DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Final Report Draft Saddle Mountain Open Space Preserve Management Plan Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for: Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District 747 Mendocino Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Prepared by: Prunuske Chatham, Inc. 400 Morris St., Suite G Sebastopol, CA 95472 March 2019 This page is intentionally blank. Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District March 2019 Saddle Mountain Open Space Preserve Management Plan Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Table of Contents Page 1 Project Information ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 California Environmental Quality Act Requirements .................................................................... 3 1.2.1 Public and Agency Review ................................................................................................. 3 2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Project Location and Setting ......................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Project Goals and Objectives ......................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Project Site Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 6 2.3.1 Preserve Access ................................................................................................................. 7 2.3.2 Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.3.3 Land Uses ........................................................................................................................... 8 2.3.4 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................... 9 2.3.5 Water Resources ............................................................................................................... 9 2.3.6 Vegetation Communities and Habitat on the Preserve................................................... 11 2.3.7 Special-status Species ...................................................................................................... 21 2.3.7.1 Plants ............................................................................................................................... 22 2.3.7.2 Animals ............................................................................................................................ 23 2.3.8 Other Resource Issues ..................................................................................................... 26 2.4 Project Components .................................................................................................................... 27 2.4.1 Erosion Control and Water Quality Protection ............................................................... 27 2.4.2 Enhance Plant Communities and Habitats ...................................................................... 30 2.4.3 Prescribed Fire ................................................................................................................. 41 2.4.4 Native Plant Revegetation ............................................................................................... 45 2.4.5 Buffer Zones for Sensitive Features ................................................................................. 46 2.4.6 Sudden Oak Death Treatments ....................................................................................... 47 2.4.7 Preserve Visitors .............................................................................................................. 48 2.5 Management Action Timeframes ............................................................................................... 50 2.6 Site-specific and Programmatic Environmental Protection Measures and General Program Measures ..................................................................................................................................... 55 2.7 Permits and Approvals ................................................................................................................ 60 3 Determination ...................................................................................................................................... 61 Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District March 2019 Saddle Mountain Preserve Management Plan Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration i 4 Environmental Effects of the Project ................................................................................................... 62 4.1 Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................... 62 4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................ 66 4.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 70 4.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................... 77 4.5 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 90 4.6 Energy .......................................................................................................................................... 96 4.7 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................................ 98 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................................... 103 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................. 108 4.10 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................. 113 4.11 Land Use and Planning .............................................................................................................. 118 4.12 Mineral Resources ..................................................................................................................... 120 4.13 Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 121 4.14 Population and Housing ............................................................................................................ 126 4.15 Public Services ........................................................................................................................... 127 4.16 Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 130 4.17 Transportation ........................................................................................................................... 132 4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................................................... 136 4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ..................................................................................................... 140 4.20 Wildfire ...................................................................................................................................... 144 5 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................... 149 6 Preparers ............................................................................................................................................ 153 7 References .......................................................................................................................................... 154 Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District March 2019 Saddle Mountain Preserve Management Plan Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ii Tables Table 2-1. Vegetation Types and Sensitivity ............................................................................................... 13 Table 2-2. Special-status Plants Documented or with Potential to Occur on the Preserve ....................... 22 Table 2-3. Special-status Animals Documented or with Potential to Occur on the Preserve .................... 23 Table 2-4. Proposed Erosion Control Treatments ....................................................................................... 28 Table 2-5. Road and Trail Treatments ......................................................................................................... 30 Table 2-6. Priority Invasive Plant Treatments ............................................................................................. 39 Table 2-7. Management Plan Actions, Timing, and Level of Analysis ......................................................... 51 Table 2-8. Regulatory/Permitting Agencies ...............................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Artemisia Californica Less
    I. SPECIES Artemisia californica Less. [Updated 2017] NRCS CODE: Subtribe: Artemisiinae ARCA11 Tribe: Anthemideae (FEIS CODE: Family: Asteraceae ARCAL) Order: Asterales Subclass: Asteridae Class: Magnoliopsida flowering heads spring growth seedling, March 2009 juvenile plant photos A. Montalvo flowering plant, November 2005 mature plant with flower buds August 2010 A. Subspecific taxa None. Artemisia californica Less. var. insularis (Rydb.) Munz is now recognized as Artemisia nesiotica P.H. Raven (Jepson eFlora 2017). B. Synonyms Artemisia abrotanoides Nuttall; A. fischeriana Besser; A. foliosa Nuttall; Crossostephium californicum (Lessing) Rydberg (FNA 2017). C. Common name California sagebrush. The common name refers to its strong, sage-like aroma and endemism to California and Baja California. Other names include: coastal sage, coast sage, coast sagebrush (Painter 2016). D. Taxonomic relationships The FNA (2017) places this species in subgenus Artemisia . The molecular phylogeny of the genus has improved the understanding of relationships among the many species of Artemisia and has, at times, placed the species in subgenus Tridentadae; morphology of the inflorescences and flowers alone does not place this species with its closest relatives (Watson et al. 2002). The detailed phylogeny is not completely resolved (Hayat et al. 2009). E. Related taxa in region There are 18 species and a total of 31 taxa (including infrataxa) of Artemisia in southern California, all of which differ clearly from A. californica in habitat affinity, structure, or both (Munz 1974, Jepson eFlora 2017). Within subgenus Artemisia (as per FNA 2017), A. nesiotica from the Channel Islands is the most similar and was once considered part of A. californica ; it can be distinguished by its wider leaves with flat leaf margins (not rolled under).
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogeny of Maleae (Rosaceae) Based on Multiple Chloroplast Regions: Implications to Genera Circumscription
    Hindawi BioMed Research International Volume 2018, Article ID 7627191, 10 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/7627191 Research Article Phylogeny of Maleae (Rosaceae) Based on Multiple Chloroplast Regions: Implications to Genera Circumscription Jiahui Sun ,1,2 Shuo Shi ,1,2,3 Jinlu Li,1,4 Jing Yu,1 Ling Wang,4 Xueying Yang,5 Ling Guo ,6 and Shiliang Zhou 1,2 1 State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100093, China 2University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100043, China 3College of Life Science, Hebei Normal University, Shijiazhuang 050024, China 4Te Department of Landscape Architecture, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China 5Key Laboratory of Forensic Genetics, Institute of Forensic Science, Ministry of Public Security, Beijing 100038, China 6Beijing Botanical Garden, Beijing 100093, China Correspondence should be addressed to Ling Guo; [email protected] and Shiliang Zhou; [email protected] Received 21 September 2017; Revised 11 December 2017; Accepted 2 January 2018; Published 19 March 2018 Academic Editor: Fengjie Sun Copyright © 2018 Jiahui Sun et al. Tis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Maleae consists of economically and ecologically important plants. However, there are considerable disputes on generic circumscription due to the lack of a reliable phylogeny at generic level. In this study, molecular phylogeny of 35 generally accepted genera in Maleae is established using 15 chloroplast regions. Gillenia isthemostbasalcladeofMaleae,followedbyKageneckia + Lindleya, Vauquelinia, and a typical radiation clade, the core Maleae, suggesting that the proposal of four subtribes is reasonable.
    [Show full text]
  • HISTORICAL CHANGES in CHANNEL ALIGNMENT Along Lower Laguna De Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek
    HISTORICAL CHANGES IN CHANNEL ALIGNMENT along Lower Laguna de Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek PREPARED FOR SONOMA COUNTY WATER AGENCY JUNE 2014 Prepared by: Sean Baumgarten1 Erin Beller1 Robin Grossinger1 Chuck Striplen1 Contributors: Hattie Brown2 Scott Dusterhoff1 Micha Salomon1 Design: Ruth Askevold1 1 San Francisco Estuary Institute 2 Laguna de Santa Rosa Foundation San Francisco Estuary Institute Publication #715 Suggested Citation: Baumgarten S, EE Beller, RM Grossinger, CS Striplen, H Brown, S Dusterhoff, M Salomon, RA Askevold. 2014. Historical Changes in Channel Alignment along Lower Laguna de Santa Rosa and Mark West Creek. SFEI Publication #715, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA. Report and GIS layers are available on SFEI’s website, at http://www.sfei.org/ MarkWestHE Permissions rights for images used in this publication have been specifically acquired for one-time use in this publication only. Further use or reproduction is prohibited without express written permission from the responsible source institution. For permissions and reproductions inquiries, please contact the responsible source institution directly. CONTENTS 1. Introduction .....................................................................................1 a. Environmental Setting..........................................................................2 b. Study Area ................................................................................................2 2. Methods ............................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Adenostoma Fasciculatum Profile to Postv2.Xlsx
    I. SPECIES Adenostoma fasciculatum Hooker & Arnott NRCS CODE: ADFA Family: Rosaceae A. f. var. obtusifolium, Ron A. f. var. fasciculatum., Riverside Co., A. Montalvo, RCRCD Vanderhoff (Creative Order: Rosales Commons CC) Subclass: Rosidae Class: Magnoliopsida A. Subspecific taxa 1. Adenostoma fasciculatum var. fasciculatum Hook. & Arn. 1. ADFAF 2. A. f. var. obusifolium S. Watson 2. ADFAO 3. A. f. var. prostratum Dunkle 3. (no NRCS code) B. Synonyms 1. A. f. var. densifolium Eastw. 2. A. brevifolium Nutt. 3. none. Formerly included as part of A. f. var. f. C. Common name 1. chamise, common chamise, California greasewood, greasewood, chamiso (Painter 2016) 2. San Diego chamise (Calflora 2016) 3. prostrate chamise (Calflora 2016) Phylogenetic studies using molecular sequence data placedAdenostoma closest to Chamaebatiaria and D. Taxonomic relationships Sorbaria (Morgan et al. 1994, Potter et al. 2007) and suggest tentative placement in subfamily Spiraeoideae, tribe Sorbarieae (Potter et al. 2007). E. Related taxa in region Adenostoma sparsifolium Torrey, known as ribbon-wood or red-shanks is the only other species of Adenostoma in California. It is a much taller, erect to spreading shrub of chaparral vegetation, often 2–6 m tall and has a more restricted distribution than A. fasciculatum. It occurs from San Luis Obispo Co. south into Baja California. Red-shanks produces longer, linear leaves on slender long shoots rather than having leaves clustered on short shoots (lacks "fascicled" leaves). Its bark is cinnamon-colored and in papery layers that sheds in long ribbons. F. Taxonomic issues The Jepson eFlora and the FNA recognize A. f. var. prostratum but the taxon is not recognized by USDA PLANTS (2016).
    [Show full text]
  • (Rosaceae), I. Differentiation of Mespilus and Crataegus
    Phytotaxa 257 (3): 201–229 ISSN 1179-3155 (print edition) http://www.mapress.com/j/pt/ PHYTOTAXA Copyright © 2016 Magnolia Press Article ISSN 1179-3163 (online edition) http://dx.doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.257.3.1 STUDIES IN MESPILUS, CRATAEGUS, AND ×CRATAEMESPILUS (ROSACEAE), I. DIFFERENTIATION OF MESPILUS AND CRATAEGUS, EXPANSION OF ×CRATAEMESPILUS, WITH SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS ON DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE CRATAEGUS AND AMELANCHIER CLADES JAMES B. PHIPPS Department of Biology, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5B7, Canada; email: [email protected] Abstract The paper argues the position for retaining a monotypic Mespilus, i.e., in the sense of M. germanica, the medlar. Recent cladistic papers lend support for Mespilus being sister to Crataegus, and there is a clear morphological distinction from Cra- taegus, emphasized by adaptation to carnivore frugivory. Mespilus secured, the paper then treats each of the known hybrids between Mespilus and Crataegus, making the new combination Crataemespilus ×canescens (J.B. Phipps) J.B. Phipps. Keywords: Crataemespilus ×canescens (J.B. Phipps) J.B. Phipps comb. nov.; inflorescence position; medlar; Mespilus a folk-genus; Mespilus distinct from Crataegus; Rosaceae; taxonomic history of Mespilus Introduction The author has a long-standing interest in generic delimitation in the Maloid genera of the Rosaceae (Maleae Small, formerly Maloideae C. Weber, Pyrinae Dumort.), as shown particularly in a series of papers with K. Robertson, J. Rohrer, and P.G. Smith (Phipps et al. 1990, 1991; Robertson at al. 1991, 1992; Rohrer at al. 1991, 1994) which treated all 28 genera of Maleae as recognised by us. There is also a revisionary treatment of New World Heteromeles M.J.
    [Show full text]
  • Heteromeles Arbutifolia (Lindl.) M. Roemer NRCS CODE: Subfamily: Maloideae Family: Rosaceae (HEAR5) Photos: A
    I. SPECIES Heteromeles arbutifolia (Lindl.) M. Roemer NRCS CODE: Subfamily: Maloideae Family: Rosaceae (HEAR5) photos: A. Montalvo Order: Rosales Subclass: Rosidae Class: Magnoliopsida Fruits (pomes) in late fall and winter. A. Subspecific taxa None recognized by Phipps (2012, 2016) in Jepson Manual or Jepson e-Flora. B. Synonyms Photinia arbutifolia (Ait.) Lindl.; Crataegus arbutifolia Ait. (McMinn 1939) Heteromeles (Lindl.) M. Roemer arbutifolia var. arbutifolia ; H. a. var. cerina (Jeps.) E. Murray; H. a. var. macrocarpa (Munz) Munz; H. salicifolia (C. Presl) Abrams (Phipps 2016) (but see I. F. Taxonomic issues). C. Common name toyon, California Christmas berry, California-holly (Painter 2016); Christmas berry (CalFlora 2016). D. Taxonomic relationships Phylogenetic analyses based on molecular and morphological data confirm thatPhotinia is the most closely related genus (Guo et al. 2011). Photinia differs in having 20 stamens, fused carpels, and stone cells in the testa as well as occurring in summer-wet environments (Phipps 1992). E. Related taxa in region None. There is only one species of Heteromeles. The closely related Photinia is primarily tropical (Meyer 2008) and not in California. Toyon's taxonomic stability may be in part related to its reproductive mode (Wells 1969). F. Taxonomic issues The three varieties of H. arbutifolia listed above in cell I. B. are currently recognized in the USDA PLANTS (2016) database. G. Other One of the most widely distributed California shrubs. Also widely planted and well-known for its bright red fruits in winter. McMinn (1939) noted it had been planted widely in parks and gardens since about 1914. From the Greek words 'heter' for different and 'malus' for apple (Munz 1974).
    [Show full text]
  • North Bay Vital Signs
    North Bay Vital Signs An Integrated Ecosystem-Climate Monitoring Framework for Sonoma County Lisa Micheli (Pepperwood) and Deanne DiPietro (Point Blue Conservation Science) Co-chairs, North Bay Climate Adaptation Initiative (NBCAI) Science Working Group A report prepared for Community Foundation Sonoma County December 2013 A product of the North Bay Climate Adaptation Initiative www.northbayclimate.org NBCAI’s North Bay Vital Signs December 2013 North Bay Vital Signs: an Integrated Ecosystem-Climate Monitoring Framework for Sonoma County Lisa Micheli (Pepperwood) and Deanne DiPietro (Point Blue Conservation Science) Co-chairs, North Bay Climate Adaptation Initiative (NBCAI) Science Working Group A report prepared for Community Foundation Sonoma County, December 2013 1. Executive Summary This report summarizes the North Bay Climate Adaptation Initiative (NBCAI)’s progress towards designing and implementing a Sonoma County-wide network capable of detecting local changes in climate and biodiversity, and of feeding into regional, state and national networks designed to support natural resource management decision- making at multiple scales. The strategy outlined here advances the following NBCAI Vital Signs objectives. o To maximize the input of advising technical experts on an indicator framework o To utilize protected lands as potential “hubs” of an integrated climate-biota monitoring network o To establish a sustainable, long-term set of combined climate-hydrology-biology measuring stations o To define data structure, collection protocols, stewardship, statistics, sharing, and reporting needed to regularly assess the status of key climate-ecosystem indicators o To explore the appropriate role of citizen scientists o To assess the feasibility of monitoring implementation recommendations with voluntarily participating conservation land managers NBCAI’s science working group has accomplished the following first steps towards these objectives, as described in more detail in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Cherry Fire Blight
    ALABAMA A&M AND AUBURN UNIVERSITIES Fire Blight on Fruit Trees and Woody Ornamentals ANR-542 ire blight, caused by the bac- Fterium Erwinia amylovora, is a common and destructive dis- ease of pear, apple, quince, hawthorn, firethorn, cotoneaster, and mountain ash. Many other members of the rose plant family as well as several stone fruits are also susceptible to this disease (Table 1). The host range of the Spur blight on crabapple fire blight pathogen includes cv ‘Mary Potter’. nearly 130 plant species in 40 genera. Badly diseased trees and symptoms are often referred to shrubs are usually disfigured and as blossom blight. The blossom may even be killed by fire blight phase of fire blight affects blight. different host plants to different degrees. Fruit may be infected Symptoms by the bacterium directly through the skin or through the The term fire blight describes stem. Immature fruit are initially Severe fire blight on crabapple the blackened, burned appear- water-soaked, turning brownish- cv ‘Red Jade’. ance of damaged flowers, twigs, black and becoming mummified and foliage. Symptoms appear in as the disease progresses. These Shortly after the blossoms early spring. Blossoms first be- mummies often cling to the trees die, leaves on the same spur or come water-soaked, then wilt, for several months. shoot turn brown on apple and and finally turn brown. These most other hosts or black on Table 1. Plant Genera That Include Fire Blight Susceptible Cultivars. Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Apple, Crabapple Malus Jetbead Rhodotypos
    [Show full text]
  • Sonoma County
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration SONOMA COUNTY Petaluma River Watershed The Petaluma River watershed lies within portions of Marin and Sonoma Counties. The river flows in a northwesterly to southeasterly direction into San Pablo Bay. Petaluma River In a 1962 report, Skinner indicated that the Petaluma River was an historical migration route and habitat for steelhead (Skinner 1962). At that time, the creek was said to be “lightly used” as steelhead habitat (Skinner 1962). In July 1968, DFG surveyed portions of the Petaluma River accessible by automobile from the upstream limit of tidal influence to the headwaters. No O. mykiss were observed (Thomson and Michaels 1968d). Leidy electrofished upstream from the Corona Road crossing in July 1993. No salmonids were found (Leidy 2002). San Antonio Creek San Antonio Creek is a tributary of Petaluma River and drains an area of approximately 12 square miles. The channel is the border between Sonoma and Marin Counties. In a 1962 report, Skinner indicated that San Antonio Creek was an historical migration route for steelhead (Skinner 1962).
    [Show full text]
  • Adenostoma Fasciculatum Hooker & Arnott NRCS CODE: ADFA Family: Rosaceae A
    I. SPECIES Adenostoma fasciculatum Hooker & Arnott NRCS CODE: ADFA Family: Rosaceae A. f. var. obtusifolium, Ron A. f. var. fasciculatum., Riverside Co., A. Montalvo, RCRCD Vanderhoff (Creative Order: Rosales Commons CC) Subclass: Rosidae Class: Magnoliopsida A. Subspecific taxa 1. Adenostoma fasciculatum var. fasciculatum Hook. & Arn. 1. ADFAF 2. A. f. var. obusifolium S. Watson 2. ADFAO 3. A. f. var. prostratum Dunkle 3. (no NRCS code) B. Synonyms 1. A. f. var. densifolium Eastw. 2. A. brevifolium Nutt. 3. none. Formerly included as part of A. f. var. f. C. Common name 1. chamise, common chamise, California greasewood, greasewood, chamiso (Painter 2016) 2. San Diego chamise (Calflora 2016) 3. prostrate chamise (Calflora 2016) Phylogenetic studies using molecular sequence data placedAdenostoma closest to Chamaebatiaria and D. Taxonomic relationships Sorbaria (Morgan et al. 1994, Potter et al. 2007) and suggest tentative placement in subfamily Spiraeoideae, tribe Sorbarieae (Potter et al. 2007). E. Related taxa in region Adenostoma sparsifolium Torrey, known as ribbon-wood or red-shanks is the only other species of Adenostoma in California. It is a much taller, erect to spreading shrub of chaparral vegetation, often 2–6 m tall and has a more restricted distribution than A. fasciculatum. It occurs from San Luis Obispo Co. south into Baja California. Red-shanks produces longer, linear leaves on slender long shoots rather than having leaves clustered on short shoots (lacks "fascicled" leaves). Its bark is cinnamon-colored and in papery layers that sheds in long ribbons. F. Taxonomic issues The Jepson eFlora and the FNA recognize A. f. var. prostratum but the taxon is not recognized by USDA PLANTS (2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Technical Report for the Nob Hill Pipeline Improvements Project
    Biological Technical Report for the Nob Hill Pipeline Improvements Project Prepared for Prepared by San Diego County Water Authority RECON Environmental, Inc. 4677 Overland Avenue 1927 Fifth Avenue San Diego, CA 92123 San Diego, CA 92101-2358 Contact: Mark Tegio P 619.308.9333 F 619.308.9334 RECON Number 6830 February 12, 2014; Revised June 2014 Brian Parker, Biologist THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. Biological Technical Report for the Nob Hill Pipeline Improvements Project TABLE OF CONTENTS Glossary of Terms and Acronyms iii Executive Summary 1 1.0 Introduction 5 2.0 Project Location, Description, and Environmental Setting 5 2.1 Project Location 5 2.2 Project Description 5 2.3 Environmental Setting 12 3.0 Methods 13 3.1 General Biological Survey 14 3.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Delineation 15 4.0 Existing Conditions 16 4.1 Physical Setting 16 4.2 Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Types 17 4.3 Plant Species Observed Within the Study Area 24 4.4 Wildlife Observed Within the Study Area 24 4.5 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters 24 4.6 Habitat Linkages and Wildlife Corridors 28 5.0 Regional and Regulatory Context 28 5.1 Federal Endangered Species Act 29 5.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 29 5.3 California Endangered Species Act 29 5.4 California Fish and Game Code 29 5.5 Water Authority NCCP/HCP 30 5.6 City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program 32 6.0 Sensitive Resources 32 6.1 Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Types 33 6.2 Sensitive Plant Species 33 6.3 Sensitive Wildlife Species 35 7.0 Project Impacts 37 7.1
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Management Design Manual
    March 2020 Flood Management Design Manual Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Boulevard Santa Rosa, CA 95406 This document includes complex figures, formulas, and variables that may be difficult to interpret using an assistive device such as a screen reader. For accessibility assistance with this document, please contact Sonoma County Water Agency, Resource Planning Section at (707) 526-5370, Fax to (707) 544-6123 or through the California Relay Service by dialing 711. Sonoma County Water Agency Flood Management Design Manual Prepared for: Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Boulevard Santa Rosa, CA 95406 Contact: Phil Wadsworth (707) 547-1945 Prepared by: Horizon Water and Environment, LLC 266 Grand Avenue, Suite 210 Oakland, CA 94610 Contact: Ken Schwarz, Ph.D. (510) 986-1851 March 2020 Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Flood Management Design Manual ..................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Applicability of the FMDM ............................................................................................................ 1-2 1.3 Flood Management Goals ............................................................................................................. 1-3 1.4 Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 1-4 Chapter 2 Flood Management Design
    [Show full text]