DOCSLIB.ORG

4 1919-Biological Resources Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Biological Resources Assessment 94 Via Navarro Greenbrae, Marin County May 2019 Prepared for: Angelique Riordan 121 Oak Avenue San Anselmo, CA 94960 Prepared by: Prunuske Chatham, Inc. 400 Morris Street, Suite G Sebastopol, CA 95472 Copyright © 2019 by Prunuske Chatham, Inc. All rights reserved. Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 2. Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1. Project Location ................................................................................................... 4 3. Methods ........................................................................................................................ 5 4. Soils ............................................................................................................................... 7 5. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 7 6. Special-status Species ................................................................................................... 9 Definition of Special-status Species ......................................................................... 9 Special-status Species Evaluation Criteria ................................................................ 9 Jurisdictional Areas ................................................................................................. 10 Sensitive Natural Communities .............................................................................. 10 Figure 2. Reported Occurrences of Special-status Species ............................................... 12 Special-status Plants ............................................................................................... 13 Special-status Animals ............................................................................................ 15 7. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 19 General Protection Measures ................................................................................ 20 Seasonal Drainage .................................................................................................. 20 Native Plants and Natural Communities ................................................................ 20 Special-status Plants and Communities ................................................................. 21 General Wildlife Species Protection Measures ...................................................... 21 Special-status and Common Bird Species .............................................................. 22 Special-status and Common Bat Species ............................................................... 22 8. References .................................................................................................................. 23 Appendices Appendix A: Photographs Appendix B: California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database List Appendix C: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC Trust Resource Report Biological Resources Assessment 94 Via Navarro, Greenbrae, Marin County May 2019 1. Introduction Angelique Riordan, landowner, is proposing to construct a single family residence at 94 Via Navarro, Greenbrae, Marin County (APN 070-331-20; Figure 1). The 2.55-acre property is currently undeveloped. It is located within the City of Larkspur limits and zoned low-density residential (up to 5 DU/acre). The landowner is proposing to construct a multi-story residence with a driveway, parking, and garage. The residence will be located in the central portion of the site directly off Via Navarro. However, the project plans are preliminary the exact project footprint and building configuration has yet to be decided. Prunuske Chatham, Inc. (PCI) was retained by the landowner to prepare a biological resources assessment of the proposed project. The City of Larkspur (City) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) are requiring a biological assessment. The following assessment has been completed to satisfy this requirement and to determine 1) the impacts of the proposed project on sensitive biological resources and 2) if there are any biological constraints associated with the proposed project. This report summarizes a field survey and follow-up botanical assessment of the project site, describes existing biological resources, reviews potential for special-status species occurrence, and provides general recommendations to protect biological resources during project implementation. 2. Setting The project site is located at 94 Via Navarro, north of Greenbrae, Marin County (Figure 1). The site is accessed off Sir Francis Drake Boulevard to the west of Highway 101, then Eliseo Drive to Via Lerida, and then the site address. It is located 0.3 miles west of Highway 101. The site is mapped on the San Rafael 7.5’ USGS quadrangle (37.951792°N, -122.518085°W) and the elevation is range is approximately 250 feet along Via Navarro to 410 feet at the upper elevations of the property. Site drainage flows to Corte Madera Creek and then San Francisco Bay. The project site is bordered by residential parcels and small areas of open space. Biological Resources Assessment 94 Via Navarro, Greenbrae, Marin County May 2019 P a g e | 3 Parcel Figure 1. Project Location March 2019 94 Via Navarro ESRI Topo Greenbrae, Marin County 0 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.3 ± Miles 3. Methods Field Survey and Follow-up Botanical Assessment. A biological field survey of the project site was completed on February 19, 2019, by PCI’s Senior Biologist who is familiar with the region’s flora and fauna; the survey focused on the areas proposed for development and did not encompass the entire parcel. The field assessment was a general inventory of habitats within the project site and of species observed or potentially occurring within and in close proximity to the project site; it did not include focused surveys for special-status plants or animal species. Observations were limited in scope due to the seasonal phenology, distribution and/or rarity of some species. The potential for presence of special-status species and habitats was determined based on habitat conditions, presence or absence of unique habitat features, proximity of the project site to reported occurrences (CDFW 2019a), and geographic ranges of relevant species. PCI’s biological assessment followed the protocol described in Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFW 2009) and county guidelines for biological studies (Marin County undated). During the survey, an inventory of all plant and wildlife species observed was compiled and is incorporated into the Existing Conditions text below. All plants observed were identified using the Jepson eFlora (Jepson Flora Project 2019) and Marin Flora (Howe et al. 2007) to the taxonomic level necessary to determine whether they were rare. Botanical nomenclature follows the Jepson eFlora. Conditions during the survey were sunny with no wind or no cloud cover. The air temperature was 55 F at 11:00 a.m. The survey was conducted with the aid of binoculars (Swarovski™ 10 x 42). Visual cues, calls, songs, and direct observations were used to identify wildlife species. The project site was examined for presence of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates. No aquatic sampling was completed as part of the assessment. The survey consisted of evaluating the proposed project site and the habitats within it. Habitats beyond these boundaries were not evaluated. A follow-up botanical assessment was completed on April 26, 2019 by PCI’s Senior Vegetation Ecologist. This assessment focused on the area of planned disturbance; the purpose was to determine whether special-status plant species were present or likely to occur, and whether sensitive habitat was present. Figure 1 shows the project location and regional context. Figure 2 illustrates the locations of known sightings of special-status plants and animals in the vicinity of the project site (CDFW 2019a). Representative photographs taken during the field survey are provided at the end of this report in Appendix A. This level of assessment is standard at this stage of project review and is meant to guide City staff in making initial determinations for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act Biological Resources Assessment 94 Via Navarro, Greenbrae, Marin County May 2019 P a g e | 5 (CEQA), making recommendations for further study, and/or identifying mitigation, restoration, and enhancement opportunities. This biological assessment is specific to the project identified above; impacts beyond the project boundaries were not evaluated. It does not include an evaluation of the cumulative effects of the project within the context of potential future development at the site or within the region. This report represents PCI’s best professional effort to identify sensitive habitats, species, and resources of concern based on the proposed project. Background Research. A background literature and database search was conducted to determine the potential for special-status species and sensitive habitats to occur within or adjacent to the project site. The search focused on reported occurrences for the San Rafael 7 ½’USGS quadrangle within a 5-mile buffer
Recommended publications
  • To View the Apr/May Issue of the Sandpiper (Pdf)

    To View the Apr/May Issue of the Sandpiper (Pdf)

    The andpiper APRIL/MAY 2018 Redwood Region Audubon Society www.rras.org S APRIL/MAY FIELD TRIPS Every Saturday: Arcata Marsh and Wildlife Sanctuary. Sunday, April 8: Humboldt Bay National Wildlife carpooling available. Walks generally run 2-3 hours. All These are our famous, rain-or-shine, docent-led fi eld trips at Refuge. This is a wonderful 2-to 3-hour trip for people ages, abilities and interest levels welcome! For more the Marsh. Bring your binocular(s) and have a great morning wanting to learn the birds of the Humboldt Bay area. It information, please contact Melissa Dougherty at 530-859- birding! Meet in the parking lot at the end of South I Street takes a leisurely pace with emphasis on enjoying the birds! 1874 or email [email protected]. (Klopp Lake) in Arcata at 8:30 a.m. Trips end around 11 a.m. Beginners are more than welcome. Meet at the Refuge Walks led by: Cédric Duhalde (Apr 7); Cindy Moyer (Apr Visitor Center at 9 a.m. Call Jude Power (707-822- 3613) Saturday, April 14: Shorebird Workshop, Part 14); Michael Morris (Apr 21); Christine Keil (Apr 28). If you for more information. III at Del Norte Pier. Meet at 10 a.m. to watch the are interested in leading a Marsh walk, please contact Ken rising tide at the foot of W. Del Norte St. bring in waves Burton at [email protected]. Sunday, April 8: Shorebird Workshop, Part II of godwits, willets, turnstones, and curlews. Tide will turn at South Spit. First we’ll look for beach-loving around noon; we hope to see a good show by then.
  • Arcata Marsh & Wildlife Sanctuary Bird Checklist

    Arcata Marsh & Wildlife Sanctuary Bird Checklist

    Arcata Marsh & Wildlife Sanctuary Bird Checklist Arcata, Humboldt County, California (Updated Fall 2014) The following list of 327 species was updated by Rob Fowler and David Fix in 2014 from the list they compiled in 2009. Data came from sightings entered in eBird; Stanley Harris's Northwest California Bird (2005, 1996, 1991); historical records in North American Birds magazine and its supporting unpublished Humboldt County summaries; the 2006 edition Arcata Marsh bird checklist (Elias Elias); the 1995 edition Arcata Marsh bird checklist (Kristina Van Wert); and personal communications with many birders. Formatting by Camden Bruner. Call the Northwest California Bird Alert at (707) 822-5666 to report or hear reports of rare birds! Abbreviations: A - Abundant; occurs in large numbers C - Common; likely to be found U - Uncommon; occurs in small numbers, found with seearching R - Rare; expected in very small numbers, not likely to be found Ca - Casual; several records, possibly may occur regularly Ac - Accidental; 1-3 records, not reasonably expected to occur Sp - Spring (Marsh - May) S - Summer (June to mid-July) F - Fall (mid-July through November) W - Winter (December through February) Here Waterfowl: Breeds Spring Summer Fall Winter _____ Greater White-fronted Goose R R R _____ Emperor Goose Ac _____ Snow Goose Ca Ca Ca _____ Ross's Goose Ca Ca Ca _____ Brant U Ac U R _____ Cackling Goose A U C _____ Canada Goose C C C C yes _____ Tundra Swan Ca Ca _____ Wood Duck U U U U yes _____ Gadwall C C C C yes _____ Eurasian Wigeon R U R _____
  • Birdlife International for the Input of Analyses, Technical Information, Advice, Ideas, Research Papers, Peer Review and Comment

    Birdlife International for the Input of Analyses, Technical Information, Advice, Ideas, Research Papers, Peer Review and Comment

    UNEP/CMS/ScC16/Doc.10 Annex 2b CMS Scientific Council: Flyway Working Group Reviews Review 2: Review of Current Knowledge of Bird Flyways, Principal Knowledge Gaps and Conservation Priorities Compiled by: JEFF KIRBY Just Ecology Brookend House, Old Brookend, Berkeley, Gloucestershire, GL13 9SQ, U.K. June 2010 Acknowledgements I am grateful to colleagues at BirdLife International for the input of analyses, technical information, advice, ideas, research papers, peer review and comment. Thus, I extend my gratitude to my lead contact at the BirdLife Secretariat, Ali Stattersfield, and to Tris Allinson, Jonathan Barnard, Stuart Butchart, John Croxall, Mike Evans, Lincoln Fishpool, Richard Grimmett, Vicky Jones and Ian May. In addition, John Sherwell worked enthusiastically and efficiently to provide many key publications, at short notice, and I’m grateful to him for that. I also thank the authors of, and contributors to, Kirby et al. (2008) which was a major review of the status of migratory bird species and which laid the foundations for this work. Borja Heredia, from CMS, and Taej Mundkur, from Wetlands International, also provided much helpful advice and assistance, and were instrumental in steering the work. I wish to thank Tim Jones as well (the compiler of a parallel review of CMS instruments) for his advice, comment and technical inputs; and also Simon Delany of Wetlands International. Various members of the CMS Flyway Working Group, and other representatives from CMS, BirdLife and Wetlands International networks, responded to requests for advice and comment and for this I wish to thank: Olivier Biber, Joost Brouwer, Nicola Crockford, Carlo C. Custodio, Tim Dodman, Roger Jaensch, Jelena Kralj, Angus Middleton, Narelle Montgomery, Cristina Morales, Paul Kariuki Ndang'ang'a, Paul O’Neill, Herb Raffaele and David Stroud.
  • Potrero Hills Landfill EIR EDAW Solano County 4.2-1 Biological Resources Proposed Phase II Expansion Area

    Potrero Hills Landfill EIR EDAW Solano County 4.2-1 Biological Resources Proposed Phase II Expansion Area

    4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The project applicant contracted with Environmental Stewardship & Planning, Inc. to conduct biological surveys for the Phase II Project, which is included as Appendix B. The biological surveys prepared by Environmental Stewardship & Planning, Inc. were reviewed by EDAW for consistency with industry-accepted standards. Based on this review and a site reconnaissance conducted by an EDAW biologist, the biological surveys were deemed to adequately characterize the existing biological resources on the project site and in the project vicinity. The information included in the biological surveys and supplemental biological data provide the basis for the analysis included in this section. 4.2.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site is located in the secondary management area of the Suisun Marsh. It is a biologically diverse region that supports a varied assemblage of plant and wildlife species. The Potrero Hills are a series of steep, rolling hills that form an island of upland habitat almost completely surrounded by Suisun Marsh. Extensive areas of grazed grassland are located north of the site. GENERAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Vegetation Currently Permitted Landfill The currently permitted 320-acre landfill is located in the central portion of the interior valley of the Potrero Hills in the secondary management area of the Suisun Marsh. The Potrero Hills are located about 5 miles east of downtown Fairfield, in Solano County, south of State Route (SR) 12. A large portion of the currently permitted landfill has been disturbed to accommodate existing landfill activities, and the remaining natural areas are dominated by non-native grassland habitat. Disturbed areas either are devoid of vegetation or support weedy vegetation, forming a ruderal habitat.
  • Draft Version Target Shorebird Species List

    Draft Version Target Shorebird Species List

    Draft Version Target Shorebird Species List The target species list (species to be surveyed) should not change over the course of the study, therefore determining the target species list is an important project design task. Because waterbirds, including shorebirds, can occur in very high numbers in a census area, it is often not possible to count all species without compromising the quality of the survey data. For the basic shorebird census program (protocol 1), we recommend counting all shorebirds (sub-Order Charadrii), all raptors (hawks, falcons, owls, etc.), Common Ravens, and American Crows. This list of species is available on our field data forms, which can be downloaded from this site, and as a drop-down list on our online data entry form. If a very rare species occurs on a shorebird area survey, the species will need to be submitted with good documentation as a narrative note with the survey data. Project goals that could preclude counting all species include surveys designed to search for color-marked birds or post- breeding season counts of age-classed bird to obtain age ratios for a species. When conducting a census, you should identify as many of the shorebirds as possible to species; sometimes, however, this is not possible. For example, dowitchers often cannot be separated under censuses conditions, and at a distance or under poor lighting, it may not be possible to distinguish some species such as small Calidris sandpipers. We have provided codes for species combinations that commonly are reported on censuses. Combined codes are still species-specific and you should use the code that provides as much information as possible about the potential species combination you designate.
  • Biotic Evaluation Dias and Hobbs City of Fremont

    Biotic Evaluation Dias and Hobbs City of Fremont

    BIOTIC EVALUATION DIAS AND HOBBS CITY OF FREMONT, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By: LIVE OAK ASSOCIATES, INC. Rick Hopkins, Ph.D., Principal, Senior Ecologist Pamela Peterson, Sr. Project Manager, Plant/Wetland Ecologist Katrina Krakow, M.S., Project Manager, Staff Ecologist For: Robson Homes Attn: Jake Lavin 2185 The Alameda, Suite 150 San Jose, CA 95126 April 3, 2014 Project No. 1821-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 8 2.1 BIOTIC HABITATS/LAND USES .................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 PASTURE ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.2 RUDERAL FIELD ........................................................................................................................................ 13 2.1.3 DEVELOPED ................................................................................................................................................ 14 2.1.3 EUCALYPTUS GROVE ............................................................................................................................... 15 2.2 MOVEMENT CORRIDORS ............................................................................................................................
  • United States Department of the Interior MAR 2 7 2019

    United States Department of the Interior MAR 2 7 2019

    U,S. FISH & WILDLIFE S1:!;RVICE United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ' .' Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office �-,.111,'"!il'f; In Reply Refer to: 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605 0SESMF00- Sacramento, California 95825-1846 2018-F-3331-1 MAR 2 7 2019 Mr. Alessandro Amaglio RegionalEnvironmental Officer, Region IX Federal Emergency Management Agency 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, California 94607 Subject: Programmatic Formal Section 7 Consultationon Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster, Mitigation, and Preparedness Programs within the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office'sJurisdiction, California Dear Mr. Amaglio: This letter is in response to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) request to initiate formalsection 7 consultationunder the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), and provides the U.S. Fish and WildlifeServic e's (Service) programmatic biological opinion on FEMA's Disaster, Mitigation, and Preparedness Programs (proposed project) in Californiaas described in FEMA's June 20, 2018 Programmatic Biological Assessmentfor Disaster, Mitigation, and PreparednessPrograms in California (programmatic biological assessment). We received your June 20, 2018, letter requestinginitiation of consultation in our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (SFWO) on June 20, 2018. On September 14, 2018, we received a letter fromFEMA changing effectsdeterminations for 20 species. At issue are the effects of FEMA's proposed action on 35 federally-listed species and their designated or proposed criticalhabitats which the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office has lead responsibility and seven federally-listed species and their critical habitat which occur within the jurisdiction of the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office but for which other Service field officeshave lead responsibility.
  • Vegetation and Biodiversity Management Plan Pdf

    Vegetation and Biodiversity Management Plan Pdf

    April 2015 VEGETATION AND BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Marin County Parks Marin County Open Space District VEGETATION AND BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT Prepared for: Marin County Parks Marin County Open Space District 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 260 San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 473-6387 [email protected] www.marincountyparks.org Prepared by: May & Associates, Inc. Edited by: Gail Slemmer Alternative formats are available upon request TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents GLOSSARY 1. PROJECT INITIATION ...........................................................................................................1-1 The Need for a Plan..................................................................................................................1-1 Overview of the Marin County Open Space District ..............................................................1-1 The Fundamental Challenge Facing Preserve Managers Today ..........................................1-3 Purposes of the Vegetation and Biodiversity Management Plan .....................................1-5 Existing Guidance ....................................................................................................................1-5 Mission and Operation of the Marin County Open Space District .........................................1-5 Governing and Guidance Documents ...................................................................................1-6 Goals for the Vegetation and Biodiversity Management Program ..................................1-8 Summary of the Planning
  • Papilio (New Series) #24 2016 Issn 2372-9449

    Papilio (New Series) #24 2016 Issn 2372-9449

    PAPILIO (NEW SERIES) #24 2016 ISSN 2372-9449 MEAD’S BUTTERFLIES IN COLORADO, 1871 by James A. Scott, Ph.D. in entomology, University of California Berkeley, 1972 (e-mail: [email protected]) Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………..……….……………….p. 1 Locations of Localities Mentioned Below…………………………………..……..……….p. 7 Summary of Butterflies Collected at Mead’s Major Localities………………….…..……..p. 8 Mead’s Butterflies, Sorted by Butterfly Species…………………………………………..p. 11 Diary of Mead’s Travels and Butterflies Collected……………………………….……….p. 43 Identity of Mead’s Field Names for Butterflies he Collected……………………….…….p. 64 Discussion and Conclusions………………………………………………….……………p. 66 Acknowledgments………………………………………………………….……………...p. 67 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………….………...….p. 67 Table 1………………………………………………………………………….………..….p. 6 Table 2……………………………………………………………………………………..p. 37 Introduction Theodore L. Mead (1852-1936) visited central Colorado from June to September 1871 to collect butterflies. Considerable effort has been spent trying to determine the identities of the butterflies he collected for his future father-in-law William Henry Edwards, and where he collected them. Brown (1956) tried to deduce his itinerary based on the specimens and the few letters etc. available to him then. Brown (1964-1987) designated lectotypes and neotypes for the names of the butterflies that William Henry Edwards described, including 24 based on Mead’s specimens. Brown & Brown (1996) published many later-discovered letters written by Mead describing his travels and collections. Calhoun (2013) purchased Mead’s journal and published Mead’s brief journal descriptions of his collecting efforts and his travels by stage and horseback and walking, and Calhoun commented on some of the butterflies he collected (especially lectotypes). Calhoun (2015a) published an abbreviated summary of Mead’s travels using those improved locations from the journal etc., and detailed the type localities of some of the butterflies named from Mead specimens.
  • Southern California Endemic Habitats

    Southern California Endemic Habitats

    Southern California Endemic Habitats Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Synthesis An Important Note About this Document: This document represents an initial evaluation of vulnerability for endemic habitats based on expert input and existing information. Specifically, the information presented below comprises habitat expert vulnerability assessment survey results and comments, peer- review comments and revisions, and relevant references from the literature. The aim of this document is to expand understanding of habitat vulnerability to changing climate conditions, and to provide a foundation for developing appropriate adaptation responses. Executive Summary In this assessment, endemic habitats are considered as one collective habitat grouping, but directed comments are provided for the following systems of interest:1 serpentine, carbonate, gabbro, pebble plains, and clay lens. In general, these endemic habitats feature specialized vegetative communities that are adapted to Photo by California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (CC-BY-2.0) harsh and unique conditions derived, in part, from parent Photo by California Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (CC-BY-2.0) soil material (Center for Biological Diversity [CBD] 2002; Damschen et al. 2012; Safford and Harrison 2008; Stephenson and Calcarone 1999; U.S. Forest Service [USFS] 2005). Endemic habitats are typically limited in distribution, occupying distinct areas within the southern California study area. The relative vulnerability of endemic habitats in southern California was evaluated to be moderate2
  • An Addendum to the FY 2016/2017 Gravity Sewer Improvements Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), State Clearinghouse No

    An Addendum to the FY 2016/2017 Gravity Sewer Improvements Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), State Clearinghouse No

    June 12, 2019 ADDENDUM TO THE FY 2016/2017 GRAVITY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION INTRODUCTION This environmental document is an addendum to the FY 2016/2017 Gravity Sewer Improvements Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), State Clearinghouse No. 2017122069, by the Ross Valley Sanitary District (the District). Amendments to the Final IS/MND1 for the project include: 1) addressing a change of construction methods, and 2) fulfilling requirements for submittal of a State Revolving Fund (SRF) application. These changes and additions to the project have necessitated further environmental review. As demonstrated in this Addendum, the IS/MND continues to serve as the appropriate document addressing the environmental impacts of these improvements pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Background The IS/MND was prepared to address construction-level impacts to the existing deficient gravity sewer mains owned by the District in two areas: the Butterfield/Meadowcroft alignment (Butterfield alignment) and the Nokomis alignment (see Figures 2 and 3 in the IS/MND). The IS/MND evaluated potential environmental effects on aesthetics, agriculture and forestry, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation,
  • Fountaingrove Lodge Appendix G Rare Plant Report

    Fountaingrove Lodge Appendix G Rare Plant Report

    Appendix G Rare Plant Survey Report Rare Plant Survey Report FOUNTAINGROVE LODGE SANTA ROSA, SONOMA COUNTY CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Mr. Steve McCullagh Aegis Senior Living 220 Concourse Blvd. Santa Rosa, California 95403 Contact: Tom Fraser [email protected] Date: May 2007 2169-G Ea st Fra nc isc o Blvd ., Sa n Ra fa e l, C A 94901 (415) 454-8868 te l (415) 454-0129 fa x info @w ra -c a .c o m www.wra-ca.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................1 1.1 Study Area Description...............................................1 1.1.1 Vegetation................................................1 1.1.2 Soils.....................................................4 2.0 METHODS..............................................................6 2.1 Background Data...................................................6 2.2 Field Survey.......................................................6 3.0 RESULTS. .............................................................7 3.1 Background Data Search Results.......................................7 3.2 Field Survey Results.................................................7 4.0 CONCLUSIONS..........................................................7 5.0 REFERENCES...........................................................8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location Map of Fountaingrove Lodge site. 2 Figure 2. Biological Communities within the Fountaingrove Lodge site. 3 Figure 3. Soils Map for the Fountaingrove Lodge site. 5 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Study Area Photographs Appendix B Special Status Plant Species Documented to Occur in the Vicinity of the Study Area Appendix C List of Observed Plant Species 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of 5 separate special status plant surveys conducted on approximately 9.85 acres to be developed as Fountaingrove Lodge (Study Area) in Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this study is to identify the location and presence of potentially occurring sensitive plant species.