DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Resources Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Resources Assessment Town of Los Gatos 15215 Shannon Road Planned Development Application PD-15-001 Initial Study | Appendices Attachment 2 Biological Resources Assessment 2/4/16 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT FOR 10 RESERVOIR ROAD LOS GATOS, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA April 18, 2015 Prepared for: Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc. P.O. Box 5054 Berkeley, CA 94705‐5054 Prepared by: Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. 65 Alta Hill Way Walnut Creek, CA 94595 (925) 899‐1282 mike@wood‐biological.com The information provided in this document is intended solely for the use and benefit of Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc. and the Town of Los Gatos. No other person or entity shall be entitled to rely on the services, opinions, recommendations, plans or specifications provided herein, without the express written consent of Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 1 2.0 METHODS AND LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................. 1 3.0 SETTING ...................................................................................................................................... 3 3.1 PLANT COMMUNITIES .............................................................................................................. 3 3.2 WILDLIFE HABITATS ................................................................................................................. 5 3.3 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT CORRIDORS ......................................................................................... 7 4.0 SPECIAL‐STATUS BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................... 8 4.1 SPECIAL‐STATUS NATURAL COMMUNITIES ........................................................................... 9 4.1.1 Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands ....................................................................................... 9 4.1.2 Local Policies and Ordinances ......................................................................................... 13 4.1.2.1 Construction Near Streams .................................................................................. 13 4.1.2.2 Protected Trees ....................................................................................................... 17 4.2 SPECIAL‐STATUS PLANT SPECIES .......................................................................................... 19 4.3 SPECIAL‐STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES ........................................................................................ 22 5.0 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................. 28 5.1 SPECIAL‐STATUS NATURAL COMMUNITIES .......................................................................... 28 5.2 SPECIAL‐STATUS PLANT SPECIES .......................................................................................... 33 5.3 SPECIAL‐STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES ........................................................................................ 33 6.0 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................................... 37 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE Figure 1. Project Location ............................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Preliminary Limits of Jurisdiction............................................................................... 12 Figure 3. Jurisdictional Impacts ................................................................................................... 14 Figure 4. Riparian Setback ............................................................................................................ 16 Figure 5. Rare Plant Records from Project Vicinity ................................................................... 21 Figure 6. Rare Animal Records from Project Vicinity .............................................................. 24 LIST OF APPENDICES A Database Printouts for Special‐Status Species B Explanation of Rarity Status Codes C Stream Analysis (LOA, 2007) D Riparian Assessment (WBC, 2008) Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road i SUMMARY This report presents the results of an assessment of existing or potentially occurring biological constraints to the proposed construction of a minor subdivision. This biological resource assessment report has been prepared in support of the Town’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The report provides background and site‐specific information pertaining to special‐ status plant and wildlife species and other regulated biological resources (e.g., wetlands), which may represent constraints to the proposed activity. The conclusions contained herein are based on background research, a single reconnaissance‐level site survey performed by a qualified biologist, and review of the design features. The 3.36‐acre project site encompasses three adjacent parcels (APN 529‐29‐061, 529‐29‐ 038 and 529‐29‐040) and is located at 10 Reservoir Road, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County. The subject property is situated in a heavily wooded residential neighborhood at the lower reaches of a minor ravine. The ravine conveys surface waters as an unnamed tributary to Los Gatos Creek. The dominant plant communities occurring within the study area are coast live oak woodland, and ruderal habitat. No special‐status natural communities are present on site. However, the project site does support a surface tributary with overhanging riparian habitat. As proposed, the project would result in impacts to waters of the U.S. and waters of the state, and would be regulated under the Clean Water Act and the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. Authorization for the proposed project will be required by local, state and federal agencies. Project implementation would also result in impacts on riparian habitat and trees protected under local ordinances. The potential for occurrence of a total of 76 special‐status plant species was evaluated. Based on the altered nature of the subject parcel and surroundings, soil types, existing habitats, and geographic location, the potential for occurrence eof 71 of th target plant species can be ruled out. Based on the proposed grading plan, no specific impact avoidance or other mitigation measures are warranted. While marginally suitable habitat is present on site for the remaining five target species, their absence was confirmed during the present survey. The potential for occurrence of a total of 35 special‐status animal species was evaluated. The potential for occurrence of 28 of the target species can be ruled out entirely based on the developed nature of the subject parcel and surroundings, soil types, existing habitats, and geographic location. Although marginally suitable habitat is present for five of the target species, their presence is not expected due to limitations presented by the limited amount of habitat present, the relatively high level of human activity in the project vicinity and the geographic location of the Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road ii project site. Three special‐status animal species could occur on site; these include Cooper’s hawk, hoary bat, and the San Francisco dusky‐footed woodrat. Project implementation would result in potentially significant impacts on biological resources. Impact avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures are outlined in the report. With the implementation of these measures, impacts can be reduced to a less‐than significant level. Wood Biological Consulting, Inc. – Biological Resource Assessment, 10 Reservoir Road iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of an assessment of existing or potentially occurring biological constraints to the proposed construction of a minor subdivision. The subject property is located at 10 Reservoir Road in the Town of Los Gatos (Figure 1). This biological resource assessment report has been prepared in support of the Town’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). 1.1 Project Background and Description The project applicant is requesting approval of a lot line adjustment between four parcels to allow for future construction of two new single‐family residences on a 3.36‐ acre property, located at the southwest corner of the Reservoir Road/Cleland Avenue intersection. There are two existing single‐family residences on the largest, 2.19‐acre parcel, with access to these two homes from Reservoir Road provided by a single, 10‐ foot wide driveway. The proposed project would allow adjustment of existing lot lines to allow for future development of two new residences. Future development applications for these residences would be subject to the Architecture and Site review process. The 3.36‐acre project site currently consists of one 2.19‐acre parcel (APN 529‐29‐061) and two smaller parcels (APN 529‐29‐038 and 529‐29‐040, totaling 1.17 acres). While all three parcels have frontage on Reservoir Road, the two smaller parcels have most of the site frontage on Reservoir Road and the entire site frontage on Cleland Avenue. Project
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biological Resources Assessment Rodeo Property Project City of Salinas, Monterey County, California
    Biological Resources Assessment Rodeo Property Project City of Salinas, Monterey County, California Prepared for: SyWest Development 150 Pelican Way San Rafael, CA 94901 Contact: Tracy LaTray, Project Coordinator Prepared by: FirstCarbon Solutions 1350 Treat Boulevard, Suite 380 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 925.357.2562 Contact: Jason Brandman, Project Director Brian Mayerle, Senior Biologist Date: August 17, 2018 NORTH AMERICA | EUROPE | AFRICA | AUSTRALIA | ASIA WWW.FIRSTCARBONSOLUTIONS.COM THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SyWest Development—Rodeo Property Project Biological Resources Assessment Table of Contents Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 - Project Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1 - Site Location ........................................................................................................... 1 1.1.2 - Project Description ................................................................................................. 1 Section 2: Methodology ................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 - Literature Review............................................................................................................... 7 2.1.1 - Existing Environmental Documentation ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Peter R. Baye, Ph.D. Coastal Plant Ecologist
    Peter R. Baye, Ph.D. Coastal Plant Ecologist 33660 Annapolis Road Annapolis, CA 95412 (415) 310-5109 [email protected] Forest Practices California Department of Forestry 135 Ridgeway Santa Rosa, CA 95401 COMMENTS - THP 1-04-059 SON Martin (Sleepy Hollow) Timber Conversion Permit/Timber Harvest Plan (Brushy Ridge, Annapolis, Sonoma County) May 19, 2004 To the California Department of Forestry: Please consider the following comments on THP 1-03-059 SON (Martin Conversion, Sleepy Hollow, Annapolis, Sonoma County TCP/THP). I am a professional plant ecologist and botanist, specializing in coastal plant communities and species for over 25 years. My professional experience and qualification includes over 12 years experience in preparation, management, and review of joint NEPA/CEQA documents (EIR/EIS, environmental assessment/initial study) for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (San Francisco District), and as a private consultant for the California Coastal Conservancy. I also have over 12 years experience in coordination and preparation of Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultations for the Corps and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and over 5 years of experience preparing endangered species recovery plans for the Service. Much of my regulatory and environmental planning work has emphasized critical review or preparation of mitigation and restoration plans for endangered species and wetlands. I have reviewed the Timber Conversion Permit/Timber Harvest Plan (TCP/THP) the proposed vineyard conversion and development. A summary of my comments is presented below, followed by more detailed explanation. (1) The TCP/THP fails to identify, or grossly underestimates, significant cumulative impacts of escalating agricultural conversion on wildlife habitat (including endangered species), plant communities, biological diversity, wetlands, and water quality of the assessment area.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Coastal Scrub and Coastal Prairie
    GRBQ203-2845G-C07[180-207].qxd 12/02/2007 05:01 PM Page 180 Techbooks[PPG-Quark] SEVEN Northern Coastal Scrub and Coastal Prairie LAWRENCE D. FORD AND GREY F. HAYES INTRODUCTION prairies, as shrubs invade grasslands in the absence of graz- ing and fire. Because of the rarity of these habitats, we are NORTHERN COASTAL SCRUB seeing increasing recognition and regulation of them and of Classification and Locations the numerous sensitive species reliant on their resources. Northern Coastal Bluff Scrub In this chapter, we describe historic and current views on California Sagebrush Scrub habitat classification and ecological dynamics of these ecosys- Coyote Brush Scrub tems. As California’s vegetation ecologists shift to a more Other Scrub Types quantitative system of nomenclature, we suggest how the Composition many different associations of dominant species that make up Landscape Dynamics each of these systems relate to older classifications. We also Paleohistoric and Historic Landscapes propose a geographical distribution of northern coastal scrub Modern Landscapes and coastal prairie, and present information about their pale- Fire Ecology ohistoric origins and landscapes. A central concern for describ- Grazers ing and understanding these ecosystems is to inform better Succession stewardship and conservation. And so, we offer some conclu- sions about the current priorities for conservation, informa- COASTAL PRAIRIE tion about restoration, and suggestions for future research. Classification and Locations California Annual Grassland Northern Coastal Scrub California Oatgrass Moist Native Perennial Grassland Classification and Locations Endemics, Near-Endemics, and Species of Concern Conservation and Restoration Issues Among the many California shrub vegetation types, “coastal scrub” is appreciated for its delightful fragrances AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH and intricate blooms that characterize the coastal experi- ence.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Setting and Conservation Elements
    Santa Cruz County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy DRAFT Environmental Setting and Conservation Elements November 2020 Contents List of Tables iv List of Figures iv 1 Introduction 1 2 Environmental Setting and Conservation Elements 3 2.1 Overview 3 2.2 Land Use 5 Local Land Use 5 Jurisdictions 5 Land Use Designations 6 Planned Infrastructure and Development Projects 9 Existing Protected Lands 12 Conservation and Mitigation Banks 15 2.3 Existing Conservation Plans 17 Recovery Plans 17 Habitat Conservation Plans 19 Other Conservation Plans 23 2.4 Natural Environment 27 Ecoregions 27 Climate 27 Disturbance Regimes 29 Watersheds 30 Natural Communities and Other Land Cover 32 Aquatic Systems 37 Terrestrial Systems 38 2.5 Conservation Elements 44 Background 44 Approach to the Conservation Elements 44 Communities 48 Other Conservation Elements 52 Habitat Connectivity 52 SCCRTC and RCDSCC ii November 2020 Santa Cruz County Contents Regional Conservation Investment Strategy Working Lands 56 Focal Species 59 Non-Focal Species 60 Co-Benefited Species 63 2.6 Next Steps 74 References 75 Appendices 90 Appendix A: Glossary 90 Appendix B: GIS Data Sources 103 Appendix F: Infrastructure Plans and Projects 108 Appendix G: Species Database Compilation 123 SCCRTC and RCDSCC iii November 2020 Santa Cruz County Contents Regional Conservation Investment Strategy List of Tables Table 2-1: General Land Use Designations within each Jurisdiction 7 Table 2-2: Protected Lands in the RCIS Area 12 Table 2-3: Conservation and Mitigation Banks with a Service
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants of Santa Cruz County, California
    ANNOTATED CHECKLIST of the VASCULAR PLANTS of SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SECOND EDITION Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland & Maps by Ben Pease CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY CHAPTER Copyright © 2013 by Dylan Neubauer All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission from the author. Design & Production by Dylan Neubauer Artwork by Tim Hyland Maps by Ben Pease, Pease Press Cartography (peasepress.com) Cover photos (Eschscholzia californica & Big Willow Gulch, Swanton) by Dylan Neubauer California Native Plant Society Santa Cruz County Chapter P.O. Box 1622 Santa Cruz, CA 95061 To order, please go to www.cruzcps.org For other correspondence, write to Dylan Neubauer [email protected] ISBN: 978-0-615-85493-9 Printed on recycled paper by Community Printers, Santa Cruz, CA For Tim Forsell, who appreciates the tiny ones ... Nobody sees a flower, really— it is so small— we haven’t time, and to see takes time, like to have a friend takes time. —GEORGIA O’KEEFFE CONTENTS ~ u Acknowledgments / 1 u Santa Cruz County Map / 2–3 u Introduction / 4 u Checklist Conventions / 8 u Floristic Regions Map / 12 u Checklist Format, Checklist Symbols, & Region Codes / 13 u Checklist Lycophytes / 14 Ferns / 14 Gymnosperms / 15 Nymphaeales / 16 Magnoliids / 16 Ceratophyllales / 16 Eudicots / 16 Monocots / 61 u Appendices 1. Listed Taxa / 76 2. Endemic Taxa / 78 3. Taxa Extirpated in County / 79 4. Taxa Not Currently Recognized / 80 5. Undescribed Taxa / 82 6. Most Invasive Non-native Taxa / 83 7. Rejected Taxa / 84 8. Notes / 86 u References / 152 u Index to Families & Genera / 154 u Floristic Regions Map with USGS Quad Overlay / 166 “True science teaches, above all, to doubt and be ignorant.” —MIGUEL DE UNAMUNO 1 ~ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ~ ANY THANKS TO THE GENEROUS DONORS without whom this publication would not M have been possible—and to the numerous individuals, organizations, insti- tutions, and agencies that so willingly gave of their time and expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 3-2020 A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "A Checklist of Vascular Plants Endemic to California" (2020). Botanical Studies. 42. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/42 This Flora of California is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A LIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS ENDEMIC TO CALIFORNIA Compiled By James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State University Arcata, California 13 February 2020 CONTENTS Willis Jepson (1923-1925) recognized that the assemblage of plants that characterized our flora excludes the desert province of southwest California Introduction. 1 and extends beyond its political boundaries to include An Overview. 2 southwestern Oregon, a small portion of western Endemic Genera . 2 Nevada, and the northern portion of Baja California, Almost Endemic Genera . 3 Mexico. This expanded region became known as the California Floristic Province (CFP). Keep in mind that List of Endemic Plants . 4 not all plants endemic to California lie within the CFP Plants Endemic to a Single County or Island 24 and others that are endemic to the CFP are not County and Channel Island Abbreviations .
    [Show full text]
  • Serpentine Vegetation Management Project
    Serpentine Vegetation Management Project 2005 REPORT Stuart B. Weiss, Ph.D. and David H. Wright, Ph.D. Creekside Center for Earth Observation 27 Bishop Lane, Menlo Park, CA 94025 tel: 650-854-9732, fax: 650-644-3355 e-mail: [email protected] http://www.creeksidescience.com FWS Grant Agreement No. 814205G240 Weiss and Wright 2005 Serpentine Vegetation Management Report Cover photo: David Wright trimming a 2-inch early trim, grazing exclusion plot on March 15, 2005. The PVC quadrat shows the size of the sample area; an additional 2 dm on all sides of the plot are trimmed to minimize edge effects. The wood blocks are temporarily placed to standardize the height of cut. The wooden stake at upper left marks and identifies the plot. The fence in the background excludes cattle grazing. CONTENTS: Page a. Abstract iii b. Introduction 1 c. Description of study area 3 d. Methods and materials 3 e. Results and Discussion 5 f. Summary and conclusions 14 g. Literature cited 15 h. Summary of expenditures 15 h. Data appendices CD included ii Weiss and Wright 2005 Serpentine Vegetation Management Report ABSTRACT We have begun a 3-year project to evaluate vegetation management methods and grazing impacts on serpentine habitat in Santa Clara County. In the first year of our project, funded by Habitat Restoration Program grant 814205G240, we established an experimental vegetation management trial, collecting initial vegetation data from that trial, conducted observations on serpentine vegetation characteristics across different grazing and other vegetation management regimes (fenceline and burn study), investigated herbivore damage to Dudleya setchellii, and recorded the spatial distribution and other observations on Streptanthus albidus peramoenus and S.
    [Show full text]
  • Keyname Oldkeyname Common Name Plant Habit Family Name
    Keyname OLDKeyname Common Name Plant Habit Family Name woody Acmispon dendroideus Lotus dendroideus Island Deerweed perennial woody Acmispon glaber Lotus scoparius Common Deerweed perennial woody Acmispon heermannii Lotus heermanii Heermann's Lotus perennial Arctostaphylos franciscana Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. franciscana Franciscan Manzanita shrub Ericaceae Arctostaphylos viscida ssp. mariposa Arctostaphylos mariposa Manzanita shrub Ericaceae Atriplex lentiformis Atriplex lentiformis ssp. Breweri Quailbush shrub Baccharis salicina Baccharis emoryi Emory Baccharis shrub Bahiopsis laciniata Viguiera laciniata San Diego Sunflower shrub Bahiopsis parishii Viguiera parishii Parish's Sunflower shrub herbaceous Bolboschoenus robustus Scirpus robustus Alkali Bulrush perennial herbaceous Camissoniopsis cheiranthifolia Camissonia cheiranthifolia Beach Suncup perennial herbaceous Carex pellita Carex lanuginosa Woolly Sedge perennial Ceanothus perplexans Ceanothus greggii var. perplexans Cupleaf Ceanothus shrub Rhamnaceae Ceanothus rigidus Ceanothus cuneatus var. rigidus Monterey Ceanothus shrub Rhamnaceae Ceanothus thyrsiflorus var. griseus Ceanothus griseus Carmel Ceanothus shrub Rhamnaceae Cephalanthus occidentalis Cephalanthus occidentalis var. californicus California Buttonbush shrub Clinopodium chandleri Satureja chandleri San Miguel Savory shrub herbaceous Clinopodium douglasii Satureja douglasii Yerba Buena perennial herbaceous Clinopodium mimuloides Satureja mimuloides Monkeyflower Savory perennial Condea emoryi Hyptis emoryi Desert Lavender
    [Show full text]
  • Application Submitted to Mendocino County
    COUNTY OF MENDOCINO IGNACIO GONZALEZ, INTERIM DIRECTOR TELEPHONE: 707-234-6650 EPARTMENT OF LANNING AND UILDING ERVICES FAX: 707-463-5709 D P B S FB PHONE: 707-964-5379 860 NORTH BUSH STREET UKIAH CALIFORNIA 95482 FB FAX: 707-961-2427 120 WEST FIR STREET FT. BRAGG CALIFORNIA 95437 [email protected] www.mendocinocounty.org/pbs February 8, 2018 Department of Transportation US Fish & Wildlife Service Water District – North Gualala Environmental Health - FB Department of Forestry/ CalFire Fire District – South Coast Building Inspection - FB Department of Fish and Wildlife Assessor Coastal Commission County Water Agency Gualala MAC CASE#: CDPM_2017-0007 DATE FILED: 8/8/2017 OWNER/APPLICANT: CROSS ELIZABETH S REQUEST: Administrative Coastal Development Permit Modification of CDP_2014-0004 to change the use of the approved barn to a single-family residence. The proposal also includes after-the-fact approval for two storage sheds. Associated improvements include a septic system. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt Class 3 LOCATION: In the Coastal Zone, the site is located on the south side of Fish Rock Rd., 1.2± miles east of its intersection with Hwy 1, located at 46051 Fish Rock Rd. (APN: 143-110-32). STAFF PLANNER: Julia Acker RESPONSE DUE DATE: February 23, 2018 PROJECT INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND AT: www.mendocinocounty.org Select “Government” from the drop-down; then locate Planning and Building Services/Public Agency Referrals. Mendocino County Planning & Building Services is soliciting your input, which will be used in staff analysis and forwarded to the appropriate public hearing. You are invited to comment on any aspect of the proposed project(s).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Site Assessment Single-Family Residence at 726 Point San Pedro Road Marin County, California
    BIOLOGICAL SITE ASSESSMENT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 726 POINT SAN PEDRO ROAD MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Mr. John Wright 55 Avenue Del Norte San Anselmo, CA 94960 415-254-3881 Prepared by: HUFFMAN-BROADWAY GROUP, INC. 828 Mission Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Contact: Gary Deghi Telephone: (415) 925-2000 ▪ Fax: (415) 925-2006 May 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 4 2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT .......................................................................... 5 3.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ............................................................. 7 3.1 Federal Regulations ....................................................................... 7 3.2 State Regulations ........................................................................ 11 3.3 Marin County Policies ................................................................. 15 4.0 EXISTING BIOLOGICAL SETTING ....................................................... 17 4.1 Plant Communities ...................................................................... 17 4.2 Animal Populations ..................................................................... 18 4.3 Sensitive Habitats ....................................................................... 19 4.4 Special Status Species ................................................................. 20 4.4.1 Special Status Plant Species.................................................... 21 4.4.2 Special Status Animal Species .................................................22
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area
    Recovery Plan for Serpentine Soil Species of the San Francisco Bay Area from Richard A Arnold. with permission San Mateo woolly sunflower Bakers manzanita from Hickman 1993, with permission from Abrams 1951 with permission RECOVERY PLAN FOR SERPENTINE SOIL SPECIES OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA Authors: Diane R. Elam (Plant Species Accounts) David H. Wright (Bay Checkerspot Butterfly, Opler’s Longhorn Moth, and Harvestmen Species Accounts) Bradley Goettle (Opler’s Longhorn Moth and Harvestmen Species Accounts) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Additional Contributors: Jason Davis (Species Location Maps and introduction) Gary Faixa (Draft Bay Checkerspot Butterfly Species Account) Liz Molacek (GIS mapping) Approved: Manager, Date: DISCLAIMER PAGE Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams. contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and an~ necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views, official positions, or approval ofany individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only afier they have been signed by the Regional Director, Manager, or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species statuses, and the completion of recovery tasks.
    [Show full text]