tree and snag removal or broadcast burning conducted during the ringtail maternity season, a qualified RPF or biologist will conduct a den search in the treatment area to be treated during that 14-day period. The qualified RPF or biologist will search for den structures, such as hollow logs, snags, rock piles, and large trees and snags (i.e., greater than 12 inches DBH) with appropriate cavities (i.e., holes larger than 3 inches in diameter, with cavities extending approximately 12 inches down from the cavity hole). If found, the qualified biologist or RPF will inspect the cavity using a cell phone with a flash or other tools (e.g., borescopes) to determine whether ringtails are present, unless cavities are not safely accessible. Structures (e.g., large trees) with appropriate den habitat, whether verified as occupied or not, will be marked (e.g., with flagging), for avoidance during the maternity season.  Any potential den structures, where the biologist or qualified RPF is not able to determine if the structure is occupied or not, due to safety or access issues, will be retained until the end of the ringtail maternity season (June 30).
 If active ringtail dens are discovered during a den survey or during treatment activities, a no-disturbance buffer of 0.25 mile will be implemented around the den, and manual and mechanical tree and snag removal or broadcast burning that may result in the destruction or disturbance of the den and associated foraging habitat as determined by a qualified biologist or RPF will not proceed within the buffer until at least the end of the ringtail maternity season (June 30). The qualified RPF or biologist will confirm that the den is unoccupied before treatment activities resume. If an active den is discovered, CDFW will be notified of the den and buffer location. CDFW will be provided an opportunity to visit the site and provide technical information on the size and shape of the den buffer.

San Joaquin kit fox
 If the habitat within the treatment area is determined suitable for the species and contains potentially occupied dens (per SPR BIO-10), to avoid mortality, injury, or substantial disturbance to San Joaquin kit fox,

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-56 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
the following will be implemented during pile burning or mechanical treatments year-round and for all treatment activities implemented during the pupping/natal season (February 1–September 30).  A spotlight survey following the procedures in the San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol for the Northern Range (USFWS 1999) will be conducted for 10 nights within a 15-day period prior to project implementation for the treatment area and habitat within a 1.0-mile buffer of the treatment area, or the habitat will be assumed to be occupied. If unidentified canids are detected during spotlighting surveys, camera and scent stations will be implemented to identify potential San Joaquin kit fox following the procedures in the San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol for the Northern Range (USFWS 1999), or the habitat will be assumed to be occupied.  If San Joaquin kit fox are found during walking transects, spotlighting, camera, or scent stations, or if the habitat is assumed to be occupied, all potential dens will be buffered by a minimum of 250 feet (Santa Clara County et al. 2012); pile burning and mechanical treatments will not be conducted within this buffer yearround; and all treatment activities will be avoided within this buffer during the pupping/natal season (February 1–September 30).
 If San Joaquin kit fox are found within the project area, the occurrence will be reported to CDFW and USFWS. 77BMitigation Measure BIO-2b: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Other Special-Status Wildlife Species (All Treatment Activities) If other special-status wildlife species (i.e., species not listed under CESA or ESA or California Fully Protected, but meeting the definition of special status as stated in Section 3.6.1 of the Program EIR) are observed during reconnaissance surveys (conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-1) or focused or protocol-level surveys (conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-10), the project proponent will avoid or minimize adverse effects to the species by implementing the following.

Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance of Individuals
The project proponent will implement the following to avoid mortality, injury, or disturbance of individuals:
 For all treatment activities except prescribed burning, the project proponent will establish a no-disturbance buffer around occupied sites (e.g., nests, dens, roosts, middens, burrows, nurseries). Buffer size will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist using the most current, commonly accepted science and will consider published agency guidance; however, buffers will generally be a minimum of 100 feet, unless site conditions indicate a smaller buffer would be sufficient for protection or a larger buffer would be needed.

Factors to be considered in determining buffer size will include, but not be limited to, the species’ tolerance to disturbance; the presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography; nest height; locations of foraging territory; baseline levels of noise and human activity; and treatment activity. Buffer size may be adjusted if the qualified RPF or biologist determines that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect (i.e., cause mortality, injury, or disturbance to) the species within the nest, den, burrow, or other occupied site. If a no-disturbance buffer is reduced below 100 feet from an occupied site, a qualified RPF or biologist will provide the project proponent with a site- and/or treatment activity-specific explanation for the buffer reduction, which will be included in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during Prior to, during, and
after treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-57 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
treatment implementation, if there is any deviation (e.g., further reduction) from the reduced buffer as explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post-project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report).
 No-disturbance buffers will be marked with high-visibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway). No activity will occur within the buffer areas until the qualified RPF or biologist has determined that the young have fledged or dispersed; the nest, den, or other occurrence is no longer active; or reducing the buffer would not likely result in disturbance, mortality, or injury. A qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will be required to monitor the effectiveness of the no-disturbance buffer around the nest, den, burrow, or other occurrence during treatment. If treatment activities cause agitated behavior of the individual(s), the buffer distance will be increased, or treatment activities modified until the agitated behavior stops. The qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will have the authority to stop any treatment activities that could result in mortality, injury or disturbance to special-status species.
 For prescribed burning, the project proponent will implement the treatment outside the sensitive period of the species’ life history (e.g., outside the breeding or nesting season) during which the species may be more susceptible to disturbance, or disturbance could result in loss of eggs or young. For species present year-round, the qualified RPF or biologist will determine the period of time within which prescribed burning could occur that will avoid or minimize mortality, injury, or disturbance of the species. The project proponent may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS for technical information regarding appropriate limited operating periods.

Maintain Habitat Function
 For all treatment activities, the project proponent will design treatment activities to maintain the habitat function by implementing the following:
 While performing review and surveys for SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-10, a qualified RPF or biologist will identify any habitat features that are necessary for survival (e.g., habitat necessary for breeding, foraging, shelter, movement) of the affected wildlife species (e.g., trees with complex structure, trees with large cavities, trees with nesting platforms; tree snags; large raptor nests [including inactive nests]; downed woody debris).

These habitat features will be marked and treatments applied to the features will be designed to minimize or avoid the loss or degradation of suitable habitat for listed species during treatments. Identification and treatment of these features will be based on the life history and habitat requirements of the affected species and the most current, commonly accepted science.  If it is determined during implementation of SPR BIO-1 and SPR BIO-10 that special-status wildlife with specific requirements for high canopy cover (e.g., northern goshawk, Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare) are present within a treatment area, then tree or shrub canopy cover within existing suitable areas will be retained at the percentage preferred by the species (as determined by expert opinion, published habitat association information, or other documented standards that are commonly accepted) such that the habitat function is maintained.

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-58 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
 A qualified RPF or biologist will determine if, after implementation of the impact avoidance measures listed above, the habitat function will remain for the affected species after implementation of the treatment. The qualified RPF or biologist may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS for technical information regarding habitat function.

A qualified RPF or biologist with knowledge of the special-status wildlife species habitat and life history will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA because implementation of the treatment will not maintain habitat function of the special-status wildlife species’ habitat or because the loss of special-status wildlife would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a special-status wildlife species. If the project proponent determines the impact on special-status wildlife would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss of special-status wildlife or degradation of occupied habitat would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure BIO-2c will be implemented.

The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or biologist that the non-listed special-status wildlife would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some of the non-listed special-status wildlife may be killed, injured, or disturbed during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to non-listed special-status wildlife, the qualified RPF or biologist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources), and the substantial evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to special-status wildlife, no compensatory mitigation will be required. The qualified RPF or biologist may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS for technical information regarding the determination that a non-listed special-status species would benefit from the treatment.

Project-Specific Guidance to Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2b Southwestern pond turtle
 If southwestern pond turtles are detected during SPR BIO-10 focused surveys, biological monitoring by a qualified RPF, biologist, biological technician, or trainee during prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, manual tree and snag removal, and herbicide application other than cut-stump and basal bark application activities within or adjacent to sensitive habitat areas will be implemented to avoid injury to or mortality of individual southwestern pond turtle.
 If the qualified RPF or biologist detects a southwestern pond turtle during treatments, a no-disturbance buffer of 100 feet, or published agency distance, will be implemented around the individual unless it is determined by a qualified RPF, biologist, or RPF supervised designee that a different sized buffer is appropriate to avoid injury or mortality. Treatment activities will cease within the buffer until the animal has left the area or has been moved out of harm’s way and to other nearby habitat suitable for the species by the qualified RPF or biologist.

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-59 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
Special-Status amphibians and reptiles
 If special-status reptiles or amphibians (i.e., California giant salamander, Santa Cruz black salamander, redbellied newt, coast horned lizard, and Northern California legless lizard) are detected during SPR BIO-10 focused surveys, or if California giant salamander, Santa Cruz black salamander, red-bellied newt, coast horned lizard, and Northern California legless lizard is assumed to be present, biological monitoring by a qualified RPF, biologist, biological technician, or trainee during prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, manual tree and snag removal activities, and herbicide application treatments within or adjacent to sensitive habitat areas will be implemented to avoid injury to or mortality of individual special-status reptiles or amphibians. If the qualified RPF or biologist detects a special-status reptile or amphibian during treatments, a no-disturbance buffer of 100 feet, or published agency distance, will be implemented around the individual unless it is determined by a qualified RPF, biologist, or RPF supervised designee that a different sized buffer is appropriate to avoid injury or mortality.

Treatment activities will cease within the buffer until the animal has left the area or has been moved out of harm’s way and to other nearby habitat for the species by the qualified RPF or biologist.

Other Special-Status Birds
 If an active grasshopper sparrow, short-eared owl, log-eared owl, Vaux’s swift, northern harrier, olive-sided flycatcher, black swift, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, yellow breasted chat, loggerhead shrike, purple martin, or yellow warbler nest is detected during SPR BIO-10 focused surveys, a no-disturbance buffer of at least 100 feet will be established around the nest. For helicopter and drone operations, this buffer will be a vertical buffer as well as a horizontal buffer (i.e., 100 feet horizontal distance or 100 feet AGL). No treatment activities will occur within this buffer until the chicks have fledged as determined by a qualified RPF or biologist. The buffer distance may be modified by a qualified RPF or biologist based on presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above ground, baseline levels of noise and human activity, and expected treatment activities.

American Badger
 If an active American badger den is detected within treatment areas during SPR BIO-10 focused surveys, a nodisturbance buffer of 100 feet would be established around active maternity dens, and installation of control lines and staging areas for prescribed burning, pile burning, mechanical treatment, manual treatment, and the setup of infrastructure for prescribed herbivory activities would not occur within this buffer during the pupping season (February 15–July 1). If an active American badger den is detected within treatment areas outside of the pupping season, where mechanical treatments, pile burning, installation of control lines and staging areas for prescribed burning, or the setup of infrastructure for prescribed herbivory activities are to be conducted, a buffer of 50 feet will be placed around the den.

San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat
 A no-disturbance buffer of approximately 10 feet in diameter will be established around San Francisco duskyfooted woodrat nests or clusters of nests, and no manual treatments, mechanical treatments, or pile burning will be conducted within that buffer if feasible. The buffer may be estimated by field crews for mechanical treatments using remote-controlled masticators, manual treatments, and pile burning. For traditional

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-60 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
mechanical treatments, a reasonable effort shall be made to electronically mark or physically flag the buffer; marking and/or flagging of nests may be reduced where there is a safety issue in accessing the nest. An electronic map will be provided to field crews and used for reference during traditional mechanical treatments.

When visibility of a nest is limited, as determined by a qualified RPF or biologist during survey pursuant to SPR BIO-10, high-visibility flagging or other high visibility physical markers may be used to supplement electronic demarcation or visual estimation of the no-disturbance buffer. The buffer distances may be adjusted as needed by a qualified RPF or biologist to avoid impacts if needed.  If San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests are located within prescribed burning treatment areas, or if presence of nests is assumed pursuant to SPR BIO-10, broadcast burning will not occur during the season when the majority of woodrat young are present in the nest (April through mid-July) to avoid loss of young woodrats, unless control lines can be established around the nest.  In areas of existing woodrat habitat where pile burning would occur, pile burning will take place as soon as feasible following placement of the pile to reduce the risk of woodrats occupying the debris piles. Prior to burning, debris piles should be disturbed to ensure any woodrats inside of the piles have the opportunity to escape.

Special-Status Bats
If a special-status bat roost is detected during SPR BIO-10 focused surveys:
 A no-disturbance buffer of 250 feet will be established around the roost during the bat maternity season (April 1–August 31), and prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, and manual treatments and herbicide application using power equipment will not occur within this buffer until the roost is no longer being used as determined by a qualified RPF or biologist. The buffer distance may be modified by a qualified RPF or biologist based on presence of natural buffers provided by vegetation or topography, nest height above ground, baseline levels of noise and human activity, and expected treatment activities.  During the overwintering season (October 15 – April 1) structures (e.g., trees and snags) containing roosts will be retained unless the tree or snag is hazardous and removal is required for heath and safety. 78BMitigation Measure BIO-2c: Compensate for Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Loss of Habitat Function for Special-Status Wildlife if Applicable (All Treatment Activities) If the provisions of Mitigation Measure BIO-2a, BIO-2b, BIO-2d, BIO-2e, BIO-2f, or BIO-2g cannot be implemented and the project proponent determines that additional mitigation is necessary to reduce significant impacts, the project proponent will compensate for such impacts to species or habitat by acquiring and/or protecting land that provides (or will provide in the case of restoration) habitat function for affected species that is at least equivalent to the habitat function removed or degraded as a result of the treatment.

Compensation may include:

1. Preserving existing habitat outside of the treatment area in perpetuity; this may entail purchasing mitigation credits and/or lands from a CDFW- or USFWS-approved entity in sufficient quantity to offset the residual significant impacts, generally at a ratio of 1:1 for habitat; and Prior to, during, and
after treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-61 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity

2. Restoring or enhancing existing habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area (including decommissioning roads, adding perching structures, removing existing perching structures, or removing existing movement barriers or other existing features that are adversely affecting the species).

The project proponent will prepare a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that identifies the residual significant effects that require compensatory mitigation and describes the compensatory mitigation strategy being implemented to reduce residual effects, and:

1. For preserving existing habitat outside of the treatment area in perpetuity, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanisms for long-term conservation (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The project proponent will submit evidence that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the project proponent has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory habitat will be preserved in perpetuity.

2. For restoring or enhancing habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored habitat.

Review requirements are as follows:
 The project proponent will consult with CDFW and/or any other applicable responsible agency prior to finalizing the Compensatory Mitigation Plan in order to satisfy that responsible agency’s requirements (e.g., permits, approvals) within the plan.
 For species listed under ESA or CESA or a California Fully Protected Species, the project proponent will submit the mitigation plan to CDFW and/or USFWS/NOAA Fisheries for review and comment.  For other special-status wildlife species the project proponent may consult with CDFW and/or USFWS regarding the availability and applicability of compensatory mitigation and other related technical information.

Compensatory mitigation may be satisfied through compliance with permit conditions, or other authorizations obtained by the project proponent (e.g., incidental take permit), if these requirements are equally or more effective than the mitigation identified above.

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-62 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
79BMitigation Measure BIO-2e: Design Treatment to Retain Special-Status Butterfly Host Plants (All Treatment Activities)
If federally listed butterflies are identified as occurring or having potential to occur during review and surveys for SPR BIO-1 and confirmed during protocol-level surveys per SPR BIO-10, then the following measures will be implemented:
 Treatment areas within the range of these species will be surveyed for the host plant for each species (Table

3.6-34).
 Host plants for federally listed butterflies within the occupied habitat will be marked with high-visibility flagging, fencing, or stakes, and no treatment activities will occur within 10 feet of these plants.  Because prescribed herbivory could result in the indiscriminate removal of the host plants for federally listed butterflies, this treatment type will not be used within occupied habitat of any federally listed butterfly species, unless it is known that the host plant is unpalatable to the herbivore.  Treatment areas that are not occupied but are within the range of the federally listed butterfly will be divided into as many treatment units as feasible such that the entirety of the habitat is not treated within the same year.
 Treatments will be conducted in a patchy pattern to the extent feasible in areas that are not occupied but are within the range of the federally listed butterfly, such that the entirety of the habitat is not burned or removed and untreated portions of suitable habitat are retained.

If the project proponent cannot implement the measures above to avoid mortality, injury, or disturbance of federally listed butterflies or degradation of occupied habitat (host plants) such that its function would not be maintained, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c.

CESA and ESA Listed Species. A qualified RPF or biologist will determine if, after implementation of any feasible impact avoidance measures (potentially including others not listed above), the treatment will result in mortality, injury, or disturbance, or if after implementation of the treatment, habitat function will remain for the affected species. For species listed under CESA or ESA or that are fully protected, the qualified RPF or biologist will consult with CDFW and/or USFWS regarding this determination. If consultation determines that mortality, injury, or disturbance of listed butterflies or degradation of occupied habitat such that its function would not be maintained would occur, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c.

Prior to and during
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-63 Table 3.6-34 Special-status Butterflies and Associated Host Plants Butterfly Species Host Plants
bay checkerspot butterfly dwarf plantain (Plantago virginica), purple owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta) Behren’s silverspot butterfly blue violet (Viola adunca) callippe silverspot butterfly California golden violet (Viola pedunculata) Carson wandering skipper salt grass (Distichlis spicata) El Segundo blue butterfly seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium) Hermes copper butterfly spiny redberry (Rhamnus crocea) Kern primrose sphinx moth plains evening-primrose (Camissonia contorta), field primrose (Camissonia campestris)
Laguna Mountains skipper Cleveland’s horkelia (Horkelia clevelandii), sticky cinquefoil (Drymocallis glandulosa)
Lange’s metalmark butterfly naked-stemmed buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum) lotis blue butterfly seaside bird’s foot trefoil (Hosackia gracilis) Mission blue butterfly lupine (Lupinus spp.)
Myrtle’s silverspot butterfly blue violet
Oregon silverspot butterfly blue violet
Palos Verdes blue butterfly Santa Barbara milkvetch (Astragalus trichopodus), common deerweed (Acmispon glaber)
San Bruno elfin butterfly broadleaf stonecrop (Sedum spathulifolium), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), huckleberry (Vaccinuum spp.)
Smith’s blue butterfly seacliff buckwheat, seaside buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium) Quino checkerspot butterfly dwarf plantain, purple owl’s clover

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-64 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
Other Special-status Species. A qualified RPF or biologist with knowledge of the special-status species’ habitat and life history will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA, because implementation of the treatment will not maintain habitat function of the special-status species’ habitat or because the loss of special-status individuals would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a special-status species. If the project proponent determines the impact on special-status butterflies would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss of special-status butterflies or degradation of occupied habitat would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure BIO-2c will be implemented.

The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or biologist that the special-status butterfly species would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some may be killed, injured or disturbed during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to special-status butterfly species, the qualified RPF or biologist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources). If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to special-status butterflies, no compensatory mitigation will be required.

Project-Specific Guidance to Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2e The following measures apply to habitat for bay checkerspot butterfly:
 Bay checkerspot butterfly host plants include dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta), purple owl’s-clover (Castilleja densiflorus, formerly Orthocarpus densiflorus) and exserted paintbrush (Castilleja exserta, formerly Orthocarpus purpurscens).

The measures described above have been tailored to the proposed treatments for monarch butterfly and are as follows:
 If host plants for monarch butterfly are detected, and monarch eggs, larvae, and pupae are detected during focused surveys pursuant to SPR BIO-10 or assumed to be present, host plants will be marked with highvisibility flagging, fencing, or stakes, and no treatment activities (other than prescribed herbivory) will occur within 10 feet of these plants if feasible (unless, pursuant to SPR BIO-1, activities occur outside of the period March 15-October 31, when impacts to eggs, larvae, and pupae can be avoided).

If monarch butterfly is detected during focused surveys pursuant to SPR BIO-10, or presence is assumed, treatments will be conducted in a patchy pattern to the extent feasible in grasslands, shrublands, and oak woodlands, such that the entirety of the habitat is not burned or removed and untreated portions of suitable habitat and floral resources are retained.

City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-65 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
80BMitigation Measure BIO-2g: Design Treatment to Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Special-Status Bumble Bees (All Treatment Activities) If special-status bumble bees are identified as occurring during review and surveys under SPR BIO-1 and confirmed during protocol-level surveys per SPR BIO-10, or if suitable habitat for special-status bumble bees is identified during review and surveys under SPR BIO-1 (e.g., wet meadow, forest meadow, riparian, grassland, or coastal scrub habitat containing sufficient floral resources within the range of the species), then the project proponent will implement the following measures, as feasible:
 Prescribed burning within occupied or suitable habitat for special-status bumble bees will occur from October through February to avoid the bumble bee flight season.  Treatment areas in occupied or suitable habitat will be divided into a sufficient number of treatment units such that the entirety of the habitat is not treated within the same year; the objective of this measure is to provide refuge for special-status bumble bees during treatment activities and temporary retention of suitable floral resources proximate to the treatment area.
 Treatments will be conducted in a patchy pattern to the extent feasible in occupied or suitable habitat, such that the entirety of the habitat is not burned or removed and untreated portions of occupied or suitable habitat are retained (e.g., fire breaks will be aligned to allow for areas of unburned floral resources for specialstatus bumble bees within the treatment area).  Herbicides will not be applied to flowering native plants within occupied or suitable habitat to the extent feasible during the flight season (March through September).

CESA and ESA Listed Species. A qualified RPF or biologist will determine if, after implementation of feasible avoidance measures (potentially including others not listed above), the treatment will result in mortality, injury, or disturbance to the species, or if after implementation of the treatment, habitat function will remain for the affected species. For species listed under CESA or ESA or that are fully protected, the qualified RPF or biologist will consult with CDFW and/or USFWS regarding this determination. If consultation determines that mortality, injury, or disturbance of listed bumble bees (in the event the Candidate listing is confirmed) or degradation of occupied (or assumed to be occupied) habitat such that its function would not be maintained would occur, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c.

Other Special-status Species. A qualified RPF or biologist with knowledge of the special-status species’ habitat and life history will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA because implementation of the treatment will not maintain habitat function of the special-status species’ habitat or because the loss of special-status individuals would substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a special-status species. If the project proponent determines the impact on special-status bumble bees would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss of special-status bumble bees or degradation of occupied (or assumed to be occupied) habitat would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure BIO-2c will be implemented.

Prior to and during
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-66 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or biologist that the special-status bumble bee species would benefit from treatment in the occupied (or assumed to be occupied) habitat area even though some of the non-listed special-status bumble bees may be killed, injured, or disturbed during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to special-status bumble bee species, the qualified RPF or biologist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the species (or similar species) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources), and the substantial evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to specialstatus bumble bees, no compensatory mitigation will be required.

Project-Specific Guidance to Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2g To avoid impacts on Crotch’s bumble bee, the following measures will be implemented when implementation of surveys under SPR BIO-10 results in identification of habitat suitable for the species and the species is detected or presence of the species is assumed:
 If Crotch’s bumble bees are detected during focused surveys, a no-disturbance buffer of at least 50 feet will be established around any identified nest colonies, and no pile burning or mechanical treatment activities will occur within this buffer until the nesting colony is no longer occupied as determined by a qualified RPF or biologist. Buffer size may be reduced or adjusted if recommended by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW.
 If surveys for nest colonies are not conducted and presence is assumed, pile burning and mechanical treatment will not occur during the colony flight season (April through August) (CDFW 2023). Herbicides will not be applied to flowering native plants within occupied or suitable habitat during the colony flight season (April through August), and herbicide application will not target native flowering plants while blooming.

Herbicide application will be conducted with ground-level application only (i.e., paint-on stems, backpack hand-applicator, hypo-hatchet tree injection, or hand placement of pellets). No aerial spray of herbicides will occur.
 Prescribed burning and biomass disposal will be designed to avoid nesting bumble bees and bumble bee floral resources.
 Chips will not fully block existing rodent burrows, which may provide habitat for bumble bees.  Broadcast burning in habitat suitable for sensitive bumble bees will be restricted to the winter season prior to emergence of bumble bee floral resources. Generally, prescribed burning will be limited to September 1– March 31 (outside of the colony flight season). If conditions in a given year vary and the timing of floral resource emergence is altered by unusual conditions (e.g., heavy rains, extended cold season), the prescribed burning window may be altered with coordination from a qualified bumble bee biologist. Variation from the September 1–March 31 broadcast burning window will be documented in the post-project implementation report.

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-67 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
Treatment areas in occupied or suitable habitat will be divided into a sufficient number of treatment units such that the entirety of the habitat is not treated within the same year. The scale will be determined by a qualified biologist or RPF. The objective of this measure is to provide refuge for special-status bumble bees during treatment activities and temporary retention of suitable floral resources proximate to the treatment area. 81BMitigation Measure BIO-3a: Design Treatments to Avoid Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Oak Woodlands
The project proponent will implement the following measures when working in treatment areas that contain sensitive natural communities identified during surveys conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-3:
 Reference the Manual of California Vegetation, Appendix 2, Table A2, Fire Characteristics (Sawyer et al. 2009 or current version, including updated natural communities data at http://vegetation.cnps.org/) or other best available information to determine the natural fire regime of the specific sensitive natural community type (i.e., alliance) present. The condition class and fire return interval departure of the vegetation alliances present will also be determined.
 Design treatments in sensitive natural communities and oak woodlands to restore the natural fire regime and return vegetation composition and structure to their natural condition to maintain or improve habitat function of the affected sensitive natural community. Treatments will be designed to replicate the fire regime attributes for the affected sensitive natural community or oak woodland type including seasonality, fire return interval, fire size, spatial complexity, fireline intensity, severity, and fire type as described in Fire in California’s Ecosystems (Van Wagtendonk et al. 2018) and the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009 or current version, including updated natural communities data at http://vegetation.cnps.org/). Treatments will not be implemented in sensitive natural communities that are within their natural fire return interval (i.e., time since last burn is less than the average time required for that vegetation type to recover from fire) or within Condition Class 1.
 To the extent feasible, no fuel breaks will be created in sensitive natural communities with rarity ranks of S1 (critically imperiled) and S2 (imperiled).
 To the extent feasible, fuel breaks will not remove more than 20 percent of the native vegetation relative cover from a stand of sensitive natural community vegetation in sensitive natural communities with a rarity rank of S3 (vulnerable) or in oak woodlands. In forest and woodland sensitive natural communities with a rarity rank of S3, and in oak woodlands, only shaded fuel breaks will be installed, and they will not be installed in more than 20 percent of the stand of sensitive natural community or oak woodland vegetation (i.e., if the sensitive natural community covers 100 acres, no more than 20 acres will be converted to create the fuel break).  Use prescribed burning as the primary treatment activity in sensitive natural communities that are fire dependent (e.g., closed-cone forest and woodland alliances, chaparral alliances characterized by firestimulated, obligate seeders), to the extent feasible and appropriate based on the fire regime attributes as described in Fire in California’s Ecosystems (Van Wagtendonk et al. 2018) and the Manual of California Prior to and during
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-68 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009 or current version, including updated natural communities data at http://vegetation.cnps.org/).
 Time prescribed herbivory to occur when non-target vegetation is not susceptible to damage (e.g. non-target vegetation is dormant or has completed its reproductive cycle for the year). For example, use herbivores to control invasive plants growing in sensitive habitats or sensitive natural communities when sensitive vegetation is dormant but invasive plants are growing. Timing of herbivory to avoid non-target vegetation will be determined by a qualified botanist, RPF, or biologist based on the specific vegetation alliance being treated, the life forms and life conditions of its characteristic plant species, and the sensitivity of the non-target vegetation to the effects of herbivory.

The feasibility of implementing the avoidance measures will be determined by the project proponent based on whether implementation of this mitigation measure will preclude completing the treatment project within the reasonable period of time necessary to meet CalVTP program objectives, including, but not limited to, protection of vulnerable communities. If the avoidance measures are determined by the project proponent to be infeasible, the project proponent will document the reasons implementation of the avoidance strategies are infeasible in the PSA. After completion of the PSA and prior to or during treatment implementation, if there is any change in the feasibility of avoidance strategies from those explained in the PSA, this will be documented in the post-project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report).

A qualified RPF or botanist with knowledge of the affected sensitive natural community will review the treatment design and applicable impact minimization measures (potentially including others not listed above) to determine if the anticipated residual effects of the treatment would be significant under CEQA because implementation of the treatment will not maintain habitat functions of the sensitive natural community or oak woodland. If the project proponent determines the impact on sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands would be less than significant, no further mitigation will be required. If the project proponent determines that the loss or degradation of sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands would be significant under CEQA after implementing feasible treatment design alternatives and impact minimization measures, then Mitigation Measure BIO-3b will be implemented.

The only exception to this mitigation approach is in cases where it is determined by a qualified RPF or botanist that the sensitive natural community or oak woodland would benefit from treatment in the occupied habitat area even though some loss may occur during treatment activities. For a treatment to be considered beneficial to a sensitive natural community or oak woodland, the qualified RPF or botanist will demonstrate with substantial evidence that habitat function is reasonably expected to improve with implementation of the treatment (e.g., by citing scientific studies demonstrating that the community (or similar community) has benefitted from increased sunlight due to canopy opening, eradication of invasive species, or otherwise reduced competition for resources), and the substantial evidence will be included in the PSA. If it is determined that treatment activities would be beneficial to sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands, no compensatory mitigation will be required.

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-69 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
82BMitigation Measure BIO-3b: Compensate for Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Oak Woodlands If significant impacts on sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands cannot feasibly be avoided or reduced as specified under Mitigation Measure BIO-3a, the project proponent will implement the following actions:
 Compensate for unavoidable losses of sensitive natural community and oak woodland acreage and function by:
 restoring sensitive natural community or oak woodland functions and acreage within the treatment area;  restoring degraded sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands outside of the treatment area at a sufficient ratio to offset the loss of acreage and habitat function; or  preserving existing sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands of equal or better value to the sensitive natural community lost through a conservation easement at a sufficient ratio to offset the loss of acreage and habitat function.
 The project proponent will prepare a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that identifies the residual significant effects on sensitive natural communities or oak woodlands that require compensatory mitigation and describes the compensatory mitigation strategy being implemented to reduce residual effects, and:

1. For preserving existing habitat outside of the treatment area in perpetuity, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanism for long-term conservation (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The project proponent will submit evidence that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the project proponent has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory habitat will be preserved in perpetuity.

2. For restoring or enhancing habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored or enhanced habitat.

The project proponent will consult with CDFW and/or any other applicable responsible agency prior to finalizing the Compensatory Mitigation Plan in order to satisfy that responsible agency’s requirements (e.g., permits, approvals) within the plan.

Prior to and during
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
Mitigation Measure BIO-3c: Compensate for Unavoidable Loss of Riparian Habitat If, after implementation of SPR BIO-4, impacts to riparian habitat remain significant under CEQA, the project proponent will implement the following:
 Compensate for unavoidable losses of riparian habitat acreage and function by:
 restoring riparian habitat functions and acreage within the treatment area;  restoring degraded riparian habitat outside of the treatment area; Prior to and during
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-70 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
 purchasing riparian habitat credits at a CDFW-approved mitigation bank; or  preserving existing riparian habitat of equal or better value to the riparian habitat lost through a conservation easement at a sufficient ratio to offset the loss of riparian habitat function and value.  The project proponent will prepare a Compensatory Mitigation Plan that identifies the residual significant effects on riparian habitat that require compensatory mitigation and describes the compensatory mitigation strategy being implemented to reduce residual effects, and:

1. For preserving existing riparian habitat outside of the treatment area in perpetuity, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a summary of the proposed compensation lands (e.g., the number and type of credits, location of mitigation bank or easement), parties responsible for the long-term management of the land, and the legal and funding mechanism for long-term conservation (e.g., holder of conservation easement or fee title). The project proponent will submit evidence that the necessary mitigation has been implemented or that the project proponent has entered into a legal agreement to implement it and that compensatory plant populations will be preserved in perpetuity.

2. For restoring or enhancing riparian habitat within the treatment area or outside of the treatment area, the Compensatory Mitigation Plan will include a description of the proposed habitat improvements, success criteria that demonstrate the performance standard of maintained habitat function has been met, legal and funding mechanisms, and parties responsible for long-term management and monitoring of the restored or enhanced habitat.

The project proponent will consult with CDFW and/or any other applicable responsible agency prior to finalizing the Compensatory Mitigation Plan to satisfy that responsible agency’s requirements (e.g., permits, approvals) within the plan. Compensatory mitigation may be satisfied through compliance with permit conditions, or other authorizations obtained by the project proponent (e.g., Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement), if these requirements are equally or more effective than the mitigation identified above. 83BMitigation Measure BIO-4: Avoid State and Federally Protected Wetlands Impacts to wetlands will be avoided using the following measures:
 The qualified RPF or biologist will delineate the boundaries of federally protected wetlands according to methods established in the USACE wetlands delineation manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the appropriate regional supplement for the ecoregion in which the treatment is being implemented.  The qualified RPF or biologist will delineate the boundaries of wetlands that may not meet the definition of waters of the United States, but would qualify as waters of the state, according to the state wetland procedures (California Water Boards 2019 or current procedures).  A qualified RPF or biologist will establish a buffer around wetlands and mark the buffer boundary with highvisibility flagging, fencing, stakes, or clear, existing landscape demarcations (e.g., edge of a roadway). The buffer will be a minimum width of 25 feet but may be larger if deemed necessary. The appropriate size and shape of the buffer zone will be determined in coordination with the qualified RPF or biologist and will depend on the type of wetland present (e.g., seasonal wetland, wet meadow, freshwater marsh, vernal pool), Prior to and during
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-71 Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
the timing of treatment (e.g., wet or dry time of year), whether any special-status species may occupy the wetland and the species’ vulnerability to the treatment activities, environmental conditions and terrain, and the treatment activity being implemented.
 A qualified RPF or biological technician will periodically inspect the materials demarcating the buffer to confirm that they are intact and visible, and wetland impacts are being avoided.  Within this buffer, herbicide application is prohibited.  Within this buffer, soil disturbance is prohibited. Accordingly, the following activities are not allowed within the buffer zone: mechanical treatments, prescribed herbivory, equipment and vehicle access or staging.  Only prescribed (broadcast) burning may be implemented in wetland habitats if it is determined by a qualified RPF or biologist that:
 No special-status species are present in the wetland habitat  The wetland habitat function would be maintained.
 The prescribed burn is within the normal fire return interval for the wetland vegetation types present  Fire containment lines and pile burning are prohibited within the buffer No fire ignition (and associated use of accelerants) will occur within the wetland buffer 84BMitigation Measure BIO-5: Retain Nursery Habitat and Implement Buffers to Avoid Nursery Sites The project proponent will implement the following measures while working in treatment areas that contain nursery sites identified in surveys conducted pursuant to SPR BIO-10:
 Retain Known Nursery Sites. A qualified RPF or biologist will identify the important habitat features of the wildlife nursery and, prior to treatment activities, will mark these features for avoidance and retention during treatment.

Establish Avoidance Buffers. The project proponent will establish a no-disturbance buffer around the nursery site if activities are required while the nursery site is active/occupied. The appropriate size and shape of the buffer will be determined by a qualified RPF or biologist, based on potential effects of project-related habitat disturbance, noise, visual disturbance, and other factors. No treatment activity will commence within the buffer area until a qualified RPF or biologist confirms that the nursery site is no longer active/occupied. Monitoring of the effectiveness of the no-disturbance buffer around the nursery site by a qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician during and after treatment activities will be required. If treatment activities cause agitated behavior of the individual(s), the buffer distance will be increased, or treatment activities modified until the agitated behavior stops. The qualified RPF, biologist, or biological technician will have the authority to stop any treatment activities that could result in potential adverse effects to special-status species.

Prior to and during
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-72 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum Mitigation Measures Timing Implementing Entity
Verifying/Monitoring
Entity
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
85BMitigation Measure GHG-2: Implement GHG Emission Reduction Techniques During Prescribed Burns When planning for and conducting a prescribed burn, project proponents implementing a prescribed burn will incorporate feasible methods for reducing GHG emissions, including the following, which are identified in the National Wildfire Coordinating Group Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed Fire (NWCG 2018):
 reduce the total area burned by isolating and leaving large fuels (e.g., large logs, snags) unburned;  reduce the total area burned through mosaic burning;
 burn when fuels have a higher fuel moisture content;
 reduce fuel loading by removing fuels before ignition. Methods to remove fuels include mechanical treatments, manual treatments, prescribed herbivory, and biomass utilization; and  schedule burns before new fuels appear.

As the science evolves, other feasible methods or technologies to sequester carbon could be incorporated, such as conservation burning, a technique for burning woody material that reduces the production of smoke particulates and carbon released into the atmosphere and generates more biochar. Biochar is produced from the material left over after the burn and spread with compost to increase soil organic matter and soil carbon sequestration. Technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may also include portable units that perform gasification to produce electricity or pyrolysis that produces biooil that can be used as liquid fuel and/or syngas that can be used to generate electricity.

The project proponent will document in the Burn Plan required pursuant to SPR AQ-3 which methods for reducing GHG emissions can feasibly be integrated into the treatment design.

Prior to and during
prescribed burning
treatment
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
Hazardous Materials, Public Health and Safety
86BMitigation Measure HAZ-3: Identify and Avoid Known Hazardous Waste Sites Prior to the start of vegetation treatment activities requiring soil disturbance (i.e., mechanical treatments) or prescribed burning, CAL FIRE and other project proponents will make reasonable efforts to check with the landowner or other entity with jurisdiction (e.g., California Department of Parks and Recreation) to determine if there are any sites known to have previously used, stored, or disposed of hazardous materials. If it is determined that hazardous materials sites could be located within the boundary of a treatment site, the project proponent will conduct a DTSC EnviroStor web search (https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/) and consult DTSC’s Cortese List to identify any known contamination sites within the project site. If a proposed mechanical treatment or prescribed burn is located on a site included on the DTSC Cortese List as containing potential soil contamination that has not been cleaned up and deemed closed by DTSC, the area will be marked and no prescribed burning or soil disturbing treatment activities will occur within 100 feet of the site boundaries. If it is determined through coordination with landowners or after review of the Cortese List that no potential or known contamination is located on a project site, the project may proceed as planned.

During PSA preparation
Database searches are
complete; see
PSA/Addendum for
results
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party
City of Gilroy or
Qualified Responsible
Party

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum A-73

REFERENCES
Barbour, M. G., T. Keeler-Wolf, and A. A. Schoenherr. 2007. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Third edition.

University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, and London, England.

Buskirk, J. 2002. “The Western Pond Turtle, Emys marmorata.” Radiata. Journal of DGHT-AG Schildkroten. 11-2: 3–30.

Busse, Matt D; Hubbert, Ken R.; Moghaddas, Emily E. Y. 2014. Fuel reduction practices and their effects on soil quality.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-241. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 156 p.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander. Available:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83915&inline. Accessed: June 8, 2023. ———. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843&inline=true.

Accessed: June 8, 2023
———. 2023 (June 6). Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. Available: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA/Resources. Accessed October 8, 2024.

California Invasive Plant Council. 2012. Preventing the Spread of Invasive Plants: Best Management Practices for Land Mangers (3rd Edition). Cal-IPC Publication 2012-03. California Invasive Plant Council. Berkeley, CA. ———. 2025. Cal-IPC Invasive Plant Inventory. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Available:
https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory. Accessed September 11, 2025.

California Native Plant Society. 2025. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Available: http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/. Accessed September 11, 2025.

California Water Boards. 2019 (March 22). State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Available:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/wrapp.html. Accessed October 2019.

Cal-IPC. See California Invasive Plant Council.

CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

CNPS. See California Native Plant Society.
de Groot, RS, MA Wilson, and RM Boumans. 2002. A Typology for the Classification, Description and Valuation of Ecosystem Functions, Goods and Services. Ecological Economics 41:393-408.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. (Technical Report Y-87-

1.) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2018. NWCG Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed Fire. Available:
https://www.nwcg.gov/publications/420-2. Accessed May 20, 2022.

NWCG. See National Wildfire Coordinating Group.

Reese, D. A., and H. H. Welsh. 1997. “Use of Terrestrial Habitat by Western Pond Turtles, Clemmys marmorata:

Implications for Management.” Proceedings: Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles. An International Conference: 352–357.

Sawyer, JO, T Keeler-Wolf, JM Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation (Second Edition). California Native Plant Society and California Department of Fish and Game.

Attachment A
City of Gilroy
A-74 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project
Santa Clara County, City of San José, City of Morgan Hill, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2012. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (HCP/NCCP). San José, CA.

Tukman Geospatial and Aerial Information Systems. 2022. San Mateo County Fine Scale Vegetation Map Prepared by:

Tukman Geospatial & Aerial Information Systems. Prepared for: the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy.

October 21, 2022. Available: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=c1d1ea74e5014dcba6331e8ce01e7d

49. Accessed September 11, 2025.
———. 2023. 2020 Santa Cruz and Santa Clara County Fine Scale Vegetation Map Final Report. Prepared by: Tukman Geospatial & Aerial Information Systems. Prepared for: the Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network. June 19, 2023. Available: https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3e01167873d14600ad4ae8551785b3d7.

Accessed September 11, 2025.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. (June). San Joaquin Kit Fox Survey Protocol for the Northern Range. Prepared by the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Available: https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/departments/planningbuilding/forms-documents/environmental-forms-and-documents/kit-fox-information/kit-fox-surveyprotocol. Accessed: January 27, 2025. ———. 2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office. Carlsbad, CA. Accessed: August 25, 2025. ———. 2005. Revised Guidance on Site Assessments and Field Surveys for the California Red-Legged Frog. Available:
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/guideline/survey/population/205/office/11420.pdf. Accessed February 27, 2025. Accessed August 8, 2024.
———. 2014. Recovery Program Guidance on Hazing California Condors. Memo from the California Condor Field Coordinator, Hopper Mountain NWRC to the Project Leader, Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. September 3, 2014. Accessed: March 24, 2025.
———. 2020 (May). Species Status Assessment for the San Francisco gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia) Version 1.0. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 10. Sacramento, CA. Accessed: August 19, 2025. ———. 2023. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; “Threatened Species Status With Section 4(d) Rule for the Northwestern Pond Turtle and Southwestern Pond Turtle.” Proposed Rule. Federal Register 88: 68370– 68399.

USFWS. See US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Van Wagtendonk, J.W., N.G. Sugihara, S.L Stephens, A.E. Thode, K.E. Shaffer, J. A. Fites-Kaufman. 2018. Fire in California’s Ecosystems. University of California Press.

Wilmers, C. C., Y. Wang, B. Nickel, P. Houghtaling, Y. Shakeri, M. L. Allen, J. Kermish-Wells, V. Yovovich, and T.

Williams. 2013. “Scale Dependent Behavioral Responses to Human Development by a Large Predatory, the Puma.” PLoS ONE 8(4) :e60590.

Working Group for Phytophthoras in Native Habitats. 2016 (September). Guidelines to Minimize Phytophthora Pathogens in Restoration Nurseries. Available: https://www.suddenoakdeath.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/04/Restoration.Nsy_.Guidelines.final_.092216.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2024.

Xerces Society. See Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 2019. Western Monarch Management Windows. Timing Management in Monarch Breeding Habitat. Available: https://xerces.org/publications/guidelines/timing-management-inmonarch-breeding-habitat. Retrieved February 2, 2024.

City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR 1 City of Gilroy
CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project
Vegetation Treatment Project

INTRODUCTION
The City of Gilroy, in the exercise of its independent judgment, makes and adopts the following findings regarding its decision to approve the West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project, referred to herein as "vegetation treatment project," “treatment project,” or “project,” as within the scope of the California Vegetation Treatment Program (CalVTP). In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), the City of Gilroy has considered the Program Environmental Impact Report prepared for the CalVTP, State Clearinghouse Number 2019012052, which was certified by the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection in December 2019 (“CalVTP Program EIR”), and the Project-Specific Analysis (PSA) and Addendum thereto, dated April 2026, for the City of Gilroy‘s approval of the project.

The CalVTP Program EIR, including the information contained in the PSA/Addendum dated April 2026, contains the environmental analysis and information necessary to support approval of the project, as set forth below.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same section provides that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21002.) Section 21002 goes on to provide that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” The mandate and principles announced in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. (See Pub. Resources Code, Section 21081, subd. (a); CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, subd. (a).) For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
2 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, subd. (a); Pub. Resources Code, Section 21081, subd. (a).) Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.” (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565.)
With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the agency first adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the project’s “benefits” rendered “acceptable” its “unavoidable adverse environmental effects.” (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15093, 15043, subd. (b); see also Pub. Resources Code, Section 21081, subd. (b).) The California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (the Board) adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations on December 30, 2019.

Here, as explained in the Board’s Findings and the Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (Draft Program EIR) and the Final Program EIR (collectively, the “Program EIR”), the CalVTP would result in significant and unavoidable or potentially significant and unavoidable environmental effects to the following: Aesthetics; Air Quality; Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources; Biological Resources; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems; and Transportation. For reasons set forth in the Board’s Statement of Overriding Considerations, however, the Board determined that overriding economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the significant, unavoidable effects of the CalVTP.

When an agency approves a vegetation treatment project using a within-the-scope finding for all environmental impacts, it must adopt its own CEQA findings pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and if needed, a statement of overriding considerations, pursuant to Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. (See CEQA Guidelines section 15096(h).) When an agency approves a vegetation treatment project using an addendum, it must also adopt its own CEQA findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Although each agency must adopt its own findings, such agencies have the option of reusing, incorporating, or adapting all or part of the findings adopted by the Board for the CalVTP Program EIR to meet the agency’s own requirements to the extent the findings are applicable to the proposed vegetation treatment project. The following document sets forth the required findings for the City of Gilroy’s project-specific approval that relies on and implements the CalVTP Program EIR.

The City of Gilroy adopts these findings to document its exercise of its independent judgment regarding the potential environmental effects analyzed in the Program EIR and to document its reasoning for approving the vegetation treatment project under the CalVTP in spite of these effects.

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR 3

BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of vegetation treatments for wildfire risk reduction and forest health improvements 143,375 acres within the WSCLRP area in Santa Clara County, California. Treatments would be developed under the CalVTP Program EIR and would use ecological restoration, WUI fuel reduction, and fuel breaks applied according to site conditions, wildfire risk, and proximity to roughly 47,000 structures within the project area. Defensible space actions consistent with PRC Section 4291 would occur where structures are present and may be implemented under this PSA/Addendum when part of coordinated large-scale hazard-mitigation work that may not otherwise qualify for an exemption under CEQA.

For all projects developed under the CalVTP Program EIR, proposed vegetation management actions must be categorized under one of three treatment types: ecological restoration, WUI fuels reduction, or fuel break. In addition to these treatment types, treatment may be characterized by specific treatment goals; defensible space treatments may be proposed in either WUI fuel reduction or fuel break areas, and post-fire treatments may be proposed in any area that previously experienced wildfire, regardless of the mapped treatment type. The WSCLRP would employ all three treatment types (ecological restoration, WUI fuel reduction, fuel break) in different areas across the approximately 143,375-acre project area.

Implementation of treatments in chaparral and coastal sage scrub under this PSA/Addendum will conform to the requirements of the Judgment After Appeal (judgment) and Peremptory Writ of Mandate (writ) issued by the San Diego Superior Court in California Chaparral Institute et al. v. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. The requirements are presented in SPR CHAP/CSS-1 of the project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Treatments would be implemented in phases by multiple agency partners based on priority rather than all at once. Phasing will be guided by the Landscape Level Prioritized Resilience Treatments (LLPRT) effort, which uses planning documents (e.g., unit fire plans, community wildfire protection plans), GIS data, wildfire modeling, and professional expertise to identify and rank treatment areas based on factors such as fire behavior, risk to structures, environmental constraints, and access, allowing partners to strategically plan and implement treatments over time as funding and resources allow.

GENERAL PRESCRIPTION
For all projects developed under the CalVTP Program EIR, proposed vegetation management actions must be categorized under one of three treatment types: ecological restoration, WUI fuels reduction, or fuel break. In addition to these treatment types, treatment may be characterized by specific treatment goals; defensible space treatments may be proposed in either WUI fuel reduction or fuel break areas, and post-fire treatments may be proposed in any area that previously experienced wildfire, regardless of the mapped treatment type. The WSCLRP would employ all three treatment

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
4 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR types (ecological restoration, WUI fuel reduction, fuel break) in different areas across the approximately 143,375-acre project area.

Because the three treatment types share a set of baseline prescription specifications, the general prescription outlined below describes the common elements that would be applied across the entire project pre- or post-fire, with the understanding that additional or modified prescriptions would apply based on site-specific objectives and requirements:
 Selectively remove trees less than or equal to 16 inches dbh1to increase crown spacing, reduce competition for available resources, and reduce horizontal and vertical fuel continuity:
▪ retain select healthy, live trees less than or equal to 16 inches in diameter to achieve crown and bole spacing with less vertical and horizontal fuel continuity, promote the growth of residual trees, and promote habitat restoration:
▪ retain healthy native hardwoods and conifers with appropriate canopy spacing, except where Douglas-fir trees and saplings are converting grassland, shrubland, or hardwood forest habitat types through shading; in which case, Douglas-fir up to 36 inches in diameter (i.e., seed trees, or trees that are outcompeting or otherwise supporting encroachment upon the existing vegetation type) would be removed to restore ecosystem conditions;  remove any dead, dying, and diseased trees and hazard trees of any size:
▪ where such trees do not present a safety hazard, retain existing standing habitat trees, consisting of standing dead, snags, or live trees with dead portions of stems or branches, that provide nesting and foraging habitat for birds and other wildlife;  prune lower branches of trees 6–15 feet above the ground but not more than 33 percent of the trees crown where feasible;
 retain micro-stands of immature oak trees (i.e., young oak stands that do not have an established, dominant overstory) with a cluster radius of approximately 15–25 feet (30–50 feet in diameter) and spaced approximately 75–100 feet apart, where feasible, with consideration given to steepness or whether this retention could exacerbate fire behavior, or fire behavior proximal to key infrastructure and assets;
 retain 10–25 percent relative cover per acre, depending on the potential for exacerbated fire behavior, proximity to key infrastructure and assets, and the need to maintain micro-stands of understory vegetation that reflect the characteristic cover and composition of any sensitive natural communities, as described in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009 or current version, including updated natural communities data2). Vegetation retention should emphasize 1 Diameter limits for removal may be subject to local ordinances. 2 Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR 5 clumps or patches distributed across the treatment area to form a mosaic that supports habitat heterogeneity and quality (Strong et al. 20163). Root systems should be left intact to allow for resprouting, with horizontal crown separation of approximately 25 to 75 feet between clusters, depending on site-specific conditions and vegetation alliance characteristics; for chaparral communities, retain vegetation at a minimum of approximately 35 percent and a target of 50 percent within the immediate contiguous stand boundary of the vegetation type within a treatment polygon. Vegetation retention should create a mosaic pattern of patches or shrub islands to maintain a varied level of habitat continuity and structural diversity throughout the polygon, and should be consistent with retention standards outlined by the treatment type, CalVTP SPRs, and applicable MMs. Additional considerations are required for sensitive natural communities:
 remove populations of nonnative vegetation:
▪ apply herbicide to areas of removal to control reestablishment of nonnative species;  process non-retained biomass for disposal (e.g., masticate, chip, lop and scatter, prescribed burning, prescribed herbivory, etc.); and
 when revegetating post-fire landscapes:
▪ consider native forest conditions and desired future forest structure when determining planting spacing and species composition; and
▪ install erosion control measures consisting of but not limited to mulching and straw application, hillside seeding with soil-stabilizing species, and erosion barriers such as silt fences.

TREATMENT TYPES
This section outlines the prescription specifications that are unique to each treatment type and would be implemented in conjunction with the general treatment prescription above. Table 1 below outlines the treatment types that would be implemented under this proposed project.

Table 1 Applicable Treatment Types
Treatment Type Applicable Treatment Activities Maximum Treatment Size (Acres) Ecological restoration
Manual, mechanical, prescribed burning, targeted herbicide application, and prescribed herbivory. 74,738
WUI fuel reduction Manual, mechanical, prescribed burning, targeted herbicide application, and prescribed herbivory. 56,818
Fuel break Manual, mechanical, prescribed burning, targeted herbicide application, and prescribed herbivory. 11,819
3 Strong, N., K. Bevis, and G. Bracher. 2016. “Wildlife-Friendly Fuels Reduction in Dry Forest of the Pacific Northwest.” Woodland Fish and Wildlife.

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
6 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR Source: Compiled by Ascent in 2025.

Ecological Restoration
The goal of the ecological restoration treatment type is to restore ecosystem processes and reestablish resilience of the ecosystem and natural disturbance regimes to the landscape, relative to modern anthropogenic and climatic influences. Ecological restoration treatment involves selective vegetation removal to re-establish the composition, structure, pattern, integrity, and ecological processes necessary to facilitate terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem sustainability, resilience, and health currently and in the future. This would involve vegetation treatments that result in improvements to habitat quality, including habitat remediation where non-native, invasive plants have spread, and excess fire fuel buildup has occurred. It is also the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed by destructively intense wildfire.

Ecological restoration treatments would follow the general treatment prescription above while adhering to the following specifications, more specific to attaining the goals of this treatment type:
 Retain healthy trees less than 16 inches in diameter with the goal of achieving a 10- to 20-foot residual spacing:
▪ stands made up of only trees less than 16 inches in diameter would be thinned to a spacing of approximately 10–20 feet apart to disconnect horizontal and vertical fuel continuity while maintaining vegetation communities.
 Where snags do not present a safety hazard, retain approximately four to six foraging snags (less than 12 inches in diameter) and one or two cavity nesting snags (greater than 12 inches in diameter) per acre.
 Retain downed woody debris in strategic locations to maintain forest floor complexity, with a preference for larger, complex logs, generally greater than 12 inches in diameter and totaling approximately 10 tons per acre, while reducing fuel continuity:
▪ the target retention for downed woody debris would be retention of four larger logs (large end greater than 16 inches in diameter, approximately 15 feet long).  Consistent with the writ and as reflected in SPR CHAP/CSS-1, ecological restoration treatment within chaparral and coastal sage scrub vegetation types will consist of removal of flammable, nonnative vegetation. However, in stands of chaparral or coastal sage scrub that have a state rarity ranking of S4 or S5 and have generated following a fire within the last 15 years in an area that was previously characterized as woodland, ecological restoration treatments would be implemented following the general ecological restoration treatment prescription.

Ecological restoration treatments would be established and maintained using varying combinations of prescribed burning, manual, mechanical, targeted herbicide, and prescribed herbivory treatments.

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR 7 Wildland-Urban Interface Fuel Reduction
The WUI fuel reduction treatment type targets areas where the wildland and built environment intermix to prevent or slow the spread of nonwind-driven wildfire between structures and wildlands, and vice versa, to prioritize protection of structures and infrastructure.

WUI fuel reduction treatments constitute a middle ground between ecological restoration and fuel break treatments. They employ ecologically restorative standards similar to those listed in the ecological restoration treatment type across large areas while implementing more intensive vegetation removal along the margins of critical infrastructure to prioritize their protection in the event of wildfire. Like fuel break prescriptions, WUI fuel reduction treatments would be designed to improve ingress and egress on evacuation routes, create emergency access points, and reinforce staging areas for wildfire suppression equipment and operations in proximity to infrastructure. WUI fuel reduction treatments also promote ecosystem resilience through the strategic retention of vegetation and trees that increase habitat value and removal of nonnative species that compete with native vegetation.

WUI fuels reduction treatments would adhere to the general prescription above and the following prescription parameters:
 Selectively remove trees less than or equal to 16 inches in diameter:
▪ retain healthy trees and vegetation less than 16 inches in diameter with the goal of achieving a 10- to 20-foot spacing; and
▪ prune tree canopies (above 6 feet) that make direct contact with infrastructure, neighboring tree canopies, or other flammable material.
 Remove or, in some cases, redistribute understory vegetation and downed woody debris to break up surface fuels and continuity to tree and shrub canopies:
▪ remove surface biomass (approximately 0–3 feet from on the forest floor) within 100 feet of structures and other infrastructure to ensure adequate defensible space; and ▪ when chipping material within 100 feet of structures, spread chips away from structures and the boles of retained vegetation to the extent feasible.  Maintain the control of flammable, nonnative vegetation using manual treatment as a preferred activity.
 Remove vegetation or downed woody debris of any size within approximately 20 feet of the edge of roadways that impedes ingress or egress in the event of an emergency.  Consistent with the writ and as reflected in SPR CHAP/CSS-1, WUI fuel reduction treatments within chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat will be conducted only in chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat that is located within 1,000 feet of the Interface layer mapped in the CAL FIRE WUI layer.

Treatments will be implemented with a preference for hand thinning (manual treatments), and long-term maintenance of flammable, nonnative vegetation will be conducted. No WUI fuel

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
8 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR reduction treatment will occur in chaparral outside the 1,000-foot buffer of the CAL FIRE WUI Interface layer.
 In stands of chaparral or coastal sage scrub that have a state rarity ranking of S4 or S5 and have generated following a fire within the last 15 years in an area that was previously characterized as woodland, WUI fuel reduction treatments would be implemented as described in the general WUI fuel reduction treatment prescription (see the bullet points above).

WUI fuel reductions would be established and maintained using varying combinations of manual, mechanical, prescribed burning, targeted herbicide, and prescribed herbivory treatments.

Fuel Break
In strategic locations, fuel breaks create zones of vegetation removal, often in a linear layout, which reduce wildfire risk and support fire suppression efforts by providing emergency responders with a staging area or access to a remote landscape for fire control actions. They can also facilitate safe emergency egress during wildfires. Fuel breaks reduce the likelihood that a severe fire would occur within the treated area by minimizing ignition potential, reducing vegetative fuels, and managing regrowth. In all cases, flammable, nonnative invasive plants would be controlled in maintenance treatments of fuel breaks.

Consistent with the writ and as reflected in SPR CHAP/CSS-1, new fuel breaks within chaparral and coastal sage scrub habitat will not exceed 300 feet in width, and long-term maintenance of flammable nonnative vegetation will be included in treatment. In stands of chaparral or coastal sage scrub that have a state rarity ranking of S4 or S5 and have generated following a fire within the last 15 years in an area that was previously characterized as woodland, fuel breaks would be implemented as described in the fuel break treatment prescriptions.

NON-SHADED FUEL BREAKS
In areas designated as non-shaded fuel breaks, vegetation would be removed to the extent that canopy cover is eliminated or nearly eliminated to create new or maintain existing fuel breaks for the purposes of wildland fire control and prescribed burning management. For the purposes of this project, non-shaded fuel breaks would occur only in non-forested vegetation types. In fuel breaks and areas adjacent to existing paved and unpaved roads and trails, standing dead and dying, as well as live, vegetation would be cleared. The width of new and reestablished fuel break segments would vary depending on site-specific conditions but would not exceed 200 feet (i.e., for the purposes of the analysis in this PSA/Addendum, non-shaded fuel break has been mapped with a 100-foot buffer on either side of paved and unpaved roads, and ridgeline fuel breaks).

SHADED FUEL BREAKS
Areas designated as shaded fuel breaks would have similar levels of vegetation removal with the goal of providing similar intended benefits as non-shaded fuel breaks. However, shaded fuel breaks differ in that select live vegetation that provide canopy cover would be retained to a level that provides shade

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR 9 and maintains the ecological benefits provided by the existing vegetation community while still reducing the potential spread of wildfire through the understory and into the canopy. Selective retention of overstory vegetation reduces light penetration to the soil surface, which can slow the regrowth of shrubs and sprouting hardwoods, benefit invasive plan management, and reduce erosion in posttreatment shaded fuel breaks. For the purposes of WSCLRP, shaded fuel breaks would occur in forested vegetation types.

Shaded fuel breaks would be mapped to the same 100-foot buffer off the edge of roadways as nonshaded fuel breaks, and within that area, all dead and the majority of live vegetation would be removed while select, prominent individual trees or shrubs would be retained. Retention standards in shaded fuel breaks would depend on the size, density, and distribution of vegetation, as well as the dominant vegetation types, to result in a residual mosaic of retained vegetation spaced to the extent that horizontal and vertical fuel continuity is thinned while leaving the original vegetation community intact.

This treatment is targeted for areas in which fuel breaks are planned in ecologically sensitive vegetation types, such as sensitive natural communities, to limit impacts on existing vegetation composition.

Strategic shaded fuel breaks would be established where the residual forest conditions support the establishment of control lines for prescribed burning or to improve ingress and egress for evacuation and emergency vehicle access.

TREATMENT ACTIVITIES
The proposed treatment activities for this project are manual treatments, mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, targeted herbicide application, and prescribed herbivory. Each treatment activity is consistent with the treatment activities described in the Program EIR. Table 2 provides a summary of treatments and the maximum acreage of each treatment activity in the project area.

Treatment activities could occur during any time of the year. Prescribed burning would occur any day of the week or time of day within identified burn prescription windows. Manual treatments, mechanical treatments, and targeted herbicide application could occur on any day of the week but would generally be limited to daylight hours. Prescribed herbivory in one fenced area could occur across the span of days, up to a week at the longest. Biomass would be disposed of through chipping, mastication, lop and scatter, pile burning, broadcast burning, air curtain burning and carbonator, or hauling to an area outside the treatment area.

Implementation of treatments would typically require between 1 and 20 crew members depending on the treatment activity, along with their associated vehicles to travel to and from the treatment areas.

For select prescribed broadcast burns, treatments may require approximately 50 crew members on site over the course of a 1 day to 2-week period. The duration of treatments varies greatly depending on treatment area conditions (e.g., density of tree and shrub fuel types or slope), the acreage to be treated, and the size of the crew. Under this project, treatments could be implemented in little as a 1- week period to an 18-month window.

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
10 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR Table 2 Applicable Treatment Activities
Treatment Activity Equipment Used for Treatments
Typical Duration
of Treatments
Maximum Treatment
Size (Acres) *
Manual treatment
Chainsaws, hand saws, brush cutters, pole saws, hand lopping tools,shovels, weed wrenches, weed whips, machetes, pruning shears, other hand tools and hand-operated power tools, and passenger vehicle(s)/all-terrain vehicle(s). 1 week–6
months 143,375
Mechanical
treatment
Tracked or wheeled masticators (e.g., skid steers or excavators with masticating heads), tracked and tow-behind chippers, bulldozer or tractor with brush rake or ball-and-chain crushing apparatus, loader with bucket and thumb attachments to pile material for burns or chipping, wheeled skidders, fire suppression vehicles and equipment (e.g., water apparatus, hand tools), and passenger vehicle(s)/all-terrain vehicle(s).
1 week–6
months 93,158
Prescribed burning–
broadcast burning **
Drip torch/terra torch, aerial ignition devices, water tender, excavator, fire suppression vehicles and equipment (e.g., water apparatus, fire engines, bulldozers, tractors, skidders, mowers, loader, excavator, hand tools), and passenger vehicle(s)/all-terrain vehicle(s).
1 day–1 week 143,375
Prescribed burning–
pile burning**
Drip torch/terra torch, aerial ignition devices, water tender, excavator, fire suppression vehicles and equipment (e.g., water apparatus, fire engines, bulldozers, tractors, skidders, mowers, loader, excavator, hand tools), air curtain burner, carbonizer, and passenger vehicle(s)/all-terrain vehicle(s). 1 day–1 week 143,375
Targeted herbicide
application
Batch truck, application devices (e.g., backpack sprayer, manual brush applicator), and passenger vehicle(s)/all-terrain vehicle(s). 1 day–2 weeks 143,375 Prescribed herbivory Electric fencing, 10 to 500 head of livestock, water trailer, herding animals (e.g., dogs), and passenger vehicle(s)/all-terrain vehicle(s). 1 day–1 month 143,375 * The sum of acres in maximum treatment size is greater than the total treatment acreage because acreages are approximate, and more than one treatment activity may occur in a given area. While manual treatment, prescribed burning, herbicide application, and prescribed herbivory may occur throughout the entire project area, these treatment activities will be limited to a much smaller area based on feasibility, the scope of individual treatments, and restrictions of the standard project requirements and mitigation measures. ** Cultural burning activities are included under prescribed burning.

Source: Information provided by SCC FSC; compiled by Auten Resources Consulting in 2025.

TREATMENT MAINTENANCE
Maintenance treatments, or retreatments, would occur based on annual monitoring of the site conditions. Maintenance treatment is estimated to occur immediately following initial treatments (e.g., manual, mechanical, prescribed fire, targeted herbicide, or prescribed herbivory) or approximately every 2 to 10 years, or more frequently if the qualified professional/responsible agency determines that the initial treatment did not obtain the appropriate results (e.g., the prescribed fire treatment did not result in the appropriate treatment outcome representative of the results expected from the average fire return interval). Maintenance treatment methods employ the same vegetation treatment activities used in the initial treatment or introduce a new treatment activity presented in the WSCLRP

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR 11 PSA/Addendum; for example, mechanical initial treatments may be maintained with prescribed fire treatments.

Retreatment in ecological restoration areas would consider the natural fire return interval (i.e., time since last burn is greater than or equal to the average fire return interval for the habitat type) of a given vegetation type and existing conditions, prior to implementing a maintenance treatment.

Treatment activities that do not use fire (e.g., manual treatments, mechanical treatments) are considered “fire surrogates.” In the absence of additional data regarding mechanical and manual treatment activities, fire return interval is used as a proxy to guide the frequency and intensity of these non-fire treatments. This approach assumes that, in some vegetation types, manual treatment functions similarly to low-severity fire, whereas mechanical treatment more closely resembles the effects of mixed severity fire. Follow-up maintenance treatment to target invasive species would occur at any time.

Maintenance treatments would generally be lower in intensity and scale than initial treatments. Prior to implementing maintenance treatments, the project proponent would determine the natural fire return interval of the habitat(s) to be retreated, and the project proponent would verify that the expected site conditions as described in the PSA/Addendum are present in the treatment area(s).

Additionally, pursuant to SPR BIO-5, all treatments and the maintenance treatment interval would be designed to maintain habitat function of the specific chaparral vegetation alliance being treated and to avoid type conversion of chaparral. As a result, retreatment is generally anticipated to occur between 2 and 10 years following initial treatments in common vegetation types (e.g., annual grassland, Douglasfir forest); maintenance treatment would be timed to retain habitat function and ensure the habitat is within the natural fire return interval in sensitive natural communities or sensitive habitats (e.g., wetland, riparian, oak woodland, chaparral). Prior to implementing maintenance treatments, the project proponent would determine the natural fire return interval of the habitat(s) to be retreated and would verify that the expected site conditions as described in the PSA/Addendum are present in the treatment area.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The project PSA/Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA to document the City of Gilroy’s determination that the portions of the project area that are within the CalVTP treatable landscape are within the scope of the CalVTP Program EIR and that a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required for the portions of the project area that extend outside of the CalVTP treatable landscape. The PSA/Addendum contains a detailed and comprehensive review of the project and the resulting impacts and concludes that implementation of the project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts nor an increase in the severity of significant impacts previously identified and studied in the CalVTP Program EIR. There have not been any substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which implementation of the project would be undertaken that would require major revisions to

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
12 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR the previously certified CalVTP Program EIR. In addition, there is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known at the time that the CalVTP Program EIR was certified, showing that new or more severe environmental impacts not addressed in the CalVTP Program EIR would occur, that mitigation measures or alternatives found infeasible in the CalVTP Program EIR would in fact be feasible, or that different mitigation measures or alternatives from those analyzed in the CalVTP Program EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant impacts.

The PSA/Addendum analyzes the environmental effects of the project in relation to the environmental analysis in the CalVTP Program EIR with regard to the following environmental topic areas: Aesthetics; Agricultural and Forestry Resources; Air Quality; Archeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resource; Biological Resources; Energy; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Land Use and Planning and Population and Housing; Noise; Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems; Recreation; Transportation; and Wildfire. It also identifies standard project requirements (SPRs) and mitigation measures adopted as part of the CalVTP Program EIR relevant to the project that have been incorporated into and must be implemented as part of the project. All SPRs and mitigation measures in the CalVTP Program EIR relevant to the project, as well as all components of the project described in the PSA/Addendum, are included in the Approval and are made conditions of the project.

The City of Gilroy followed the evaluation and reporting process outlined in the PSA and required under the CalVTP, as explained below.

On October 14, 2025, the Santa Clara County FireSafe Council submitted to CAL FIRE, on behalf of City of Gilroy, the required information regarding this project when it began preparing the PSA. The submittal included:
 GIS data that included project location (as a point);  project size;
 planned treatment types and activities; and
 contact information for a representative of the project proponent.

Upon adoption of these findings and approval of the project, City of Gilroy will submit this completed PSA and associated geospatial data to CAL FIRE at the time a Notice of Determination is filed. The submittal will include the following:
 The completed PSA Environmental Checklist;
 The completed Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (using Attachment A to the Environmental Checklist);
 GIS data that include:
▪ a polygon(s) of the project area, showing the extent of each treatment type included in the project (ecological restoration, fuel break, WUI fuel reduction)

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR 13 As required under the CalVTP, the following information will be submitted to CAL FIRE after implementation of treatments:
 GIS data that include a polygon(s) of the treated area, showing the extent of each treatment type implemented (ecological restoration, fuel break, WUI fuel reduction)  A post-project implementation report (referred to by CAL FIRE as a Completion Report) that includes:
▪ Size of treated area (typically acres);
▪ Treatment types and activities;
▪ Dates of work;
▪ A list of the SPRs and mitigation measures that were implemented; and ▪ Any explanations regarding implementation if required by SPRs and mitigation measures (e.g., explanation for feasibility determination required by SPR BIO-12; explanation for reduction of a no-disturbance buffer below the general minimum size described in Mitigation Measures BIO1a and BIO-2b).

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
In accordance with Guidelines Section 15091 (b), the record of proceedings for the City of Gilroy’s decision to approve the vegetation treatment project under the CalVTP includes the following documents at a minimum:
 The certified Final Program EIR for the CalVTP, including the Draft Program EIR, responses to comments on the Draft Program EIR, and appendices;
 All recommendations and findings adopted by the Board in connection with the CalVTP and all documents cited or referred to therein;
 All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the treatment project prepared by the Project Proponent, consultants to the Project Proponent, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the Project Proponent’s compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the Project Proponent’s action on the CalVTP;  Matters of common knowledge to the Project Proponent, including but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations; and
 Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above.

After project approval, the substantial evidence in the record that supports the decision and the findings, in accordance with Guidelines Section 15091 (b), are available for review upon request during normal business hours at 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, Ca, 95020 / (408) 846-0219. The certified Final CalVTP Program EIR and CalVTP Findings/Statement of Overriding Consideration are also available on the Board’s CalVTP webpage.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was adopted by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection for the CalVTP, and the applicable SPRs and mitigation measures for this treatment project have been identified in the PSA/Addendum. The Santa Clara County Firesafe Council will use

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
14 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR the MMRP to track compliance with the CalVTP mitigation measures and SPRs on behalf of the City of Gilroy, as required. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period.

The Final MMRP is attached to and is approved in conjunction with the approval of the treatment project and adoption of these Findings.

FINDINGS FOR DETERMINATIONS OF

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
The City of Gilroy has reviewed and considered the information in the Final Program EIR for the CalVTP addressing potential environmental effects, proposed mitigation measures, and alternatives. The City of Gilroy, relying on the facts and analysis in the Final Program EIR and the treatment project PSA/Addendum, which were presented to the City of Gilroy City Council and reviewed and considered prior to any approvals, concurs with the conclusions of the Final Program EIR and the treatment project PSA/Addendum regarding the potential environmental effects of the CalVTP and the treatment project.

The City of Gilroy concurs with the conclusions in the Final Program EIR and treatment project PSA/Addendum that all of the following impacts will be less than significant or no impact:

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
Impact AES-1: Result in Short-Term, Substantial Degradation of a Scenic Vista or Visual Character or Quality of Public Views, or Damage to Scenic Resources in a State Scenic Highway from Treatment Activities
Impact AES-2: Result in Long-Term, Substantial Degradation of a Scenic Vista or Visual Character or Quality of Public Views, or Damage to Scenic Resources in a State Scenic Highway from WUI Fuel Reduction, Ecological Restoration, or Shaded Fuel Break Treatment Types

AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Impact AG-1: Directly Result in the Loss of Forest Land or Conversion of Forest Land to a NonForest Use or Involve Other Changes in the Existing Environment Which, Due to Their Location or Nature, Could Result in Conversion of Forest Land to Non-Forest Use

AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-2: Expose People to Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions and Related Health Risk Impact AQ-3: Expose People to Fugitive Dust Emissions Containing Naturally Occurring Asbestos and Related Health Risk

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR 15 Impact AQ-5: Expose People to Objectionable Odors from Diesel Exhaust

ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Impact CUL-1: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Built Historical Resources Impact CUL-3: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource Impact CUL-4: Disturb Human Remains

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-6: Substantially Reduce Habitat or Abundance of Common Wildlife Impact BIO-7: Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources Impact BIO-8: Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Natural Community Conservation Plan, Habitat Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Habitat Plan

ENERGY RESOURCES
Impact ENG-1: Result in Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy

GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Impact GEO-1: Result in Substantial Erosion or Loss of Topsoil Impact GEO-2: Increase Risk of Landslide

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1: Conflict with Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation of an Agency Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of GHGs

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Impact HAZ-1: Create a Significant Health Hazard from the Use of Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-2: Create a Significant Health Hazard from the Use of Herbicides

HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Impact HYD-1: Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, Substantially Degrade Surface or Ground Water Quality, or Conflict with or Obstruct the Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan Through the Implementation of Prescribed Burning

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
16 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR Impact HYD-2: Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, Substantially Degrade Surface or Ground Water Quality, or Conflict with or Obstruct the Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan Through the Implementation of Manual or Mechanical Treatment Activities
Impact HYD-3: Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, Substantially Degrade Surface or Ground Water Quality, or Conflict with or Obstruct the Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan Through Prescribed Herbivory Impact HYD-4: Violate Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements, Substantially Degrade Surface or Ground Water Quality, or Conflict with or Obstruct the Implementation of a Water Quality Control Plan Through the Ground Application of Herbicides Impact HYD-5: Substantially Alter the Existing Drainage Pattern of a Treatment Site or Area

LAND USE AND PLANNING, POPULATION AND HOUSING
Impact LU-1: Cause a Significant Environmental Impact Due to a Conflict with a Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation
Impact LU-2: Induce Substantial Unplanned Population Growth NOISE
Impact NOI-1: Result in a Substantial Short-Term Increase in Exterior Ambient Noise Levels During Treatment Implementation
Impact NOI-2: Result in a Substantial Short-Term Increase in Truck-Generated SENL’s During Treatment Activities

PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES, AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Impact UTIL-1: Result in Physical Impacts Associated with Provision of Sufficient Water Supplies, Including Related Infrastructure Needs
Impact UTIL-3: Comply with Federal, State, and Local Management and Reduction Goals, Statutes, and Regulations Related to Solid Waste

RECREATION
Impact REC-1: Directly or Indirectly Disrupt Recreational Activities within Designated Recreation Areas

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR 17

TRANSPORTATION
Impact TRAN-1: Result in Temporary Traffic Operations Impacts by Conflicting with a Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing Roadway Facilities or Prolonged Road Closures Impact TRAN-2: Substantially Increase Hazards due to a Design Feature or Incompatible Uses

WILDFIRE
Impact WIL-1: Substantially Exacerbate Fire Risk and Expose People to Uncontrolled Spread of a Wildfire
Impact WIL-2: Expose People or Structures to Substantial Risks Related to Post-Fire Flooding or Landslides

SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Program EIR identified significant and potentially significant effects on the environment that the CalVTP will contribute to or cause. The Board determined that some of these significant effects can be fully avoided through the application of feasible mitigation measures. Other effects, however, cannot be avoided by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or alternatives and thus will be significant or potentially significant and unavoidable. For reasons set forth in the Board’s Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations (Section 10.2), however, the Board determined that overriding economic, social, and other considerations outweigh the significant, unavoidable effects of the CalVTP.

The Board adopted the findings required by CEQA for all direct and indirect significant impacts. The findings provided a summary description of each impact, described the applicable mitigation measures identified in the Program EIR and adopted by the Board, and stated the Board’s findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Final Program EIR; and the Board incorporated by reference into its findings the discussion in those documents supporting the Final Program EIR’s determinations. In making those findings, the Board ratified, adopted, and incorporated into the findings the analyses and explanations in the Draft Program EIR and Final Program EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions were specifically and expressly modified by the findings.

Not every individual treatment project will have all of the significant environmental impacts that the CalVTP was determined to contribute to or cause. The impacts and mitigation measures identified below reflect the conclusions of the PSA by indicating which of the CalVTP’s impacts that this treatment project will contribute to or cause. By indicating the project-specific effects of this treatment project as follows, the City of Gilroy’s City Council is hereby making the required findings under CEQA regarding the application or feasibility of mitigation measures to reduce those impacts.

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
18 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR

FINDINGS FOR IMPACTS MITIGATED TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT The City of Gilroy finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the treatment project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects indicated below, as identified in the Final Program EIR and the PSA. Implementation of the mitigation measures indicated below to be applicable to the treatment project, which have been required or incorporated into the project, will reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. The City of Gilroy hereby directs that these mitigation measures be adopted.

Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Substantially Affect Special-Status Plant Species Either Directly or Through Habitat Modifications
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a: Avoid Loss of Special-Status Plants Listed under ESA or CESA Mitigation Measure BIO-1b: Avoid Loss of Special-Status Plants Not Listed Under ESA or CESA Mitigation Measure BIO-1c: Compensate for Unavoidable Loss of Special-Status Plants Impact BIO-2: Substantially Affect Special-Status Wildlife Species Either Directly or Through Habitat Modifications (all wildlife species except bumble bees) Mitigation Measure BIO-2a: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Listed Wildlife Species and California Fully Protected Species (All Treatment Activities) Mitigation Measure BIO-2b: Avoid Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Maintain Habitat Function for Other Special-Status Wildlife Species (All Treatment Activities) Mitigation Measure BIO-2c: Compensate for Mortality, Injury, or Disturbance and Loss of Habitat Function for Special-Status Wildlife if Applicable (All Treatment Activities) Mitigation Measure BIO-2e: Design Treatment to Retain Special-Status Butterfly Host Plants (All Treatment Activities)
Mitigation Measure BIO-2g: Avoid prescribed burning and targeted herbicide application during the flight/ nesting season and retention of habitat in the range of special-status bumble bee species, or compensation for unavoidable loss of special-status bumble bees or habitat function.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3a: Design Treatments to Avoid Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Oak Woodlands
Mitigation Measure BIO-3b: Compensate for Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Oak Woodlands Mitigation Measure BIO-3c: Compensate for Unavoidable Loss of Riparian Habitat Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Avoid State and Federally Protected Wetlands Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Retain Nursery Habitat and Implement Buffers to Avoid Nursery Sites

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR 19 Impact BIO-3: Substantially Affect Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community Through Direct Loss or Degradation that Leads to Loss of Habitat Function Mitigation Measure BIO-3a: Design Treatments to Avoid Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Oak Woodlands
Mitigation Measure BIO-3b: Compensate for Loss of Sensitive Natural Communities and Oak Woodlands Mitigation Measure BIO-3c: Compensate for Unavoidable Loss of Riparian Habitat Impact BIO-4: Substantially Affect State or Federally Protected Wetlands Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Avoid State and Federally Protected Wetlands Impact BIO-5: Interfere Substantially with Wildlife Movement Corridors or Impede Use of Nurseries
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Retain Nursery Habitat and Implement Buffers to Avoid Nursery Sites Hazardous Materials, Public Health and Safety
Impact HAZ-3: Expose the Public or Environment to Significant Hazards from Disturbance to Known Hazardous Material Sites
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Identify and Avoid Known Hazardous Waste Sites

FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
The CalVTP Program EIR determined that some impacts of the program would be significant and unavoidable or potentially significant and unavoidable, even after implementation of all feasible mitigation. The Program EIR noted that the majority of qualifying treatments under the CalVTP would result in less-than-significant impacts or be potentially beneficial; however, because of uncertainty related to future predictions of environmental conditions or implementation of mitigation by other agencies, the Program EIR noted for CEQA purposes of good-faith disclosure that the possibility exists for impacts to be significant and unavoidable, although the expected outcome would be less than significant or potentially beneficial. Despite the expected less-than-significant outcomes or benefits of treatments, impacts determined to be significant or potentially significant and unavoidable in the Program EIR because of the uncertainties, are recognized as significant and unavoidable or potentially significant and unavoidable for the purpose of these Findings.

The City of Gilroy finds that the treatment project would contribute to or cause the following significant and unavoidable or potentially significant and unavoidable impacts. Incorporating and implementing the following feasible mitigation measures indicated to be applicable to the treatment project will reduce the severity of this impact, but not to a less-than-significant level. The City of Gilroy will adopt and implement these mitigation measures. The City of Gilroy therefore finds that changes or

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
20 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the treatment project that will substantially lessen, but not avoid, the significant environmental effect as identified in the Program EIR and PSA/Addendum.

The City of Gilroy finds that fully mitigating these impacts to a less-than-significant level is not feasible; there are no feasible mitigation measures beyond those described below to reduce these impacts.

These impacts will remain significant and unavoidable or potentially significant and unavoidable. The City of Gilroy concludes, however, that the benefits of the CalVTP and the vegetation treatment project outweigh the significant or potentially significant unavoidable impacts of the Program and treatment project, as set forth in the Board’s Statement of Overriding Considerations and the City of Gilroy’s own Statement of Overriding Considerations, below.

SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Impact AES-3: Result in long-term substantial degradation of a scenic vista or visual character or quality of public views, or damage to scenic resources in a state scenic highway from the non-shaded fuel break treatment type
Mitigation Measure AES-3: Conduct Visual Reconnaissance for Non-Shaded Fuel Breaks and Relocate or Feather and Screen Publicly Visible Non-Shaded Fuel Breaks Refer to Section 8.2.1, “Aesthetics and Visual Resources,” of the CalVTP CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the CalVTP findings. The City of Gilroy incorporates by reference the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s CEQA findings for this impact.

Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact CUL-2: Cause a Substantial Adverse Change in the Significance of Unique Archaeological Resources or Subsurface Historical Resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Protect Inadvertent Discoveries of Unique Archaeological Resources or Subsurface Historical Resources
Refer to Section 8.2.3, “Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources,” of the CalVTP CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the CalVTP findings. The City of Gilroy incorporates by reference the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s CEQA findings for this impact.

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR 21

SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1: Generate Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors During Treatment Activities that Would Exceed CAAQS Or NAAQS and Conflict with Regional Air Quality Plans Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement On-Road Vehicle and Off-Road Equipment Exhaust Emission Reduction Techniques
Refer to Section 8.2.2, “Air Quality,” of the CalVTP CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the CalVTP findings. The City of Gilroy incorporates by reference the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s CEQA findings for this impact.

Impact AQ-4: Expose People to Toxic Air Contaminants Emitted by Prescribed Burns and Related Health Risk
No feasible mitigation is available
Refer to Section 8.2.2, “Air Quality,” of the CalVTP CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the CalVTP findings. The City of Gilroy incorporates by reference the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s CEQA findings for this impact.

Impact AQ-6: Expose People to Objectionable Odors from Smoke During Prescribed Burning No feasible mitigation is available
Refer to Section 8.2.2, “Air Quality,” of the CalVTP CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the CalVTP findings. The City of Gilroy incorporates by reference the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s CEQA findings for this impact.23B Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact GHG-2: Generate GHG Emissions through Treatment Activities Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Implement GHG Emission Reduction Techniques During Prescribed Burns
Refer to Section 8.2.5, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” of the CalVTP CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the CalVTP findings. The City of Gilroy incorporates by reference the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s CEQA findings for this impact.

Transportation
Impact TRAN-3: Result in a Net Increase in VMT for the Proposed CalVTP

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
22 West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement On-Road Vehicle and Off-Road Equipment Exhaust Emission Reduction Techniques
Refer to Section 8.2.6, “Transportation,” of the CalVTP CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the CalVTP findings. The City of Gilroy incorporates by reference the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s CEQA findings for this impact.

Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTIL-2: Generate Solid Waste in Excess of State Standards or Exceed Local Infrastructure Capacity
No feasible mitigation is available
Refer to Section 8.2.7, “Public Services, Utilities, and Service Systems,” of the CalVTP CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the CalVTP findings. The City of Gilroy incorporates by reference the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection’s CEQA findings for this impact.

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS4
As set forth in the Board’s adopted Findings, the Board determined that the CalVTP will result in significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, and there are no feasible project alternatives that would mitigate or substantially lessen the impacts. Despite these effects, however, the Board, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, chose to approve the CalVTP because, in its view, the benefits to life, property, and other resources, and the other benefits of the CalVTP, will render the significant effects acceptable.

In the Board’s judgment, the CalVTP and its benefits outweigh its unavoidable significant effects. The Board’s Findings were based on substantial evidence in the record. The Board’s Statement of Overriding Considerations identified the specific reasons why, in the Board’s judgment, the benefits of the CalVTP as approved outweigh its unavoidable significant effects.

Exercising its independent judgment and review, the City of Gilroy concurs that the benefits of the CalVTP and the treatment project outweigh the significant environmental effects and hereby incorporates by reference and adopts the Board’s Statement of Overriding Considerations for the CalVTP. The certified Final CalVTP Program EIR and CalVTP Findings/Statement of Overriding Consideration are available on the Board’s CalVTP webpage.

Any one of the reasons listed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations is sufficient to justify approval of the treatment project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is 4 If the PSA indicates that the project proponent’s treatment project will not contribute to or cause any of the significant and unavoidable impacts determined in the Program EIR, the proponent need not adopt a statement of overriding considerations.

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Gilroy
West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project PSA and Addendum to the Program EIR 23 supported by substantial evidence, the City of Gilroy would stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and the documents found in the Record of Proceedings, which are described and defined under “Record of Proceedings,” above.
 The West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project, as an implementation action of the CalVTP, will reduce dire risks to life, property, and natural resources in California.  The West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project, as an implementation action of the CalVTP, reflects the most current and commonly accepted science and conditions in California and allows for adaptation in response to potential evolution and changes in science and conditions.  The West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project, as an implementation action of the CalVTP, reflects the Board’s and CAL FIRE’s goals. The CalVTP will help the Board and CAL FIRE achieve their central goals for reducing and preventing the impacts of fire in the state, as outlined in the 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California. The CalVTP will help to establish a natural environment that is more resilient and built assets that are more resistant to the occurrence and effects of wildland fire.
 The West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project, as an implementation action of the CalVTP, will help implement Executive Orders, including:
▪ EO B-42-17: Governor Brown’s order issued to bolster the state’s response to unprecedented tree die-off through further expediting removal of millions of dead and dying trees across the state; and
▪ EO B-52-18: Governor Brown’s order to improve forest management and restoration, provide regulatory relief, and reduce barriers for prescribed fire.  The Board is required by law to comply with SB 1260, signed into law by Governor Brown in February 2018, which improves California forest management practices to reduce the risk of wildfire in light of the changing climate and includes provisions for the CalVTP Program EIR to serve as the programmatic CEQA coverage for prescribed burns within the SRA. The West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project, as an implementation action of the CalVTP, will bring the Board into compliance with these requirements.
 The West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project, as an implementation action of the CalVTP, will help to meet California’s GHG emission goals consistent with the California Forest Carbon Plan, California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, and California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan.

Notice of Determination
To:  Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation From: City of Gilroy PO Box 3044, 1400 Tenth Street, Room 222
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
 Santa Clara County
Clerk-Recorder Office
110 West Tasman Drive, 1st Floor
San Jose, CA 95134
(408) 299-5688
7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, Ca, 95020
Matt Morley, City Administrator
(408) 846-0219
Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination
in Compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resource Code.

State Clearinghouse Number: 2019012052
Project Title: West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project, California Vegetation Treatment Program (CalVTP) Project Location: West Santa Clara County. The project area consists of a discontinuous collection of public and private parcels roughly bound by San Mateo County to the north, major thoroughfares that run to the east (from north to south: Foothill Expressway, State Route [SR] 85, and SR 101), the intersection of SR 101 and SR 129 to the south, and San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties to the west, primarily along Skyline Boulevard (SR 35) and Summit Road.

Project Description:

Located along the western boundary of Santa Clara County, the West Santa Clara Landscape Resiliency Project (WSCLRP) covers approximately 143,375 acres, from the wildland-urban interface (WUI) of the Santa Clara Valley and southern Bay Area west into the Santa Cruz Mountains. The proposed treatment types are ecological restoration, WUI fuel reduction treatments, and fuel breaks. Proposed treatment activities consist of prescribed burning, manual treatments, mechanical treatments, targeted herbicide application, and prescribed herbivory. The majority of treatment coverage in the project area would be ecological restoration treatments across approximately 74,738 acres, with significant sections of WUI fuel reduction treatments across approximately 56,818 acres, and a network of strategically planned fuel breaks occupying approximately 11,819 acres primarily along ridgetops and important ingress and egress routes throughout the project area. These treatments would be phased and maintained over time based on availability of funding, resources, community outreach opportunities, and partner collaboration.

This project serves to facilitate future landscape-scale wildfire resilience treatments across a variety of settings and land ownership types (e.g., landscape-scale treatments on public land in primarily wildland conditions, small-scale treatments conducted adjacent to urban homes that combine vegetation management efforts with defensible space treatments). This work aims to mitigate wildfire risk, increasing community and ecological wildfire resiliency and enhancing biological diversity.

A Project-Specific Analysis and Addendum (PSA/Addendum) has been prepared for the project as a later activity covered by the California Vegetation Treatment Project (CalVTP) Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The proposed treatment types and the treatment activities are consistent with those evaluated in the CalVTP Program EIR.

This Notice of Determination is to advise that the City of Gilroy (Responsible Agency) considered the PSA/Addendum as prepared by the Saratoga Fire Protection District (lead agency), approved the above-described project on August 3, 2026, and has made the following determinations related to the PSA/Addendum:

1. The project will have a significant effect on the environment.

2. The West Santa Clara County Landscape Resiliency Project PSA/Addendum PSA/Addendum to the CalVTP Program EIR (SCH# 2019012052) was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.

Commented [HB1]: This addition is from 15096(i)

Notice of Determination

3. The CalVTP Program EIR sufficiently analyzes and addresses potential environmental impacts from the project, and the project will not trigger any of the criteria requiring additional CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. The project will not result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of the significant environmental impacts identified in the CalVTP Program EIR. a. The elements of the proposed project that would be implemented in project areas within the CalVTP treatable landscape are within the scope of the CalVTP Program EIR consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c)(2), as documented in the PSA.
b. The elements of the proposed project that would be implemented in areas outside the CalVTP treatable landscape and revisions to four standard project requirements from the CalVTP Program EIR would not result in the occurrence of any of the conditions described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR; therefore, an Addendum has been adopted to address these changes to the program.

4. Mitigation measures and standard project requirements from the CalVTP Program EIR were made a condition of the approval of the project; no new project-specific mitigation measures are required.

5. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program was adopted by the City of Gilroy for this project.

6. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted by the City of Gilroy for this project, which reaffirmed the previous statement of overriding considerations in the CalVTP Program EIR.

7. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 as applicable to a responsible agency pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15096.

This is to certify that the West Santa Clara Landscape Resilience Project PSA/Addendum to the CalVTP Program EIR and record of project approval is available to the general public at the City Clerks office. The custodian of these documents is Kim Mancera, (408) 846-0219 / [email protected], who is managing the documents.

Matt Morley, City Administrator Date
Dated Received for filing at LCI:

Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public
Resources Code Reference: Sections 21000-21174, Public
Resources Code.

City of Gilroy

STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Title: Approval of City's Response to 2025-26 Civil Grand Jury Final Report "Pothole Damage: Improving Claims Processes within Santa Clara County"
Meeting Date: August 3, 2026
From: Matt Morley, City Administrator
Department: Administration
Submitted by: Harjot Sangha, Assistant City Administrator Prepared by: Harjot Sangha, Assistant City Administrator STRATEGIC PLAN GOALS:

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the City’s response to the 2025-26 Civil Grand Jury Final Report "Pothole Damage: Improving Claims Processes within Santa Clara County" and authorize the City Administrator to submit the response.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 12, 2026, the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury released its final report, "Pothole Damage: Improving Claims Processes within Santa Clara County." The report examined how the County of Santa Clara and the fifteen cities and towns within the county receive, investigate, and resolve claims for pothole-related vehicle damage, and found that 92% of pothole claims filed countywide between 2020 and 2025 were rejected.

Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933(c) and 933.05, the City of Gilroy is required to respond to Findings 1, 2, and 3 and Recommendations 2a, 2b, and 3b of the report, with the response due to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court no later than September 10, 2026. The attached response, prepared in accordance with Penal Code section 933.05, agrees with Findings 1 and 2, partially disagrees with Finding 3, commits to implementing Recommendations 2a and 2b by the Civil Grand Jury’s recommended deadline of December 15, 2026, and reports Recommendation 3b as implemented.

BACKGROUND
The Civil Grand Jury is a judicial body empowered under California law to investigate and report on the operations of local government agencies. When a Civil Grand Jury final report contains findings and recommendations pertaining to a public agency, California Penal Code section 933(c) requires the agency’s governing body to respond to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within 90 days of the report’s release.

Penal Code section 933.05 prescribes the format of that response: the agency must agree or disagree (wholly or partially, with an explanation) with each applicable finding, and must report one of four specified actions for each applicable recommendation.

The City received the report and 90-day notice through the City Clerk on June 12, 2026.

The Civil Grand Jury analyzed claims data from 2020 to 2025 provided by all sixteen jurisdictions responsible for road maintenance in Santa Clara County, reviewed each jurisdiction’s claims webpages, and interviewed representatives from four jurisdictions.

The report concluded that the claims process is often complex and opaque, that claims are most commonly rejected because they were filed with the wrong jurisdiction or because the agency had no prior notice of the pothole, and that jurisdictions should improve online claims information, jurisdictional mapping, language access, and rejection notices.

The City of Gilroy compared favorably in the Civil Grand Jury’s review. The report identified Gilroy as one of only five jurisdictions providing adequate claims process information on its website, and noted that Gilroy settled 50% of the pothole claims filed against it during the review period (averaging one to two claims per year, among the smallest claim volumes in the county). Gilroy is not named in Finding 4 concerning vague rejection letters, and is not asked to respond to Recommendations 3a or 4. The City is required to respond only to Findings 1, 2, and 3 and Recommendations 2a, 2b, and 3b.

ANALYSIS
The draft response letter, included as an attachment to this report, addresses each required finding and recommendation in the format prescribed by Penal Code section 933.05, summarized below.

Finding 1 (92% countywide rejection rate) – Agree. The finding reflects aggregate claims data reported by the sixteen jurisdictions across Santa Clara County, which the City has no basis to dispute.

Finding 2 (jurisdictional confusion) – Agree. The City’s own claims experience confirms that jurisdictional boundaries are a common source of confusion for claimants, particularly where state routes and county facilities intersect local streets.

Finding 3 (website deficiencies) – Partially Disagree. The City disagrees with the characterization of its website as having deficiencies that make it difficult to file a claim, noting that the Civil Grand Jury’s own investigation found Gilroy to be one of only five

jurisdictions providing adequate claims process information. The response also notes that the Government Claims Act does not require electronic filing, and that the City’s claim volume of one to two claims per year does not indicate a process that deters or burdens claimants. The City does agree that its website did not include a direct link to a downloadable claim form, and has added one as a customer service improvement.

Recommendation 2a (link to map or list of maintained roads) – Will be implemented. Staff will publish a map or list of City-maintained roads on the claims webpage by December 15, 2026, consistent with the Civil Grand Jury’s recommended timeframe.

Recommendation 2b (identify commonly mistaken roads) – Will be implemented.

Staff will update the claims webpage by December 15, 2026 to identify roadways commonly mistaken as being within the City’s jurisdiction, such as segments of State Route 152 and U.S. Route 101 that are maintained by Caltrans.

Recommendation 3b (multilingual claim forms) – Has been implemented. The City has implemented DocAccess software on its website, which translates all PDF documents, including claim forms, into multiple languages. The City has also added a direct link to a downloadable claim form.

ALTERNATIVES

1. The City Council may direct staff to modify the response to any finding or recommendation, provided the revised response continues to comply with the format requirements of Penal Code section 933.05 and is submitted by the September 10, 2026 statutory deadline.

2. The City Council could decline to approve a response. This alternative is not recommended, as it would place the City out of compliance with the mandatory response requirements of Penal Code section 933(c).

FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with approving the response. The website updates required to implement Recommendations 2a and 2b will be completed with existing staff resources within the adopted budget. The DocAccess translation software referenced in the response to Recommendation 3b has already been implemented.

PUBLIC OUTREACH
This agenda item was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. The Civil Grand Jury’s final report is publicly available on the Superior Court’s website, and the City’s response, once submitted, will be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court as a public record.

NEXT STEPS
Upon City Council approval, the City Administrator will transmit the response to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, via email and U.S. Mail in advance of the September 10, 2026 deadline. Staff will complete the website updates associated with Recommendations 2a and 2b by December 15, 2026.

Attachments:

1. 2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury Final Report – "Pothole Damage: Improving Claims Processes within Santa Clara County"

2. Draft City of Gilroy Response Letter

SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882-2721 • FAX (408) 882-2795

G R A N D J U R Y S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y
June 12, 2026
City of Gilroy
c/o Ms. Kim Mancera, City Clerk
7351 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, California 95020
Sent via email: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Mancera,
The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County.

California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report shall respond within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. California Penal Code section 933.05 contains guidelines for responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this transmission.

Please note:

1. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(a), attached, you are required to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable Finding: 1, 2, and 3. If you disagree, in whole or part, you must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree.

2. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(b), attached, you are required to respond with one of four possible actions to each applicable Recommendation: 2a, 2b, and 3b.

Your comments are due to the office of the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San José, CA 95113, no later than Thursday, September 10, 2026. You may transmit these via email to [email protected]. Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.

If you have any questions, please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at (408) 882-2721 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson
2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury
Enclosures
cc: Kavita Narayan, Chief Assistant County Counsel, County of Santa Clara Matt Morley, City Administrator

State of California

PENAL CODE
Section 933.05
933.05. (a)  For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1)  The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2)  The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b)  For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1)  The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2)  The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3)  The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4)  The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c)  However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d)  A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e)  During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.

(f)  A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.
(Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)

2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Pothole Damage:

Improving claims processes within Santa
Clara County
June 12, 2026

POTHOLE DAMAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 Who Is Responsible for Pothole Damage................................................................................ 3 Why So Many Claims Are Rejected........................................................................................ 3 The California Government Claims Act................................................................................. 4 Why the Civil Grand Jury Conducted This Investigation .................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 5 INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................................ 6 How Jurisdictions Investigate Claims..................................................................................... 6 Two Common Reasons for Rejection...................................................................................... 7 Rejection Notices are Often Vague.......................................................................................... 8 Filing a Claim: Determining which Jurisdiction is Responsible .......................................... 9 Filing a Claim: Obtaining and Submitting a Claim Form.................................................. 10 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 14 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX A: Reporting a Pothole ......................................................................................... 17 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 18

POTHOLE DAMAGE

SUMMARY
If you hit a pothole within Santa Clara County and damage your vehicle, chances are that your local government will decline to reimburse you for repairs. According to data analyzed by the 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury), 92% of pothole claims filed with the County of Santa Clara (County) and the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County from 2020 to 2025 were rejected.

People who file claims may find this high rejection rate disappointing. They may also be frustrated by the state law that establishes the claims process, which can often be complex and opaque.

For example, in some jurisdictions, it’s not easy to figure out how to file a claim. Also, while the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto) and the City of Saratoga (Saratoga) offer e-filing options, claims filed in other jurisdictions must be mailed in or returned in person. And when a claim is denied, the rejection notice often provides little or no explanation.

The County, cities, and towns can and should do better. Specifically, they should:
• Make online claim forms available or easier to find, and include clearer instructions and timelines;
• Provide forms in multiple languages that reflect their specific demographics; • Make it easier for claimants to determine which jurisdiction is responsible for a given roadway;
• Update their rejection letters to specify why claims were denied.

Implementing these changes would make the claims process simpler and more accessible. It would also minimize at least one source of frustration for residents who are already burdened by unexpected repair costs.

POTHOLE DAMAGE

BACKGROUND
For the purposes of this report, a pothole is defined as a depression or hole in the road that forms when pavement breaks apart due to traffic stress and weather conditions.

Potholes can cause severe damage to tires and the underside of vehicles, with a particular risk to two-wheeled vehicles. If drivers believe the local government is responsible for their damage, they can file a claim seeking reimbursement.

According to local media reports, Bay Area drivers in 2022 filed more than 1,000 claims for potholes and other road damages. According to data that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided to CBS News, it rejected more than 95% of Bay Area claims (Feingold and Manthey, 2024; Manthey and Watts, 2024).

Who Is Responsible for Pothole Damage
Claims for road-related damage must be filed with the state, county, or city agency that has jurisdiction over the road where the damage occurred.

For example:
• Caltrans is generally responsible for major freeways and highways, such as US-101, I-280, and State Route 87.
• The County is responsible for expressways and county roads, such as Capitol and Lawrence Expressways.
• Cities and towns are generally responsible for local streets within their boundaries, including residential neighborhoods.

Why So Many Claims Are Rejected
The Civil Grand Jury requested and received claims data from the County and the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County covering the period from 2020 to 2025. The Civil Grand Jury’s analysis of that data revealed that only 9% of pothole claims across Santa Clara County were settled.

Under the California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.), local agencies have wide discretion to reject a pothole claim for reasons including but not limited to:
• The claim form was incomplete or not filed by the required deadline;

POTHOLE DAMAGE
• It was filed in the wrong jurisdiction;
• The responsible county, city, or town either was not aware of the pothole or was aware but had not had sufficient time to repair it.

These laws make it difficult for a claimant to dispute a denial. For example, if an agency rejects a claim on the grounds that it was not aware of the pothole, the law does not require it to provide evidence to back up its assertion.

In addition, because different agencies can have jurisdiction over different sections of the same road, it can be difficult for a claimant to determine which agency is responsible for the specific location where the damage occurred. If the person files with the wrong jurisdiction, the agency can reject the claim with no obligation to specify the reason or redirect the claimant to the correct jurisdiction.

If a claim is rejected, the claimant can pursue legal action according to the California Government Claims Act.

The California Government Claims Act
The California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.) establishes timelines and procedures for filing lawsuits seeking money or damages from a public entity.

In general, the Government Claims Act specifies that a claim must be filed no later than six months from the date of the incident. The claim must include what happened, what harm occurred, and the amount of compensation requested.

Once the public entity receives the claim, it has 45 days to review, investigate, and decide whether to settle or reject it. If a claim is rejected, the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit.

Why the Civil Grand Jury Conducted This Investigation
The Civil Grand Jury believes that claims processes should be consistent, accessible, and transparent. It also believes the public interest is served by highlighting when processes fall short of that standard.

The Civil Grand Jury conducted this investigation to:
• Examine how local government agencies manage pothole claims; • Understand why so many claims are denied;

POTHOLE DAMAGE
• Recommend how jurisdictions can make it easier for potential claimants to engage in the process.

METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury requested data from all 16 jurisdictions responsible for road maintenance within Santa Clara County. The data excluded state routes and interstate highways because Caltrans, a state agency, is not subject to Civil Grand Jury review. Jurisdictions provided data about all claims filed against them for road-related damages between 2020 and 2025. Information provided included the number of pothole claims, the amount claimed, the resolution, and the reason for rejection. Three jurisdictions provided response letters sent to claimants.

The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the websites of the following 16 agencies to analyze what content was included and how clearly it was presented:
• County of Santa Clara (County)
• City of Campbell (Campbell)
• City of Cupertino (Cupertino)
• City of Gilroy (Gilroy)
• City of Los Altos (Los Altos)
• Town of Los Altos Hills (Los Altos Hills)
• Town of Los Gatos (Los Gatos)
• City of Milpitas (Milpitas)
• City of Monte Sereno (Monte Sereno)
• City of Morgan Hill (Morgan Hill)
• City of Mountain View (Mountain View)
• City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto)
• City of San José (San José)
• City of Santa Clara (Santa Clara)
• City of Saratoga (Saratoga)
• City of Sunnyvale (Sunnyvale)
The Civil Grand Jury also interviewed representatives from four jurisdictions that together account for about two-thirds of the roads in Santa Clara County. These interviews provided further insight into the agencies’ processes and decision‑making practices.

POTHOLE DAMAGE

INVESTIGATION
There are over 10,000 miles of locally maintained lanes in Santa Clara County (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2026). Between 2020 and 2025, the agencies received exactly 400 claims specifically due to potholes.

Of the pothole claims, the Civil Grand Jury determined that the jurisdictions collectively settled 34 claims, or 8.5%. The percentage of settlements for damages varied among the individual entities. The data showed that during that five-year period:
• Gilroy and Saratoga each settled 50% of claims filed (however, they each averaged 1-2 claims per year, among the smallest sample sizes in Santa Clara County). • Four jurisdictions paid at least 10% of claims: Morgan Hill (17%), the County (11%), Santa Clara (11%), and Milpitas (10%).
• The remaining jurisdictions paid 9% of claims or fewer.

The Civil Grand Jury acknowledges that the significance of this data is limited; if an entity received a high volume of claims filed in the wrong jurisdiction, it will not settle those claims.

How Jurisdictions Investigate Claims
Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County generally follow a similar process for receiving and evaluating a claim.

First, the claim gets submitted to a city clerk, city manager, or equivalent official, who logs it along with any accompanying documents. Next, the official notifies the local public works department so it can investigate the incident site as needed.

In the meantime, the official assigns the claim to an investigator, usually in the city attorney’s or county counsel’s office. The investigator verifies whether the agency has jurisdiction, ensures the form was filled out correctly, and reviews any photographs and receipts that were submitted.

If the jurisdiction agrees to pay out the claim, it will often mail a check. But if the claim involves injuries or death, or the claimant is seeking tens of thousands of dollars, the settlement may need approval from the respective city council or the County Board of Supervisors.

If the jurisdiction rejects the claim, it will inform the claimant via a form letter or email. The California Government Claims Act does not require jurisdictions to specify the reason for denial.

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Two Common Reasons for Rejection
According to the data provided to the Civil Grand Jury, claims are frequently denied for one of two reasons: The claim was out of the entity’s jurisdiction, or the County, city, or town had no prior notice of the pothole.

Out of Jurisdiction
A claim must be filed with the agency that has jurisdiction over the specific location where the incident occurred. According to interviews conducted by the Civil Grand Jury, claims that are filed with the wrong jurisdiction will almost certainly be rejected as outside of jurisdiction.

A road’s location within an agency’s boundaries does not necessarily mean that agency is responsible for receiving or resolving related claims. Jurisdiction over road maintenance can shift multiple times as roads cross between state, county, and municipal boundaries. This patchwork of responsibility can be confusing, making it hard for claimants to figure out which agency has jurisdiction over the specific location of their incident.

Agencies typically verify their jurisdiction by consulting their local public works, utilities, or roads departments.

No Prior Notice
The Government Claims Act also establishes limits to the public entities’ liability for the condition of its roadways. One of those limitations is the issue of notice to the public entity. The Civil Grand Jury found this was one of the two most common reasons pothole claims are rejected.

Notice typically requires evidence that at least one of four circumstances exists:

1. The public entity created the condition;

2. The pothole had been reported prior to an incident in which a vehicle was damaged;

3. An agency’s employee observed the pothole and reported it;

4. The pothole existed long enough that the jurisdiction should have known about it through regular inspections.

If none of these circumstances applies, the agency can declare it had no prior notice and deny the claim.

When an agency receives notice of a pothole, state law allows for a reasonable period to address the hazard. It does not specify what constitutes a reasonable timeframe.

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Drivers can help ensure that a jurisdiction receives prior notice by promptly reporting any potholes.

All jurisdictions have a mechanism for reporting potholes and other issues (see Appendix A).

Rejection Notices are Often Vague
As noted above, it is not unusual for an agency to withhold its reason for rejecting a claim. A rejection notice would contain this language, in part, which is required by the California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 913):

NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM
Dear Claimant,
Notice is hereby given that the claim you presented to (insert title of board or officer) on (date) was rejected on (date).

WARNING
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.

See Government Code Section 945.6.

You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.

Agencies may provide further information, such as the reason for rejection. A notice of denial can be aggravating enough, but when it is written in minimal legalistic terms, claimants may feel even more frustrated. The Civil Grand Jury learned about rejection letters from the County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José and found that some but not all rejection letters provide a reason for rejection. Rejection letters from other jurisdictions may follow this same approach.

In Civil Grand Jury interviews, one agency official suggested that people who receive a letter like this contact the agency and see if it will share the reason for rejection. Although the reason for rejection is recorded by the agency, there is no legal obligation to provide this information, and agencies may limit this information.

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Filing a Claim: Determining which Jurisdiction is Responsible Caltrans Jurisdiction
If a pothole is located on a state route or interstate highway, the claim would generally fall under Caltrans’s jurisdiction. These routes, which, according to Caltrans, cover about 250 miles throughout Santa Clara County (California Department of Transportation, 2025) include:
• U.S. Route 101 (US-101)
• Interstate 280 (I-280)
• Interstate 680 (I-680)
• Interstate 880 (I-880)
• State Route 17 (SR-17)
• State Route 35 (SR-35)
• State Route 82 (SR-82), which includes El Camino Real • State Route 85 (SR-85)
• State Route 87 (SR-87)
• State Route 130 (SR-130), which includes part of Alum Rock Road and Mount Hamilton Road
• State Route 152 (SR-152)
• State Route 237 (SR-237)
Residents may not realize that some common local routes fall under Caltrans jurisdiction. These include SR-82, a large part of which includes El Camino Real; Mount Hamilton Road; and SR130, which is part of Alum Rock Avenue.

When a local road crosses or overlaps a state route or interstate, that portion is generally under Caltrans jurisdiction.

County Jurisdiction
Expressways and many county roads are maintained by the County Roads and Airports Department.

Major roads include:
• Almaden Expressway
• Capitol Expressway
• Central Expressway
• Foothill Expressway
• Lawrence Expressway