Section 3.0 Description of Affected Environment

SECTION 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT SECTION 3.0 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section presents relevant information about existing resources and other values that may be affected by the Proposed Project and alternatives. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) implementing guidelines (59 IAM 3- H), the existing conditions described herein provide the base line for determining the environmental effects identified in Section 4.0. Descriptions include the following resource and issue areas:

Land Resources Water Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Socioeconomic Conditions / Environmental Justice Transportation and Circulation Land Use Public Services Noise Hazardous Materials Visual Resources

3.1 LAND RESOURCES

3.1.1 GEOLOGICAL SETTING The project site is located within the California Coast Range geologic region. Extensive folding and thrust faulting during the late Cretaceous through early Tertiary geologic time created the geologically complex region consisting of northwest-trending faults and mountain ranges that characterize the California Coast Range. The property is underlain by quaternary age Pleistocene alluvial fan deposits comprised of materials that include claystone, siltstone, lithic sandstone, and pebbly mudstone and sandstone (RGH, 2008).

3.1.2 TOPOGRAPHY The topography of the project site consists of rolling hills covered with grasses and is characterized by mixed oak woodland habitat. Slopes within the project site range between five and thirty percent. The eastern half of the property has a moderately sloped terrain, while the western half consists of steep hills which flatten out in the northwest corner of the site.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-1 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

Elevations on the project site range between approximately 100 and 200 feet above mean sea level (amsl). A topographic map of the project site is provided in Figure 1-2.

3.1.3 SEISMIC CONDITIONS Three fault zones classified by the California Division of Mines and Geology transect the general region of the Town of Windsor. These include the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek Fault, the San Andreas Fault, and the Maacama Fault. The closest of the three faults to the project site is the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek Fault, which runs in a general north-south direction, approximately two and a half miles east of the project site. Figure 3-1 shows regionally active faults and their relative distances to the project site.

As shown in Figure 3-2, a portion of the project site is within the area associated with the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek Fault Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) rating of VIII. This MMI rating indicates the potential for slight damage to specially designed structures; considerable damage to ordinary substantial buildings; immense damage to poorly built structures; the collapse of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls; and the overturning of heavy furniture (USGS, 1989).

3.1.4 SOIL TYPES AND CHARACTERISTICS The 92-acre project site contains six well drained soils that are derived from either a form of alluvium or residuum (NRCS, 2008a). Table 3-1 summarizes the characteristics for each soil type, while Figure 3-3 shows the location of each soil type on the project site.

TABLE 3-1 PROJECT SITE SOILS Map Percent of Map Unit Hydraulic Erosion Unit Slope Range Project Name Conductivity Class Hazard Symbol Site Alluval Land, AeA 0-2% Very High Slight 3% Clayey Arbuckle AgE gravelly sandy 15-30% Moderately High Moderate 13% loam Felta very FaD 5-15% Moderately High Slight 36% gravelly loam Felta very FaF 30-50% Moderately High Severe 4% gravelly loam HtC Huichica loam 2-9% Moderately High Slight 15% SkD Spreckels loam 9-15% Moderately High Moderate 29% Source: NCRS, 2008a

Analytical Environmental Services 3-2 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment C

B u ig l t V M al z le o a y fa n a ult e c a

f a Hu u ntin l g t C r z ee o k B Clearlake - n B i e e r g ry , V e LEGEND s Clearlake Highlands ss o a a l u l e fa t h y u e lt f s r a y n u s l t s t e e m Historic Wight Way fault , c W Mendocino t Lower Lake i i o ls n o n

C se <1C5,o00u0n - tlaytest Quaternary o c l t la io y n o m i fa <100,000 - late Quaternary u l t zo n <1.600,000 Quaternary e C h Lake ia n t i Hobergs Other Faults fa u Cobb County lt M a Other Quaternary Faults a c a m a Hidden Valley Lake Cloverdalefa u lt z Miles o n e Ge , y 29 s ser o Pea u k fa th ult e zone r n 0 3 6 s C e h c ia t n io Middletown A t n l i M e fa G x u a e a l a y nd t c s e a er P r- m eak Hu R a fa nt ed u ing w fa lt C o u z re o l o ek d t n - H z e B ill f o er au n ry lt zo Geyserville e e H ne , ss e s a a o ld u fa sb th u u e lt rg r s n y fa s s u e te lt c m t io , n W ils o n Lytton s ec tio n 101 128

H Healdsburg e Pope Valley a ld Napa s M b R a u o a r d c g g a f e m County a a u rs l fa Sonoma t C ul r t e zo Project Site e n Calistoga k e Angwin , s County fa o u u l th es t e il rn

M s 9 s e 0 le c . i t 1. i 73 2 M o M 5 n ile 2.6 s Deer Park s Windsor e l i

2 . Saint Helena Guerneville 3 s ile M 2 .5 17 S Forestville an A Monte Rio nd re as f a S Jenner ul a t z n on A Santa Rosa e n Graton , N d o re r a 12 th s

C fa Roseland 29 oa u s lt t z se o 1 116 c n Occidental t e South Santa Rosa io Sebastopol B n , e N n o n rt e h tt C J V o a o y l a W le s o y t o s ds fa e fa u c u lt ti lt z Glen Ellen o o n n e Rohnert Park

Bl Eldridge oom fie Cotati ld Agua Caliente Bodega Bay fa u lt Boyes Hot Springs A me 1 ric El Verano an o C Sonoma re ek Marin fa ul County t Temelec Dillon Beach

R o d Petaluma g e r s C r e e k

fa u lt

Lytton Residential Development EA / 207513 SOURCE: USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, 2007; AES 2009 Figure 3-1 Regional Fault Map Figure 3-2 Figure

ult reek fa Rodgers C Lytton Residential Development EA / 207513 Residential Development EA Lytton

Healdsburg fault

ers Creek fault Rodg Ground Shaking Intensities Along the Healdsburg-Rodgers Creek Faults Along the Healdsburg-Rodgers Ground Shaking Intensities Feet LEGEND Property Boundary 0 1,500 3,000 SOURCE: Town of Windsor, 1995; AES, 2009 1995; Windsor, of Town SOURCE: Windsor River Rd HtC FaF AgE AeA SkD d

R HtC

e d i

s SkD t s

a FaD E

AgE AgE

FaF

SOIL TYPES

Feet Property Boundary

Soil Types 0 250 500

PROJECT AREA SOILS AeA - ALLUVIAL LAND, CLAYEY AgE - ARBUCKLE GRAVELLY SANDY LOAM, 15 TO 30 PERCENT SLOPES FaD - FELTA VERY GRAVELLY LOAM, 5 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES FaF - FELTA VERY GRAVELLY LOAM, 30 TO 50 PERCENT SLOPES HtC - HUICHICA LOAM, 2 TO 9 PERCENT SLOPES SkD - SPRECKELS LOAM, 9 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES

Lytton Residential Development EA / 207513 SOURCE:USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 12/13/2006; Sonoma County GIS; DigitalGlobe Aerial Photograph, 9/20/2003; AES, 2009 Figure 3-3 Soils Map 3.0 Affected Environment

A description of the six soil types is included below:

Alluvial land, clayey soils (AeA) – These soils are found at elevations between 200 to 800 feet. AeA has moderate shrink-swell potential. No information on the depth to restrictive feature or water table is reported by NRCS; however, the landform is classified as floodplains. Although not corrosive to concrete, AeA is highly corrosive to steel (NRCS, 2008a)

Arbuckle gravelly sandy loam (AgE) – This soil type commonly occurs in elevations between 100 and 1,600 feet amsl and is located on both hills and terraces. Parent material for AgE is alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. The depth restrictive feature and water table for this soil is more than 80 inches. AgE is characterized as moderately corrosive to concrete and steel (NRCS, 2008a).

Two types of Felta loams are found within the project site: FaD and FaF - Both Felta soils typically occur in elevations between 100 and 1,500 feet amsl and are commonly found on terraces. The parent material for Felta soils is alluvium derived from igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock. The depth to restrictive feature and water table of this type of soil is more than 80 inches. Both FaD and FaF are characterized as moderately corrosive to concrete and steel (NRCS, 2008a).

Huichica loam (HtC) - occurs in elevations between 100 and 300 feet amsl and is found on terraces. The parent material of HtC is alluvium, which was derived from igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock. This soil type has a restrictive feature at a depth of 20-40 inches. The depth to the water table is greater than 80 inches. HtC is characterized as highly corrosive to both concrete and steel (NRCS, 2008a).

Spreckels loam (SkD) – This soil typically occurs at elevations between 100 and 800 feet amsl and is commonly located on hillsides. The parent material for SkD soils is residuum weathered from metavolcanics. As with the other soils, the depth to the water table is also greater than 80 inches. SkD is characterized as moderately corrosive to concrete and steel with moderate shrink-swell potential (NRCS, 2008a).

SOIL HAZARDS Soil Erosion Soil erosion is the wearing and removal of soil materials from the ground surface and the transportation of these soil materials resulting in deposition elsewhere. Mechanisms of soil erosion include storm water runoff and wind, as well as human activities, such as changes in drainage patterns and removal of vegetation. Factors that influence erosion include physical properties of the soil, topography (slope), and annual rainfall and peak intensity. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) rates the erosion potential of a map unit by taking all of the above into consideration. The ratings range from “slight” to “very severe.” The erosion ratings of the six soils within the project site are provided in Table 3-1. All of the soils on the

Analytical Environmental Services 3-6 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment project site are considered to have “moderately high” to “very high” hydraulic conductivity (Table 3-1). The hydraulic conductivity class describes the rate at which water flows though the soil; a high hydraulic conductivity refers to soils that can absorb a lot of water quickly, fast enough that only a moderate percentage of storm water becomes runoff.

Liquefaction Liquefaction involves soils that become highly saturated and lose their cohesive strength and subsequently act as a liquid, rather than a solid mass. Soils comprised of sands and inland fill in areas with high groundwater tables or rainfall are subject to liquefaction during intense seismic shaking events. The project site has a low percentage of sandy soils, making the risk of liquefaction minimal.

Landslides Areas susceptible to landslides are comprised of weak soils on sloping terrain. Landslides can be induced by weather, such as heavy rains or strong seismic shaking events. The majority of the project site is located within an area designated as having low incidence of landslides (USGS, 1982). The western portion of the project site has relatively unstable rock and soil units, with slopes greater than 15 percent, containing abundant landslides. Two landslides were observed during the geotechnical study (RGH, 2008). One landslide, located on the northern edge of APN 066-300-033 is characterized as a recently active earthflow with an estimated thickness of landslide deposits of 5 to 20 feet. The second landslide, located near the existing well on APN 066-300-033, is characterized as a recently active earthflow with an estimated landslide deposit thickness of less than 5 feet.

3.1.5 MINERAL RESOURCES

The most predominantly mined mineral in Sonoma County is aggregate for the processing of rock, sand, and earth products used for landscaping purposes (Sonoma County, 2008). In California, local agencies must adopt a mineral management plan that recognizes important mineral resources to the State and assist in the management of such resources. Sonoma County has adopted the Aggregate Resources Management (ARM) Plan, which recognizes aggregate resources classified as Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) by State geologists (Draft 187). According to the Sonoma County General Plan 2020 (General Plan), there are no mineral resources located within the project site boundaries. However, such aggregate mineral resources inherent to the County are located approximately one mile to the west along the edges of the Russian River.

3.2 WATER RESOURCES

The following section describes the existing surface water, drainage, flooding, water supply, groundwater, water quality, and wastewater treatment and disposal conditions in the area surrounding the project site.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-7 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

3.2.1 SURFACE WATER, DRAINAGE, AND FLOODING Watersheds and Hydrology The project site is located within the Russian River Basin (Basin), Hydrologic Unit Code No. 18010110, and is split between the Guerneville and Mark West sub basins. The Basin follows the Russian River from 16 miles north of Ukiah to the Pacific Ocean, draining an area of 1,485 square miles. Altitudes in the Basin range from approximately 4,500 feet in the north to sea level in the southwest. The Russian River is located approximately one mile west of the project site. The principal tributaries to the Russian River include East Fork, Sulphur Creek, Maacama Creek, Dry Creek, and Mark West Creek (RRWC, 2006a).

Drainage on the west of the project site occurs via drainage ditches that are part of the Town of Windsor’s roadside stormwater drainage system, which flow to an old gravel quarry that is adjacent to the Russian River. Drainage on the east of the project site occurs via an ephemeral drainage that outlets into an unnamed tributary to Windsor Creek and flows to Mark West Creek before joining the Russian River.

Over 95 percent of the total precipitation in the Russian River Basin occurs during November through April. Precipitation in the Basin is highly variable by year and location; precipitation in general can range in amount from 15 to 85 inches and in addition coastal precipitation is greater than inland precipitation (RRWC, 2006b).

Drainage Slopes on the project site range from 2 to 50 percent. The Guerneville hydrologic sub area (HSA) drains the western portion of the property, while the Mark West HSA drains the eastern portion. Runoff from the western portion of the project site runs northeast into an unnamed drainage channel that flows west along Windsor River Road. The average width of the unnamed drainage channel is 2.4 meters while the average maximum depth is 15 centimeters. The unnamed drainage is only influenced by one ephemeral drainage from the project site and one other drainage to the north. The two drainages meet where the onsite drainage enters the roadside ditch along Windsor River Road. Bank stability is weak at this point, but improves at the location where the flow is culverted under the residential driveway downstream of the Windsor River Road crossing. As it reaches the point where it flows west into a large abandoned gravel quarry, the drainage becomes choked with emergent wetland species and transitions into a seasonal wetland. Once in the quarry, water evaporates or exchanges through underflow influence with the Russian River (AES, 2009b). The path of the unnamed drainage channel is shown on Figure 5 of Appendix E and photographs of the drainage are provided in Figure 13 of Appendix E.

Surface runoff from the eastern half of the property collects in one significant ephemeral channel that flows west to east, initiating flow in the roadside drainage ditch along Windsor River Road. The average width of the unnamed tributary is 2.0 meters, while the average maximum depth is 18 centimeters. This drainage cuts southeast from Windsor River road and then meanders east as it slowly transitions into a seasonal wetland through the annual grasslands onsite. This drainage enters a drop inlet which connects to the storm drain system from the housing development to the

Analytical Environmental Services 3-8 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment north. This storm drainage system flows directly into the unnamed tributary to Windsor Creek. The exit point of this storm drainage system is just west of the stream channel, along the eastern property boundary. Two large concrete storm drain culverts empty into the unnamed tributary from this location. From this point downstream, the hydrology of the channel is significantly altered since the influence from point source storm drainage flows during heavy runoff events has evidently altered the character of the channel as noted in the channel dimensions at the southern property boundary (AES, 2009b). The path of the unnamed tributary to Windsor Creek is shown on Figure 5 of Appendix E, while photographs are provided in Figures 12 and 14 of Appendix E.

A number of other ephemeral drainages and seasonal wetlands are located on the project site. These are discussed in Section 3.4 as well as the Biological Assessment, included as Appendix E.

Flooding Executive Order 11988 pertaining to floodplain management states that each federal agency shall “provide leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss.” In order for each agency to carry out its responsibility, the order requires that each agency determine whether a project is located within a floodplain and consider alternatives to a project’s location within a floodplain. If the project must reside on a floodplain, the agency must minimize any potential impacts.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for predicting the potential for flooding in most areas. FEMA routinely performs this function through the update and issuance of Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which depict various levels of predicted inundation. Map numbers 06097C0561E and 06097C0562E show that the majority of the project site is classified as Zone X. Zone X is designated for those lands that are outside the 100-year floodplains (FEMA, 2008). As shown in Figure 3-4, a small portion of the project site, located in the northwest corner of APN 066-300-028, is within the 500 year floodplain. In the vicinity of the project site, the nearest areas in the 100-year flood zone are approximately one mile west of the project site (Figure 3-4).

3.2.2 GROUNDWATER The project site is located within the Santa Rosa Plain ground water sub basin (sub basin). The California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) Bulletin 118 (2004) describes the sub basin as part of the larger Santa Rosa Valley Basin, which occupies the southern part of the Coast Ranges of Northern California. The sub basin has a surface area of 80,000 acres and is drained principally by Santa Rosa and Mark West Creeks, which flow westward into the Laguna de Santa Rosa. The principal aquifer in the vicinity of the project site is the Glen Ellen Formation. The Glen Ellen Formation overlies the Merced Formation in most places and the two formations are continuous in some locations (DWR, 2004). On average, wells drilled in the Glen Ellen Formation yield between one and 140 gallons per minute (gpm) (ECO:Logic, 2009a; 2009b).

Analytical Environmental Services 3-9 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment LEGEND

Project Boundary Feet FEMA FLOOD ZONES

100 Year Flood Zone 0 500 1,000

Outside of Flood Zone d d R R

r r r 500 Year Flood Zone r a a t t S S Sprriingffiielld Ctt Siirriius Drr

E E

a a

s s W t t

s s

i i

d I d N

e e

D R

R R

d r

d S r

O a

R S R

I t

R V t

C C

R a

a l

S l

l e

S e t rr Rd t

e S I rr Riiv S A iindso N W err Rd Wiindsorr Riiv R I V E R Dorrtthea Ctt

Venttnorr Ave

IInd iiana Ave

S Riicharrdson Rd S

tt S A

Lytton Residential Development EA / 207513 SOURCE: FEMA Q3 Flood Data, 1996; AES 2009 Figure 3-4 FEMA Flood Zones 3.0 Affected Environment

Pumping tests were completed in December 2008 for a test well located on APN 066-300-033. The results of these tests are included in Appendix C. The step test was completed at rates up to 272 gpm, while the constant discharge test was completed at 150.3 gpm. Analysis of the test data indicates that a production well could sustain a continuous pumping rate of 75 gpm without excessive drawdown. Based on the test well program the aquifer is approximately 300 feet thick in the vicinity of the project site (ECO:Logic, 2009a; 2009b).

3.2.4 WATER QUALITY Surface Water Quality Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that each State identify those waters within its boundaries that do not meet the water quality standards that have been set for them. Impaired water bodies occur where industrial and technological waste limits, or other legal mechanisms for pollution control, are not enough to meet water quality standards. When identified, a priority schedule for the development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for each contaminant or “stressor” impacting the water body. Both the Mark West Creek and Guerneville HSAs are listed as impaired by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The Mark West Creek HSA is impaired due to sedimentation/siltation and temperature; the TMDL is scheduled to be completed in 2019 (USEPA, 2008a). The Guerneville HSA is impaired due to pathogens, pH, sedimentation/siltation, and temperature; the TMDL for pathogens was scheduled to be completed September 2008 while the others are scheduled to be completed by 2019 (USEPA, 2008b).

The 2008 Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan) provides water quality objectives of inland surface waters for the North Coast Region, including the Basin. Table 3-2 lists the general water quality objectives by parameter. Specific water quality objectives are listed for certain water bodies, including the Russian River (Table 3-3).

The Russian River watershed is listed under Section 303(d) as sediment and temperature impaired waterbody. In addition, two sections of the Russian River are listed as impaired for pathogen contamination. The segments are from Fifes Creed in Guerneville to Dutch Bill Creek in Monte Rio and upstream from Healdsburg Memorial Beach to Highway 101. TMDLs regarding temperature and sediment are scheduled to be completed by 2010. The Regional Water Board, in cooperation with researchers at the University of California, Davis, has begun initial studies of the Russian River in order to establish a TMDL for pathogens (NCWQCB, 2007b). The Basin Plan places limitations on waste discharge into the Russian River and its tributaries. Waste discharge is prohibited during the period between May 15 and September 30 and all other periods when the waste discharge flow is greater than one percent of the receiving stream’s flow. Discharge during October 1 through May 14 must be advanced treated wastewater in accordance with effluent limitations contained in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for each affected discharger, and must meet a median coliform level of 2.2 mpn/100 ml2 (NCWQCB, 2007a). USGS gauging station #11464000 near Healdsburg has measured the stream flow of the Russian River since 1939. Table 3-4 shows one percent of mean monthly flow, average from October 1939 to September 2007, and mean daily flow for 2006.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-11 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

TABLE 3-2 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES OF INLAND SURFACE WATERS Parameter Description

Waters shall be free of coloration that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial Color uses Waters shall not contain taste or odor producing substances in concentrations that Tastes and impart undesirable tastes or odors to fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic Odors origin, or that cause nuisance of adversely affect beneficial uses. Waters shall not contain floating material in concentrations that could cause nuisance Floating Material or adversely affect beneficial uses. Suspended and Waters shall not contain suspended or settleable material in concentrations that could Settleable cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Material Waters shall not contain oils, greases, waxes, or other materials in concentrations Oil and Grease that result in a visible film or coating on the surface of the water or on objects in the water, that cause nuisance, or that otherwise adversely affect beneficial uses. Waters shall not contain biostimulatroy substances in concentrations that promote Biostimulatory aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect Substances beneficial uses. Turbidity shall not be increased more than 20 percent above naturally occurring background levels. Allowable zones of dilution within which higher percentages can Turbidity be tolerated may be defined for specific discharges upon the issuance of discharge permits or waiver thereof. Some waters have specific pH limits listed within the Basin Plan. For waters not pH listed, the pH shall not be reduced below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. Some waters have specific dissolved oxygen concentrations listed within the Basin Dissolved Plan. For waters not listed, dissolved oxygen concentration limitations are based on Oxygen the water’s designation. The Bacteriological quality of waters of the North Coast Region shall not be degraded beyond natural background levels. Specific limits have been set for coliform in Bacteria waters designated for contact recreation or where shellfish may be harvested for human consumption. The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered Temperature unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic Toxicity to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations Pesticides that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. Radionuclides shall not be present in concentrations which are deleterious to human, plant, animal or aquatic life nor which result in the accumulation of radionuclides in Radio Activity the food web to an extent which presents a hazard to human, plant, animal, or indigenous aquatic life.

Source: NCWQCB, 2007a

Analytical Environmental Services 3-12 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

TABLE 3-3 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR THE RUSSIAN RIVER Specific Total Dissolved Dissolved Oxygen Hydrogen Ion Conductance @ Solids (mg/l) (mg/l) (pH) 77˚F Russian River 90% 50% 90% 50% 90% 50% Upper Upper Upper Upper Min Lower Lower Max Min Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Limit Upstream 320 250 170 150 7.0 7.5 10.0 8.5 6.5 Downstream 375 286 200 170 7.0 7.5 10.0 8.5 6.5 Source: NCWQCB, 2007a

TABLE 3-4 1% OF AVERAGE STREAMFLOW (CF/S) AT USGS GAUGING STATION #11461000 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Mean Monthly 40 40 27 15 5.9 2.7 1.8 18 1.8 2.6 7.3 25 1939-2007 Mean Daily 63 30 69 66 8.6 3.0 2.1 2.1 1.5 1.7 2.3 11 2006 Source : USGS, 2008

The NPDES program established pursuant to the Clean Water Act (33 USC §§ 1251 to 1387) is a national program for regulating and administering permits for discharges to receiving waters. Under the Federal Clean Water Act, Indian Tribes can be treated as states for the purposes of the NPDES program [33 USC § 1377(e)]. However, the USEPA maintains regulatory authority over discharges to surface waters on Tribal lands. The Town of Windsor has a NPDES permit that allows discharge for treated municipal wastewater from the Windsor Wastewater Treatment, Reclamation, and Disposal Facility (WWTRDF) into Mark West Creek (USEPA, 2008c). The location of the discharge is shown on Figure 5 of Appendix E. Because Mark West Creek is a tributary of the Russian River, discharge is prohibited during the summer months or anytime where the discharge would exceed one percent of river flows. In addition, no more than 17 µg/L of copper is allowed to be discharged monthly (NPDES permit No. CA0023345). The WWTRDF is discussed in more detail in Section 3.9.2.

Groundwater Quality In order to protect drinking water supplies under the mandate of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the USEPA defines National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (primary standards). These are legally enforceable standards that apply to public water systems. These standards are established to protect human health by limiting the levels of contaminants in drinking water. The USEPA also defines National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (secondary standards).

Near the Town of Windsor, magnesium chloride is present in the aquifer to a depth of approximately 100 feet. Many private well owners in the area have complained about the color and/or taste of the water. However, the overall quality of the groundwater in the Santa Rosa Plain is good (DWR, 2004).

Analytical Environmental Services 3-13 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

A water quality analysis was completed from a sample of water taken from the test well on the project site. The results of the analysis show that the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations were 270 mg/L. The analysis also found levels of arsenic and manganese that did not meet California or Federal drinking water standards (ECO:Logic, 2009a; 2009b).

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3.1 PROJECT AREA AND VICINITY The project area is located largely in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), which includes Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, and part of Sonoma and Solano counties. A small portion of the project site is located within the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District (NCUAQMD), which includes northern Sonoma County along with Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity and Mendocino counties. The smaller western portion of the project site is located within the North Coast Air Basin (NCAB), while the larger eastern portion of the project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB). The residential development, community center, and related Tribal facilities will be primarily located on the larger eastern portion of the project site; therefore, impacts will be analyzed in Section 4.0 using information from the SFBAAB and the BAAQMD.

Marine winds and coastal fogs characterize the regional climate of the project site. Temperature inversions (warm air trapping cooler air near the ground surface) occur frequently in the region, particularly during fall and winter seasons. Winds typically originate from the south during spring, summer, and fall, and out of the northwest during winter. Wind speeds are highest during spring and lowest during fall. The regional temperature averages in the low 70s (degrees Fahrenheit) for highs and the mid-40s for lows. Precipitation averaged approximately 30 inches per year during the period between 1931 and 2005 (Western Regional Climate Center, 2008).

3.3.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of the nation’s air resources to benefit public health, welfare, and productivity. Basic components of the CAA and its amendments include national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for major air pollutants and state implementation plans (SIPs) to ensure these standards are met. Regulation of air pollution is achieved through both the NAAQS and emission limits for individual sources of air pollutants. The USEPA is the federal agency responsible for identifying criteria air pollutants (CAPs), establishing NAAQS, and approving and overseeing SIPs as they relate to the CAA.

3.3.3 CLIMATE CHANGE

In 1997 the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) circulated an internal draft memorandum (CEQ, 1997a) on how global climate change should be treated for the purposes of NEPA. The

Analytical Environmental Services 3-14 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

CEQ draft memorandum advised federal lead agencies to consider how proposed actions subject to NEPA would affect sources and sinks of green house gases (GHGs). During the same year, CEQ released guidance on the assessment of cumulative effects in NEPA documents (CEQ, 1997b). Consistent with the CEQ draft memorandum, climate change impacts were offered as one example of a cumulative effect.

3.3.4 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN

The USEPA has identified six CAPs that are both common and detrimental to human health. These CAPs are used as indicators of regional air quality. The six CAPs include: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter ≤ 10 microns and ≤ 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and

PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Pollutants of concern are CAPs that are present in quantities exceeding the NAAQS in the applicable air quality management district. In the area monitored by the BAAQMD, ozone has been designated as a pollutant of concern. Because the District has exceeded the NAAQS for ozone on more than three days within three consecutive years, the BAAQMD is said to be in nonattainment for this CAP (see Table 3-5).

TABLE 3-5 NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS NAAQS Averaging SFBAAB Pollutant Standard in Standard in Time parts per micrograms per Violation Criteria Attainment Status million (ppm) cubic meter (µg/m3)

If exceeded on more O 8 hours 0.075 157 Nonattainment 3 than 3 days in 3 years

If exceeded on more CO 8 hours 9 10,000 Attainment than 1 day per year

If exceeded on more PM 24-hour N/A 150 Unclassified 10 than 1 day per year

If exceeded on more PM 24-hour N/A 35 Unclassified 2.5 than 1 day per year

NO2 Annual N/A 100 If exceeded Attainment

If exceeded on more SO 1-hour 0.03 80 Attainment 2 than 1 day per year

Source: CARB, 2008a, BAAQMD, 2008

Ozone The largest source of ground-level ozone is the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, which results in emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). These ozone precursors react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Because the rate of this photochemical reaction depends on air temperature and the intensity of ultraviolet light, ozone is primarily a summer air pollution problem. Often the effects of the emitted ROG and

Analytical Environmental Services 3-15 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

NOX are observed at a distance downwind of the emission sources. Ozone is subsequently considered a regional pollutant, as the reactions forming it take place over time and downwind from the sources of the emissions. As a photochemical pollutant, ozone is formed only during daylight hours under appropriate conditions, but is destroyed throughout the day and night. Thus, ozone concentrations vary depending upon both time of day and location.

Hazardous Air Pollutants In addition to the criteria air pollutants, another group of airborne substances, called Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) are known to be hazardous to human health. HAPs are airborne substances capable of causing short-term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic) adverse human health effects. HAPs can be emitted from a variety of common sources, including fueling stations, vehicles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. Farms, construction sites, and residential areas can also potentially contribute to toxic air emissions. HAPs are regulated under the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) regulations.

3.3.5 MONITORING DATA Monitors that collect air quality data are located at stations throughout the SFBAAB and California. Some monitoring stations collect data on all six federal CAPs, while others are specialized and only collect data for certain CAPs. Table 3-6 shows data on the BAAQMD pollutant of concern (ozone) collected at the Santa Rosa-5th Street Monitoring Station, which is the closest monitoring station to the project site.

TABLE 3-6 EXCEEDANCES OF NAAQS IN THE SFBAAB Pollutant 2005 2006 2007 Ozone (8-hour averaging time)1 Highest (ppm) 0.051 0.058 0.059 Days >0.075 ppm 0 0 0 1 Data provided by the Santa Rosa-5th Street monitoring station. Source: CARB, 2008c.

3.3.6 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Sensitive receptors are generally defined as land uses that house or attract people who are susceptible to experience adverse impacts from air pollution emissions and, as such, should be given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. Sensitive receptors include facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. Hospitals, schools, convalescent homes, parks and recreational facilities, and residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors.

Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include primarily nearby residences. The closest of these are located approximately 100 feet east of APN 066-191-022 and approximately

Analytical Environmental Services 3-16 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

100 feet east of APN 066-191-020. Another nearby residence is located approximately 150 feet north of APN 066-300-031, on the north side of Windsor River Road. Approximately seven residences are located on large individual parcels within 0.25 miles of the proposed project. A high-density residential development is located directly north of APN 066-191-022; approximately 10 houses in this development are located along Windsor River Road in the vicinity of the Proposed Project’s northeast corner. The nearest schools are the Windsor Cooperative Nursery and the Cali Calmecac Charter School, both of which are located approximately 0.50 miles from the project site.

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section describes the existing biological resources that occur within the project site and general vicinity. The assessment of the existing biological resources is based upon the results of biological field surveys, which were conducted to document the existing habitat types onsite and to assess the potential for occurrence and/or presence of federally listed species and/or their habitats. The following discussion of existing biological resources provides the basis from which potential environmental consequences were identified and measured. More detailed information is provided in the Biological Assessment (AES, 2009b) included as Appendix E.

3.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The project site is situated within the North Coast Ranges, on the west side of State Highway 101, just west of the Town of Windsor and south of the Town of Healdsburg, in Sonoma County, California. It is located within the Russian Watershed, Hydrologic Unit Code #18010110 (USGS, 1978). The majority of the project site is currently undeveloped and uncultivated.

The Russian River Valley falls within climate Zone 14 “Ocean-influenced Northern and Central California.” Climate Zone 14 includes inland areas with oceanic or other cold air influence. This climate zone is a linear region that runs from Humboldt County to Santa Barbara County (Hickman 1993). The local and regional geology is within the Outer North Coast Range (NCoRo) geographic subdivision of California. The NCoRo is characterized by redwood, mixed- ever-green, and mixed-hardwood forests and by very high rainfall. The NCoRo subdivision is part of the larger Northwestern (NW) geographic division, which is a component of the larger California Floristic Province (Ca-FP); thus is equivalent to “cismontane” as often cited in other scientific texts (Hickman, 1993).

3.4.2 REGULATORY SETTING Federal Endangered Species Act The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implement the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 USC Section 1531 et seq.). Under the FESA, threatened and endangered species on the federal list and their habitats (50 CFR Subsection 17.11, 17.12) are protected from “take” (i.e., activities that harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect) as well as any attempt to engage in any such conduct, unless a Section 10 Permit is granted to an individual or a Section 7 consultation

Analytical Environmental Services 3-17 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment and a Biological Opinion with incidental take provisions are rendered from the lead federal agency. Pursuant to the requirements of FESA, an agency reviewing a Proposed Project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed species may be present within the project site and vicinity and determine whether the Proposed Project will have a potentially significant impact upon such species. Under FESA, habitat loss is considered to be an impact to the species. In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under FESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species (16 USC Section 1536[3], [4]). Therefore, project-related impacts to these species, or their habitats, would be considered significant and require mitigation.

Under FESA, critical habitat may be designated by the Secretary of the Interior for any listed species. The term "critical habitat" for a threatened or endangered species refers to the following: specific areas within the geographical range of the species at the time it is listed that contain suitable habitat for the species, which may require special management considerations or protection; and specific areas outside the geographical range of the species at the time it is listed that contain suitable habitat for the species and is determined to be essential for the conservation of the species. Under Section 7 of the FESA, all federal agencies (including USFWS and NMFS) are required to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or modify their critical habitat.

Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy The USFWS, in cooperation with the USEPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NC-RWQCB), and other local jurisdictions and interests, has developed a strategy to conserve and contribute to the recovery of several federally-listed species of the Santa Rosa Plain and their habitats. This document is titled The Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy (Conservation Strategy) and identifies potential habitat and survey guidelines for the five listed species that are known to occur within the Santa Rosa Plain area that reaches from the City of Cotati north to the Town of Windsor (and encompasses the project site) (USFWS, 2005a). These species include the federally endangered California Tiger Salamander (CTS) (Ambystoma californiense), federally endangered Sonoma sunshine (Blennosperma bakeri), federally endangered Burke’s goldfields (Lasthenia burkei), federally endangered Sebastopol meadowfoam (Limnanthes vinculans), and federally endangered many-flowered navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha).

The project site falls outside the known range of CTS (USFWS, 2005a). However, it is within the range of the four listed plant species that are known to occur on the Santa Rosa Plain (four listed plant species). As such, determinant-level protocol surveys are required. In order to substantiate negative findings for the four listed plant species, the Conservation Strategy requires a minimum of two years of negative protocol survey results for future permitted actions. The protocol requires that at least three separate floristic surveys be conducted during the duration of the growing season within the project site for two consecutive years and that each one of these three floristic surveys be conducted at a time when at least one of the four listed plant species is

Analytical Environmental Services 3-18 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment identifiable (i.e., blooming) at a local reference site. Should these criteria not be met, USFWS will assume presence for all four listed plant species.

Additional information regarding permitting requirements is available in a Programmatic Consultation for USACE 404 Permitted Projects that May Affect Four Endangered Plant Species on the Santa Rosa Plain, California (File Number 223420N) (USFWS, 2007). USFWS requires mitigation for impacted aquatic features that constitute suitable habitat for the four listed plant species (i.e., wetland features that are not occupied by the four listed plant species) and the mitigation ratios vary according to whether or not presence of these plant species is documented, assumed, or substantiated-negative. By definition, suitable habitat for the four listed plant species includes suitable vegetative conditions in combination with specified topographic and hydrologic conditions. The following vegetative conditions must be present: areas that support vernal pool indicator species and seasonal wetland areas where weedy grasses contribute less than 90 percent of the relative vegetation cover (CH2M Hill, 1998). The vegetative conditions must occur in combination with one or more of the following topographic and hydrologic conditions: the wetland area has not been entirely filled such that the wetland no longer floods or ponds and the original topography no longer exists, the wetland has an outlet barrier or occurs in depressional terrain, or the wetland contains surface water during the rainy season in a normal rainfall year for seven or more consecutive days (CH2M Hill, 1998).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act Most bird species, (especially those that are breeding, migrating, or of limited distribution) are protected under federal and/or state regulations. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC Subsection 703-712), migratory bird species, their nests, and their eggs are protected from injury or death, and any project-related disturbances during the nesting cycle. As such, project-related disturbances must be reduced or eliminated during the nesting cycle.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald Eagle Protection Act was originally enacted in 1940 to protect bald eagles and was later amended to include golden eagles (16 USC Subsection 668-668). This act prohibits the taking or possession of and commerce in bald and golden eagles, parts, feathers, nests, or eggs with limited exceptions. The definition of take includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb. Bald eagles may not be taken for any purpose unless a permit is issued prior to the taking. Activities which can be authorized by permit are: scientific collecting/research, exhibition, tribal religious, depredation, falconry, and the taking of inactive golden eagle nests, which interfere with resource development or recovery operations. The statute imposes criminal and civil sanctions as well as an enhanced penalty provision for subsequent offenses.

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. The USACE has primary federal responsibility for administering regulations that concern Waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. The

Analytical Environmental Services 3-19 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

USACE requires that a permit be obtained if a project proposes the placement of structures within, over, or under navigable waters and/or discharging dredged or fill material into waters below the ordinary high-water mark (OHWM). The USACE has established a series of nationwide permits (NWP) that authorize certain activities in waters of the U.S.

Waters of the U.S. are defined as “All waters used in interstate or foreign commerce; all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent and ephemeral streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes or natural ponds, where the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce; impoundments of these waters; tributaries of these waters; or wetlands adjacent to these waters” (Section 404 of the CWA; 33 CFR Part 328). The limit of USACE jurisdiction for non-tidal waters (including non-tidal perennial and intermittent watercourses and tributaries to such watercourses) in the absence of adjacent wetlands is defined by the OHWM.

The OHWM is defined as “The line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (Section 404 of the CWA; 33 CFR Part 328).

Wetlands are defined as “Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (Section 404 of the CWA; 33 CFR Part 328).

In addition, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification Permit was established to comply with CWA Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 and is regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Anyone that proposes to conduct a project that may result in a discharge to U.S. surface wasters and/or “waters of the state” including wetlands (all types) year round and seasonal streams, lakes and all other surface waters would require a federal permit. At a minimum, any beneficial uses lost must be replaced by a mitigation project of at least equal function, value and area. Waste Discharge Requirements Permits are required pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260 for any persons discharging or proposing to discharge waste, including dredge/fill, that could affect the quality of the waters of the state.

Tertiary Treated Discharge The proposed wastewater treatment facilities and potential surface water discharge points for Alternative B would be on trust land under the jurisdiction of the USEPA, which would require a USEPA Region 9 issued NPDES permit. Although the jurisdiction and regulatory obligations fall under federal authority for this project, the general Basin Plan water quality standards and beneficial use designations that have been established by the RWQCB would be considered by the USEPA. Beneficial uses specific to water bodies within Sonoma County are identified within

Analytical Environmental Services 3-20 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment the Water Quality Control Plan, North Coast Region (Basin Plan; NCWQCB, 2007a). The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses specific to the Guerneville and Mark West Creek HSAs of the Russian River Watershed. Each beneficial use requires different chemical or physical criteria for its protection.

The following have been designated by the NCWQCB (2007a) as existing beneficial uses for the Guerneville* and Mark West Creek HSAs: • Municipal and Domestic Supply • Agricultural Supply • Industrial Service Supply • Groundwater Recharge • Freshwater Replenishment • Navigation • Water Contact Recreation • Non-Water Contact Recreation • Commercial and Sport Fishing • Warm Freshwater Habitat • Cold Freshwater Habitat • Wildlife Habitat • Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species • Migration of Aquatic Organisms • Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development • Estuarine*(Guerneville HSA only)

3.4.3 METHODOLOGY Preliminary Research and Data Gathering Prior to conducting the biological field surveys AES staff reviewed the following resources:

Aerial photographs of the project site, USGS “Healdsburg, CA” 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (USGS, 1993), Online Soil Survey of Sonoma County, California (NRCS, 2008), A USFWS list of federally listed special-status species with potential to occur within the “Healdsburg, CA” 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and within Sonoma County (USFWS, 2009), A California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) list of state and federally listed special-status species with potential to occur within the “Healdsburg, CA” 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and the surrounding eight quadrangles (Jimtown, Mount Saint Helena, Mark West Springs, Santa Rosa, Sebastopol, Camp Meeker, Guerneville, and Geyserville) (CDFG, 2003), A CNDDB map of state and federally listed special-status species that have been documented within a five-mile radius of the project site (CDFG, 2003),

Analytical Environmental Services 3-21 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

A California Native Plant Society (CNPS) list of special-status plant species with potential to occur within the “Healdsburg, CA” 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle and the surrounding eight quadrangles (CNPS, 2009), and A search of CDFG Anadromous Fish Passage Database (Cal Fish, 2009).

State and/or CNPS-listed species typically do not receive specific protection on Indian trust lands and are not necessarily afforded protection under the FESA. However, State and CNPS listed species were evaluated in terms of their overall contribution to the biodiversity of the project site and for the purpose of providing general information that is pertinent to the Proposed Project. The USFWS, CNDDB, and CNPS database research lists of regionally occurring special-status species are included for reference purposes in Appendix E.

A complete list of all of the regionally occurring special-status species reported in the scientific database queries was compiled for the project site (Appendix E). An analysis to determine which of these special-status species have the potential to occur within the project site was conducted. The habitat requirements for each regionally occurring special-status species were assessed and compared to the type and quality of habitats observed onsite during the field surveys. Several regionally occurring special-status species were eliminated due to lack of suitable habitat within the project site, elevation range, lack of suitable soil/substrate, and/or distribution. The analysis was also based on reviews of resource agency materials, pertinent scientific literature, aerial photography of the project site, topographic maps of the project site, and other local information. Special-status species determined to have the potential to occur within the project site are discussed in Section 3.4.5.

Biological Field Surveys AES staff conducted numerous biological field surveys throughout the project site. These surveys were conducted on April 5 and 30, May 1 and 30, July 31, August 1, November 27, 2007 and March 3, 4, 5, and 27, April 18, May 23, May 27, and October 16 and 17, 2008. Additional surveys were conducted on March 11 and 24, April 20, May 14, and June 29, 2009. The surveys were conducted on foot and the entire project site has been evaluated extensively. During the surveys, the habitat types onsite were classified and further evaluated for the occurrence of and the overall potential to support special-status plant and animal species. Habitat classification was based on the classification systems presented in A Manual of California Vegetation (MCV) (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995), Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Communities of California (Holland, 1986), and A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer, Jr., 1988), but have been modified to reflect the existing site conditions. All visible plant and wildlife species were noted and identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, which is required for accurate identification and reporting. All tracks, scat, etc. observed onsite were also noted. Plant species identification, nomenclature, and taxonomy followed The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California (Hickman, 1993) and A Flora of Sonoma County (Best et al., 1996). Wildlife identification, nomenclature, and taxonomy followed standard reference texts including: Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America (Sibley, 2003), Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins, 2003), and Mammals of California (Jameson and Peeters, 2004).

Analytical Environmental Services 3-22 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

The floristic survey efforts were conducted according to the Conservation Strategy protocol (USFWS, 2005a) and occurred within the appropriate bloom periods for all potentially occurring special-status plant species (AES, 2009g).

AES staff conducted a formal wetland delineation within the project site to identify potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S (AES, 2009f). The wetland delineation survey efforts were conducted in accordance with the Sacramento District of the USACE’s Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetland Delineations (USACE, 2001), the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Wetland Training Institute, Inc., 1995), and the Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Arid West Region Supplement) (USACE, 2006). A stream characterization was conducted for the perennial drainage bordering the eastern edge of the property using the methods outlined in the RWQCB’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Programs 2007 Bioassessment Protocol Manual; a modified version of the physical habitat methodology was also used to characterize the unnamed drainage along the northwestern corner of the property.

In addition, AES staff conducted an arbor survey of the project site, and used the collected data to estimate the total number of trees onsite (AES, 2009a).

3.4.4 RESULTS

This section summarizes the results of the field surveys that were conducted within the project site and provides further analysis of the data collected in the field.

Habitat Types The project site contains a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitat types. Six terrestrial habitats were identified onsite: annual grassland, mixed oak woodland, oak savannah, mixed riparian, pasture, and ruderal/developed. Five aquatic habitat types were observed onsite: ephemeral drainage, perennial drainage, isolated pit, seasonal wetland, and seasonal wetland swale. A summary of the terrestrial and aquatic habitat types identified within the project site and the approximate acreages of each type is provided in Table 3-7. A map that illustrates terrestrial and aquatic habitat types within the project site is presented as Figure 8 of Appendix E and representative photographs of each habitat type are shown in Figures 9 and 10 of Appendix E.

TERRESTRIAL HABITATS Annual Grassland Approximately 5.488 acres of annual grassland habitat was mapped within the project site, which represents approximately 6.1 percent. Small patches of this habitat type are scattered throughout the mixed oak woodland habitat onsite. Areas classified as annual grassland habitat within the project site are simply openings within the mixed oak woodland habitat. Trees are largely absent within this community type and it is dominated by non-native annual grasses and forbs. Plant species observed within this habitat type include: annual vernal grass, ripgut brome, soft brome, medusa-head grass, rat-tail vulpia (Vulpia myuros), blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum), mules

Analytical Environmental Services 3-23 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment ears (Wyethia glabra), Ithuriel’s spear (Triteleia laxa), sun cup (Camissonia ovata), winter vetch (Vicia villosa), and buttercup (Ranunculus californicus).

TABLE 3-7 SUMMARY OF HABITAT TYPES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE Habitat Type Acres Percent Area

Terrestrial Habitats

Annual Grassland 5.488 6.1 Mixed Oak Woodland 50.451 56.0 Oak Savannah 8.019 8.9 Mixed Riparian 1.205 1.3 Pasture 13.605 15.1 Ruderal/Developed 10.403 11.5 Aquatic Habitats

Ephemeral Drainage 0.167 0.2 Isolated Pit 0.022 0.02 Seasonal Wetland 0.476 0.5 Seasonal Wetland Swale 0.260 0.3

Perennial Drainage 0.040 0.04 TOTAL 90.136 100% Source: AES 2009b. Data rounded to three decimal places

Mixed Oak Woodland Approximately 50.451 acres of mixed oak woodland habitat was mapped within the project site, which represents approximately 56.0 percent of the total property. The overstory of this community is composed of mature trees species including: Blue oak (Quercus douglasii), black oak (Quercus kellogii), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and madrone (Arbutus menziesii). Shrub and vine species observed within the mixed oak woodland habitat onsite include: poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), pipevine (Aristolochia californica), and honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.). The understory of this community is dominated by annual grasses and forbs including annual vernal grass (Anthoxanthum aristatum), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), medusa-head grass (Taeniatherum caput-medusae), quaking grass (Briza maxima), ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), wild oat (Avena fatua), hedgehog dog-tail grass (Cynosurus echinatus), soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), filaree (Erodium botrys), Klamath weed (Hypericum perforatum), skunkweed (Navarretia squarrosa), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), torilis (Torilis arvensis), rose clover (Trifolium hirtum), and bird’s beak (Cordylanthus pilosus). This habitat is considered a sensitive biological community by the State of California and Sonoma County. The majority of the woodland stands within the mixed oak woodland habitat consist of a monoculture of trees that appear to have become established within

Analytical Environmental Services 3-24 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment the same time period, probably following a clearing event within the project site. It appears that the woodland stands on site have not been managed, thinned, or otherwise altered in any way and this lack of management has resulted in severe overcrowding, competition, and a majority of specimens with multiple suppressed boles. Circumstances of this nature often result in dead limbs, higher rates of disease, insect infestation, parasites, build-up of woody debris (i.e., fuel), and a thick, jagged, and impenetrable overstory. This is the case within some sections of the project site. The overall lack of management has resulted in severe fuel build-up, and such extreme overcrowding poses a dangerous fire threat.

Oak Savannah Approximately 8.019 acres of oak savannah habitat was mapped within the project site, which represents approximately 8.9 percent. The mixed oak savannah habitat type within the project site is very similar to the mixed oak woodland habitat type, except for the density of trees within it. The mixed oak savannah habitat type has fewer trees within it and they are spaced at much greater distances. The plant species composition is the same as described for mixed oak woodland above, with the exception of the shrub/vine layer. This stratum is largely absent within this community.

Mixed Riparian Approximately 1.205 acres of mixed riparian habitat was mapped within the project site, which represents approximately 1.3 percent. Mixed riparian habitat occurs along several of the drainages that were mapped within the project site. Plant species observed in the tree layer of this community include Valley oak (Quercus lobata), willows (Salix sp.), and Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii). The dominant plant species observed within the shrub/vine layer of this community are Himalayan blackberry and poison oak. Other plant species observed within the herbaceous layer of this community include: ryegrass, little quaking grass (Briza minor), and blue wild-rye (Elymus glaucus).

Pasture Approximately 13.605 acres of pasture habitat occurs within the southeastern region of the project site, which represents approximately 15.1 percent. Various sections of the pasture habitat on-site are fenced and horses were observed within this habitat type during the field surveys. Trees and shrubs are largely absent within this community and it is dominated by non-native annual grasses and forbs. Plant species observed within this habitat type include: soap plant, buttercup, sun cup, filaree, yellow wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), ripgut brome, soft brome, medusa-head grass, rat-tail vulpia, and barley (Hordeum murinum).

Ruderal/Developed Approximately 10.403 acres of ruderal/developed habitat was mapped within the project site, which represents approximately 11.5 percent. The areas classified as ruderal/developed habitat within the project site include all existing buildings and structures, any landscaped areas, roads, and parking areas, and otherwise disturbed regions. Most of the species observed within this habitat type are weedy, non-native species including fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), mayweed

Analytical Environmental Services 3-25 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

(Anthemis cotula), morning glory (Convolvulus arvense), bristly oxtongue (Picris echioides), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), filaree, English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), prostrate knotweed (Polygonum arenastrum), ripgut brome, wild oat, and harding grass (Phalaris aquatica).

AQUATIC HABITATS Ephemeral Drainage Ephemeral drainages are linear features that exhibit an ordinary high water mark (OHWM). They are seasonal features that typically convey rainwater and surface runoff flows seasonally and for short time periods. Unlike intermittent drainages, ephemeral drainages are not typically influenced by groundwater. Nine ephemeral drainages (approximately 0.167 acre or 3,618.73 linear feet) were mapped within the project site and this habitat type composes approximately 0.2 percent (AES, 2009b). A few plant species were observed within the ephemeral drainages. However, they were predominantly unvegetated due to the scouring effects of flowing water. Plant species observed within these feature types include: tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), pennyroyal, poverty rush (Juncus tenuis), ryegrass, fiddle dock (Rumex pulcher), sedge (Carex densa), torilis, Klamath weed, and shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana).

Isolated Pit The isolated pits within the project site are relatively deep manmade holes that were excavated within uplands. These constructed features are round to rectangular in shape and the excavated dirt is piled right beside them. Two isolated pits (approximately 0.022 acre) were mapped within the project site (AES, 2009b). The two isolated pits may have functioned as watering holes for cattle, test percolation pits, or potential sites for trash disposal. Creeping spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya) was the dominant plant species observed within the isolated pits on-site.

Seasonal Wetland Seasonal wetlands are typically closed, depressional features that are ephemerally wet due to the accumulation of surface runoff and rainwater collection within low-lying areas. The length of inundation tends to be relatively short and seasonal wetlands are typically dominated by non- native, hydrophytic plant species. Six seasonal wetlands (approximately 0.476 acre) were mapped within the project site and this habitat type composes approximately 0.5 percent (AES, 2009b). Plant species observed within the seasonal wetlands include blue oak, ryegrass, fiddle dock, quaking grass, poverty rush, pennyroyal, tall flatsedge, Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), annual vernal grass, curly dock (Rumex crispus), soft brome, Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum), and little quaking grass.

Seasonal Wetland Swale Seasonal wetland swales are typically linear-shaped features that lack a clearly defined bed and bank and do not exhibit an OHWM. The length of inundation within seasonal wetland swales is relatively short and seasonal. These features primarily carry surface runoff and rainwater from areas of higher elevation to areas of lower elevation. Two seasonal wetland swales (0.260 acre)

Analytical Environmental Services 3-26 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment were mapped within the project site and this habitat type composes approximately 0.3 percent (AES, 2009b). Plant species observed within these seasonal wetland swales include: Valley oak, pennyroyal, tall flatsedge, ryegrass, cut-leaved geranium (Geranium dissectum), and curly dock.

Perennial Drainage Perennial drainages are linear features that exhibit an OHWM, have a clearly defined bed and bank, are typically inundated year-round, and have some degree of ground water contribution. A single perennial drainage was mapped within the project site for a total of 0.040 acre along the eastern boundary. This feature is an unnamed tributary to Windsor Creek and is shown as a blue- line stream on the Healdsburg, CA” USGS quad (Figure 2, Appendix E). An OHWM was observed along the entire reach and this feature was inundated during the field surveys. Mixed riparian habitat surrounds the perennial drainage and the density and width of this corridor varies.

Waters of the U.S. A formal wetland delineation of the project site was conducted (Figure 11, Appendix E). The wetland delineation report identified a total of 0.965 acre of potentially jurisdictional wetland features onsite (AES, 2009f). Of this acreage, it is likely that 0.109 acre of wetland features (i.e., two seasonal wetlands, one ephemeral drainage and the two isolated pits) will not be considered jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This wetland delineation is subject to USACE verification under Section 404 of the CWA. If the USACE agrees that the previously mentioned features are not jurisdictional, then 0.856 acre of wetlands and waters within the project site would be subject to USACE jurisdiction under the CWA. The wetland features are also depicted on the habitat map (Figure 8, Appendix E).

Total Number of Trees Within The Project Site Although none of the trees present on the site are protected under federal law, an arbor survey was conducted within the project site (AES, 2009a). A total of 4,123 native trees are estimated to occur within the project site. The species composition of the native trees onsite includes: black oak, blue oak, coast live oak, madrone, and Valley oak. Table 3-8 summarizes the results of the arbor survey (AES, 2009a). TABLE 3-8 SUMMARY OF ARBOR SURVEY RESULTS

Number of Percentage of Surveyed Trees in Surveyed Trees in Number of Trees in Size Class Each Size Class Each Size Class Each Size Class A

6 ≤ DBH < 24 346 0.72 2972 B

24 ≤ DBH < 36 96 0.2 825 C

DBH ≥ 36 38 0.08 326 Total 480 1 4123 Source: AES, 2009a.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-27 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

Plant and Wildlife Observed Within the Project Site A variety of wildlife species were observed within the project site during the field surveys (AES, 2009b). Several of the species observed onsite include: pipevine swallowtail (Battus philenor), bullfrog (Rana catesbiana), Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), violet-green swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), and black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus). A complete list of wildlife species observed within the project site is included in Appendix E.

Fisheries As detailed in the BA (Appendix E), the aquatic habitats onsite do not provide enough habitat complexity to support a diverse assemblage of aquatic organisms. In addition, the upper limit to anadromy lies downstream, south of the project site, at the confluence of Mark West Creek and Windsor Creek (Figure 5 of Appendix E).

Special-Status Species For the purposes of this assessment, special-status has been defined to include those species that are listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA (or formally proposed and/or candidates for listing). While other state and/or CNPS-listed species may have potential to occur within the project site and its vicinity (and have been included in the baseline research that was conducted for the Proposed Project), these species generally receive no specific protection on Tribal trust land and are not necessarily afforded protection by the FESA. As discussed in Section 3.4.3, the results of the USFWS, CNDDB, and CNPS database research queries of regionally occurring species are included in Appendix E.

An analysis was conducted to determine which of these regionally occurring species has the potential to occur within the project site. As shown in Table 3-9, 14 species were identified as having potential to occur within the project site. The name, regulatory status, distribution, habitat requirements, and period of identification for all of these species are identified in Table 3-9. Of the 14 species identified as having potential to occur within the project site, only six of them are listed as threatened or endangered under the FESA. None of these species have been observed on the project site. More detailed descriptions of these six federally-listed species (identified as having potential to occur within the project site) are provided below.

SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS Sonoma Alopecurus (Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis) Poaceae Family Federal Status – Endangered State Status – None Other – CNPS List 1B

Analytical Environmental Services 3-28 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

TABLE 3-9 REGIONALLY OCCURRING SPECIES SCIENTIFIC FEDERAL/ NAME STATE/ DISTRIBUTION HABITAT PERIOD OF COMMON CNPS REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFICATION NAME STATUS Plants Alopecurus FE/--/1B Known to occur in Marin and Sonoma Occurs in marshes and May-July aequalis var. counties. swamps (freshwater) and sonomensis Riparian scrub. Elevations; 5-365 meters. Sonoma alopecurus Blennosperma FE/CE/1B Known to occur in Sonoma County. Occurs in Valley and foothill March-May bakeri grassland (mesic) and vernal pools. Elevations; Sonoma 10-110 meters. sunshine Downingia --/--/2 Known to occur in Fresno, Merced, Napa, Occurs in Valley and foothill March-May pusilla Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, grassland (mesic) and Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tehama, and Yuba vernal pools. Elevations; 1- dwarf counties. Also occurs in South America. 445 meters. downingia Fritillaria --/--/1B Known to occur in Alameda, Contra Costa, Occurs in cismontane February-April liliacea Monterey, Marin, San Benito, Santa Clara, woodland, coastal prairie, San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano, and coastal scrub, and Valley fragrant Sonoma counties. and foothill grassland/often fritillary serpentinite. Elevations; 3- 410 meters. Hemizonia --/--/1B Known to occur in Marin, Mendocino, San Valley and foothill April - November congesta ssp. Francisco, and Sonoma counties. grasslands (sometimes congesta roadsides). Elevations: seaside 20-560 meters. tarplant/pale yellow hayfield tarplant Lasthenia FE/CE/1B Known to occur in Lake, Mendocino, Occurs in meadows and April-June burkei Napa, and Sonoma counties. seeps (mesic) and vernal pools. Elevations; 15-600 Burke’s meters. goldfields Lilium FE/CE/1B Known to occur in Sonoma County. Cismontane woodland, June - July pardalinum meadows and seeps, and ssp. pitkinense marshes and swamps Pitkin Marsh (freshwater, mesic, sandy). lily Elevations: 35-65 meters. Limnanthes FE/CE/1B Known to occur in Napa and Sonoma Occurs in meadows and April-May vinculans counties. seeps, Valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools Sebastopol (vernally mesic). meadowfoam Elevations; 15-305 meters. Microseris --/--/1B Known to occur in Mendocino, Monterey, Occurs in closed-cone April-June (July) paludosa Marin, San Benito, Santa Cruz, San coniferous forest, Francisco (though may be extirpated), San cismontane woodland, marsh Luis Obispo, San Mateo (though may be coastal scrub, and Valley microseris extirpated), and Sonoma counties. and foothill grassland. Elevations; 5-300 meters. Navarretia --/--/1B Known to occur in Colusa, Glenn, Lake, Occurs in cismontane April-July leucocephala Mendocino, Marin, Napa, Solano, woodland, lower montane ssp. bakeri Sonoma, Sutter, Tehama, and Yolo coniferous forest, meadows Counties. and seeps, Valley and Baker’s foothill grassland, and navarretia vernal pools (mesic). Elevations; 5-1,740 meters.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-29 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

SCIENTIFIC FEDERAL/ NAME STATE/ DISTRIBUTION HABITAT PERIOD OF COMMON CNPS REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFICATION NAME STATUS Navarretia FE/CE/1B Known to occur in Lake and Sonoma Occurs in vernal pools May-June leucocephala counties. (volcanic ash flow). ssp. plieantha Elevations; 30-950 meters. many-flowered navarretia Reptiles Actinemys --/CSC/-- In California, primarily north of the San Ponds, marshes, rivers, March - October marmorata Francisco Bay Area and west of the Sierra streams, and irrigation marmorata Nevada Range. ditches with aquatic northwestern vegetation. Requires pond turtle basking sites and suitable upland habitat for egg laying. Nest sites most often characterized as having gentle slopes (<15%) with little vegetation or sandy banks. Elevations range from 0 to approximately 1,525 meters. Birds Elanus --/CFP/-- Permanent resident of coastal and valley Habitats include savannahh, Year round leucurus lowlands. open woodland, marshes, partially cleared lands and white-tailed cultivated fields, mostly in kite lowland situations. Nesting occurs in trees. Mammals Antrozous --/CSC/-- Locally common species at low elevations. Habitats occupied include Year Round pallidus It occurs throughout California except for grasslands, shrublands, the high Sierra Nevada from Shasta to woodlands, and forests from pallid bat Kern cos., and the northwestern corner of sea level up through mixed the state from Del Norte and western conifer forests, generally Siskiyou cos. to northern Mendocino Co. below 2,000 meters. The species is most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts also include cliffs, abandoned buildings, bird boxes, and under bridges.

STATUS CODES

FEDERAL: United States Fish and Wildlife Service FE Federally Endangered

STATE: California Department of Fish and Game CE California Listed Endangered CSC California Species of Special Concern CFP California Fully Protected Species

CNPS: California Native Plant Society List 1B Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere List 2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California (But More Common Elsewhere)

Months in parenthesis are uncommon. SOURCE: USFWS 2008; CDFG 2003; CNPS 2008.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-30 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

Sonoma alopecurus is a perennial grass that occurs in freshwater marshes and swamps and riparian scrub habitats. This species occurs at elevations that range from five to 365 meters above mean sea level. Sonoma alopecurus blooms from May through July. The known range of this species includes Marin and Sonoma counties. This species is known for having spikelets (excluding the awns) that are less than four millimeters (mm) long and straight (as opposed to bent) awns that barely exceed the body of the lemmas by zero to two mm. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species and it does not have a recovery plan. The nearest documented occurrence of this species is located 4.85 miles southwest of the site (CDFG, 2003). The aquatic features and the mixed riparian habitat within the project site were considered marginally suitable habitat for this species. Sonoma alopecurus was not observed onsite during the floristic surveys, which were conducted within the appropriate bloom period for this species.

Sonoma Sunshine (Blennosperma bakeri) Asteraceae Family Federal Status – Endangered State Status – Endangered Other – CNPS List 1B

Sonoma sunshine is an annual herb that occurs in mesic areas within Valley and foothill grassland and vernal pool habitats at elevations that range from ten to 110 meters above mean sea level. In the northern portions of the Santa Rosa Plain (i.e., north of Highway 12), this species is known to occur on soils within the Huichica loam series. In the southern portions of the Santa Rosa Plain (i.e., south of Highway 12), Sonoma sunshine is likely to occur on soils within the Wright loam or Clear Lake clay series (USFWS, 2007). This species blooms from March through May. Sonoma sunshine is endemic to Sonoma County and this is the only region where this species occurs. It is known for having entire lower leaves, one to three lobed upper leaves, and ray flowers that have dark red stigmas. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species and it does not have a recovery plan. The nearest documented occurrence of this species is located 4.91 miles southeast of the project site (CDFG, 2003). Prior to conducting the floristic surveys, a reference population of this species was observed at the Todd Road location (Appendix E). The aquatic features and the annual grassland habitat within the project site were considered suitable habitat for this species. Sonoma sunshine was not observed onsite during the floristic surveys, which were conducted within the appropriate bloom window for this species.

Burke’s Goldfields (Lasthenia burkei) Asteraceae Family Federal Status – Endangered State Status – Endangered Other – CNPS List 1B

Burke’s goldfields are annual herbs that occur in a variety of mesic habitats including meadows, seeps, swales, and vernal pools at elevations that range from 15 to 600 meters above mean sea level. In the northern portions of the Santa Rosa Plain (i.e., north of Highway 12), this species is known to occur on soils within the Huichica loam series. In the southern portions of the Santa

Analytical Environmental Services 3-31 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

Rosa Plain (i.e., south of Highway 12), Burke’s goldfields are likely to occur on soils within the Wright loam or Clear Lake clay series (USFWS, 2007). This species blooms from April through June. The known range of Burke’s goldfields includes Lake, Mendocino, Napa, and Sonoma counties. This species is known for having an unusual pappus that is composed of one long awn and several short scales. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species and it does not have a recovery plan. The nearest documented occurrence of this species is located 0.09 mile east of the project site (CDFG, 2003). Prior to conducting the floristic surveys, a reference population of this species was observed at the Alton Road Vernal Pool Preserve (Appendix E). The aquatic features within the project site are considered suitable habitat for this species. Burke’s goldfields were not observed onsite during the floristic surveys, which were conducted within the appropriate bloom period for this species.

Pitkin Marsh lily (Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense) Liliaceae Family Federal Status – Endangered Stat Status – Endangered Other – CNPS List 1B

Pitkin Marsh lily is a bulbiferous herb that occurs in cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, and in freshwater marshes and swamps on substrates that are mesic and sandy. It is found in elevations ranging from 35 to 65 meters above mean sea level. The Pitkin Marsh lily blooms from June through July. Its known range is restricted to Sonoma County. This species is known for having a pendant, nodding inflorescence, whorled leaves, and for occurring in moist habitats. It has two-toned perianth segments that are typically yellow toward the center and darker red at the tips. The anthers tend to be between six and 11 mm long and magenta colored and the pollen is red or brownish-orange. The bulb scales of this species typically have two segments. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species but it will be included in the recovery plan for coastal plants, which is under development. The nearest documented occurrence of this species is located 3.02 miles from the project site (CDFG, 2003). Prior to conducting the floristic surveys, a reference population was observed (Appendix E). The cismontane woodland and aquatic features within the project site are suitable habitat for this species. Pitkin Marsh lily was not observed within the project site during floristic surveys, which were conducted within the appropriate bloom period for this species.

Sebastopol Meadowfoam (Limnanthes vinculans) Limnanthaceae Family Federal Status – Endangered State Status – Endangered Other – CNPS List 1B

Sebastopol meadowfoam is an annual herb that occurs in meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools, and other mesic areas at elevations that range from 15 to 305 meters above mean sea level. Most of the known occurrences of Sebastopol meadowfoam within the Santa Rosa Plain occur on Wright loam or Clear Lake clay soil series. A few other documented

Analytical Environmental Services 3-32 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment occurrences of this species within the Santa Rosa Plain are on other soil types including: Pajaro clay loam, Cotati fine sandy loam, Haire clay loam, and Blucher fine sandy loam series (USFWS, 2007). Sebastopol meadowfoam blooms from April through May. The known range of Sebastopol meadowfoam includes Napa and Sonoma counties. However, the occurrence and status of this species within Napa County is considered uncertain. Sebastopol meadowfoam is differentiated from other species in the genus by its stamens, petals, and leaflets. The stamens of this species are approximately five to eight millimeters long and the petals are approximately ten to 18 millimeters long. The petals of this species reflex (i.e., fall out as opposed to in) as the fruit matures. Sebastopol meadowfoam tends to have between three to five leaflets that are entire (as opposed to toothed or lobed). Critical habitat has not been designated for this species and it does not have a recovery plan. The nearest documented occurrence of this species is located approximately 2.15 miles southeast of the project site (CDFG, 2003). Prior to conducting the floristic surveys, a reference population of this species was observed at both the Todd Road site and the Alton Road Vernal Pool Preserve (Appendix E). The aquatic features and the annual grassland within the project site are considered suitable habitats for this species. Sebastopol meadowfoam was not observed within the project site during the floristic surveys, which were conducted within the appropriate bloom period for this species.

Many-flowered Navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha) Polemoniaceae Family Federal Status – Endangered State Status – Endangered Other – CNPS List 1B

Many flowered navarretia is an annual herb that occurs in vernal pool habitats. This species has an affinity for substrates that originated from volcanic ash flows. It occurs at elevations that range from approximately 30 to 650 meters above mean sea level and it blooms from May through June. Many-flowered navarretia (like Baker’s navarretia) is differentiated from the other subspecies because it has a corolla that is greater than or equal to the calyx and calyx lobes that are generally entire (as opposed to toothed). However, this species (ssp. plieantha) has low, spreading branches (as opposed to erect and ascending), and blue-tinged corollas. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. However, it is included in the Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Oregon (USFWS, 2005b). The nearest documented occurrence of this species is located 2.04 miles southeast of the project site (CDFG, 2003). The aquatic features (i.e., seasonal wetlands) within the project site are considered marginally suitable habitat for this species. Many-flowered navarretia was not observed within the project site during the floristic surveys, which were conducted within the appropriate bloom period for this species.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

An archaeological survey of APN 066-300-031 was conducted by AES in August 2007. Additional surveys of the remainder of the project site were conducted in October 2008 and March 2009. The cultural resources study (AES, 2009c) is bound under separate cover as Appendix F. The cultural resources study included a literature search, field survey, and Native

Analytical Environmental Services 3-33 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

American consultation to identify and evaluate any prehistoric and historic-period resources within or adjacent to the project site that may be impacted by the proposed undertaking. Following is a summary of applicable sections of the cultural resources study.

3.5.1 REGULATORY SETTING National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as amended, and its implementing regulations found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800, require federal agencies to identify cultural resources that may be affected by actions involving federal lands, funds, or permitting. The significance of the resources must be evaluated using established criteria outlined 36 CFR 60.4, as described below.

If a resource is determined to be a historic property, Section 106 of the NHPA requires that effects of the development on the resource be determined. A historic property is defined as: “…any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property.” (NHPA Sec. 301[5]).

The criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), defined in 36 CFR 60.4, are as follows:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. Sites younger than 50 years, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for listing in the NRHP.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) NEPA requires that federal agencies take all practical measures to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage” (NHPA, Section 800.8(a)). NEPA’s mandate for considering the impacts of a federal project on important historic and cultural resources is similar to that of Section 106 of the NHPA, and the two processes are generally

Analytical Environmental Services 3-34 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment coordinated when applicable. Section 800.8(a) of NHPA’s implementing regulations provides guidance on coordination with NEPA.

Antiquities Act Passed in 1906, the Antiquities Act prohibits the collection, destruction, injury, or excavation of “any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity” that is situated on federal land without permission of the appropriate land management agency. The Antiquities Act also provides for the criminal prosecution, including fines and imprisonment, for individuals who commit one or more of the acts described above.

3.5.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES SETTING The following discussion of the cultural setting of the project area is condensed from the information presented in the cultural resources study, provided as Appendix F of this document.

Prehistory An analytic framework for the interpretation of central Sonoma County prehistory is provided by Frederickson (1974), who divided human history in California into three broad periods: the Paleo- Indian period, the Archaic period and the Emergent period. This scheme used sociopolitical complexity, trade networks, population, and the introduction and variations of artifact types to differentiate between cultural units; the scheme remains the dominant framework for this region’s prehistoric archaeological research.

The Paleo-Indian period (10,000-6000 BC) was characterized by small, highly mobile groups occupying broad geographic areas. During the Archaic period, consisting of the Lower Archaic period (6000-3000 BC), Middle Archaic period (3000-1000 BC) and Upper Archaic period (1000 BC–AD 500), geographic mobility may have continued, although groups began to establish longer-term base camps in localities from which a more diverse range of resources could be exploited. By the Upper Archaic, mobility was being replaced by a more sedentary adaptation in the development of numerous small villages, and the beginnings of a more complex society and economy began to emerge. During the Emergent period (AD 500-1800), social complexity developed toward the ethnographic pattern of large, central villages where political leaders resided, with associated hamlets and specialized activity sites.

Ethnography Ethnographic literature indicates that at the time of historic contact, the project area was within the territory of Southern Pomo-speaking people (Bean and Theodoratus, 1978:289; Kroeber, 1976:222). According to Kroeber, the greater Pomo were the second most populous ethnohistoric group in California, having about 1,200 people as of the 1910 census, but it has been estimated that pre-contact population estimates may have been as many as 8,000 (Kroeber, 1976:237). Pomo communities were scattered across the landscape from the present-day City of Willits in northern Mendocino County, to the south near the present-day city of Santa Rosa in Sonoma County, and from the coastal shorelines in the west to the eastern shores of Clear Lake in Lake County. Ethnographic literature indicates that at the time of historic contact, the project area was

Analytical Environmental Services 3-35 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment part of lands of the Southern Pomo-speaking tribelet, or village, community of tsōlika’wiī, which occupied the area near the Russian River at a point about one-half mile east of “old Windsor” (Barrett, 1908:222; McLendon and Oswalt, 1978:284).

The Pomo economy was based on a seasonal round of fishing, hunting, and the collection of a variety of plants for food, tools, structures and trade (Barrett, 1908; Kroeber, 1953; Powers, 1877). Beads (also called Po or Pol) were also an important part of the Pomo economy. They were made from magnesite and could be 1-3 inches long. The beads were of such high value that they were traded individually rather than in a necklace like the Pomo did with the clamshell coins they made. The Pomo were also known for their expertise in basket making (Kroeber, 1976).

Typical weapons used in hunting were the bow and arrow for larger game, club for bear, and spears for sea lions and seals. Smaller animals were captured with low brush fences, nets, snares and basketry traps. Lake, stream, and ocean fish were caught in traps, with lines or weirs. The traditional mortar and pestle were used for processing of acorns, Buckeye nuts and other seeds, grasses, and roots (Powers, 1877). The stone mortars were natural shapes and were used with bottomless basketry hoppers. Knives were made from obsidian or chert and could be attached to handles and used as axes. Bone was not used often for tools and was most notably used for awls and fishhooks (Bean and Theodoratus, 1978:291).

History Many of the traditional lifeways and land-use patterns that served the Pomoan peoples for centuries changed abruptly with the establishment of the Spanish missions in the Bay Area. Native Americans were brought into the missions, both willingly and by force, to be converted to Christianity, to learn farming and other “civilized” skills, and to serve as laborers. Large numbers of the mission inhabitants died of diseases introduced by foreign settlers and from malnutrition. By the mid-1800s, settlement within the Sonoma County region had not only displaced the native people from their villages and land-based resources, but had also disrupted culturally and economically significant seasonal gathering strategies and trade (McLendon and Oswalt 1978:279, 414).

The project area is sited on lands that once were part of the Rancho El Molino, granted in 1834 to Juan Bautista Rogers Cooper, brother-in-law of Mariano Vallejo, after the secularization of the mission system in 1833. Rancho El Molino had been sold and parceled by 1851 when the first residents of what would become the Town of Windsor arrived. The project area is located on land that belonged to J.W. Calhoun, one of the area’s first settlers. He and his descendents maintained approximately 360 acres from at least 1867 through 1939.

The town of Windsor was officially laid out in 1858, and continued to grow (Alley et al., 1880: 360-361). By the end of the nineteenth century, a foundry, two brickyards, a distillery, six saloons, seven wineries, three grocery stores, three livery stables, one blacksmith, three hotels, a photo shop, a drugstore, a barber shop, two wheelwrights, an undertaker, and dance and lodge halls, had been built to the west—all a result of the 1872 extension of the California Northwestern Railroad (CNRR) west of the town (Beedie, 1978: 50; Fray, 2004: 39; Robertson, 1998: 90-91).

Analytical Environmental Services 3-36 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

The outskirts of the Town of Windsor remained much the same throughout all these changes. The rural area was predominately agricultural, primarily growing hops, wine grapes, prunes, pears, apples, and hay. In the early 1900s, poultry farming was popular in the area, with about twenty ranches with flocks averaging 4,000 hens (Fray, 2004: 70). While the housing boom of the 1980s and the town’s incorporation in 1992 sped the growth and expansion of the urban areas, the surrounding area, including the project area, remains largely rural.

3.5.3 RESULTS OF CULTURAL STUDIES Documentation of cultural resources within the project site was achieved through review of pertinent anthropological literature, historic documents and maps, a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), Native American consultation, and a field examination of the project site by archaeologists who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s professional standards.

Records and Literature Search A records search for the project area was conducted by AES staff at the NWIC of the California Historical Resources Information System in July of 2007. The records search and literature review were done to: (1) determine whether known cultural resources had been recorded within or adjacent to the study area and to determine if the project site was subject to cultural resources surveys in the past; (2) assess the likelihood of unrecorded cultural resources based on archaeological, ethnographic, and historical documents and literature; and (3) to review the distribution of nearby archaeological sites in relation to their environmental setting.

The records search found that no prehistoric or historic cultural resources have been recorded within the project area, and no previous archaeological surveys have been conducted within its boundaries. However, the records search did identify two prehistoric archaeological resources and seven previous archaeological surveys located within approximately ¼ mile of the project boundaries.

Native American Consultation On March 5, 2007, the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was asked to review the Sacred Lands file for information on Native American cultural resources on the project site (see Appendix F). On March 23, 2007, the NAHC responded indicating that they have no knowledge of Native American resources within the project site. A second review was requested on October 7, 2008. On October 17, 2008, the NAHC responded again indicating they had no knowledge of Native American resources within or adjacent to the project site. However, they did provide a list of individuals and groups to further consult with. Consultation letters to these individuals and groups were sent on October 17, 2008. The BIA will consult with these individuals and the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO), pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA, prior to approval of the proposed action.

Field Surveys Damon Haydu, AES archaeologist conducted a cultural resources field survey of APN 066-300- 028 on August 16, 2007. Additional surveys of the remaining project parcels were conducted on

Analytical Environmental Services 3-37 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

October 9, 2008 and on March 6, 2009. These studies included an on-foot intensive survey in 10- to-15-meter-wide transects within the proposed APE. Surface visibility varied between little or no visible ground surface due to dense grasses (undeveloped areas), to complete surface visibility in areas of bare soil. The ground surface was examined for archaeological remains. In addition rodent burrow backdirt piles, cutbanks along seasonal drainages, and road cuts were examined for indicators of buried archaeological deposits. As a result of the field surveys, three historic-period residential structures were identified, recorded, mapped, and photographed. These resources are described below. Completed State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Site Forms are provided in Appendix F.

9624 Eastside Road. APN 066-300-028 contains two residential structures. The primary residence was built in 1910, and a secondary residence was built after 1982. The primary structure is a single-story, single-family residence with modest Craftsman elements. The secondary structure is a two-story single-family barn style residence, and does not meet the age criteria for consideration as a historic property. Both houses are currently vacant.

The single story primary residence is wood framed with a basement. Wood shingles clad the exterior walls and a low-pitched cross-gabled roof with gabled dormers caps the building. Wide concrete steps set into the hillside lead up to the entrance where they meet a raised wood porch accessed by wood steps enclosed by a wood railing with close-set balusters. Three entrances are located along the porch including a wood and glass door with decorative detailing sheltered by the porch roof, a wood framed glass door, and a paneled wood door. Bay windows extend from both the east and west sides and multi-light ribbon window spans the enclosed porch on the south side of the residence. A front-gabled detached garage clad with vertical wood panels sits north of, and adjacent to, the residence.

Review of historical maps, aerial photographs, record search materials, and a thorough literature review failed to indicate a connection between the parcel and any events or individuals important in history (criteria A and B). The primary residence appears to meet the minimum age requirements, but does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values (criterion C). Furthermore, the site has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history (criterion D). With regard to integrity, the primary residence has been visibly altered over the past ninety years. Many of the Craftsman-inspired elements of the residence have been altered, changing the appearance of the building: the porch on the south side of the residence has been enclosed, the majority of the windows and doors have been replaced, and additional living space has been added to the residence on the northeast side. With the above considerations in mind, it is recommended that the historic building at 9624 Eastside Road is ineligible for listing on the NRHP.

1290 Windsor River Road. APN 066-191-017 contains a primary residence and barn built in 1935. The primary structure is a single story residence with Hall-and-Parlor Family and simple Folk farmhouse elements. The secondary structure is a single-story barn. The residence is currently occupied.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-38 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

The single story primary residence is wood framed with one bedroom and one bathroom. Wooden horizontal-channeled board-and-batten clad the exterior walls and a low-pitched side- gabled roof slightly overhung with brackets caps the building. Contemporary wood steps lead up to the entrance and a raised one –story, full width wood porch enclosed by wood railing and metal screening is located on the north side of the structure. The centrally placed brick fireplace has had its top replaced with modern metal stove pipe materials. The roof was originally simple wood shingles which has been replaced with composite tar paper sheets. The windows have been replaced with modern single-hung metal windows and the front door appears to be a modern as well. The south side of the structure has witnessed the addition of a laundry room and car port.

Review of historical maps, aerial photographs, record search materials, and a thorough literature review failed to indicate a connection between the parcel and any events or individuals important in history (criteria A and B). Built in 1935, the primary structure and associated barn meet the minimum age requirements, but do not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values (criterion C). The simple vernacular architectural style is common throughout Sonoma County and has been significantly altered since its initial construction. Furthermore, the site has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history (criterion D). While the primary structure under consideration at 1290 Windsor River Road retains the general form recognizable as Hall-and- Parlor Family simple Folk vernacular architecture, it has undergone extensive modifications, which have severely diminished the architectural integrity of the structure. With the above considerations in mind, it is recommended that the house at 1290 Windsor River Road is ineligible for listing on the NRHP.

1296 Windsor River Road. APN 066-191-020 contains a primary residence built in 1961. The structure is a single story, single family residence with contemporary ranch-style elements (McAlester and McAlester, 2002). The structure includes an attached garage and concrete foundation. The low pitch, side gabled structure is clad with a lapped board-on-board siding. The roof is clad in modern composite shingles and the windows are a mix of contemporary sliding two-pane and single pane fixed lights. Built in 1961, this residence will reach the minimum age requirements for listing on the NRHP in 2011, and therefore is evaluated in the following section.

Review of historical maps, aerial photographs, record search materials, and a thorough literature review failed to indicate a connection between the parcel and any events or individuals important in history (criteria A and B). Moreover, it does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values (criterion C). Finally, the site has not yielded, and is not likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history (criterion D). The residence at 1296 Windsor River Road is a common example of the contemporary Ranch design. The Ranch style was originated in California in the mid 1930s and became the dominate style of architecture around the country by the 1960s (McAlister and McAlister, 2002). Though this residence appears to retain most of its original elements, therefore retaining sufficient integrity, it is one of the most ubiquitous styles of architecture in California and grander examples of the Ranch style can be found throughout Sonoma County. With the above considerations in

Analytical Environmental Services 3-39 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment mind, it is recommended that the house at 1296 Windsor River Road is ineligible for listing on the NRHP.

3.5.4 PALEONTOLOGICAL SETTING Paleontological resources are defined as the traces or remains of prehistoric plants and animals. Such remains often appear as fossilized or petrified skeletal matter, imprints or endocasts, and reside in sedimentary rock layers. Fossils are important resources, due to their scientific and educational value. Fossil resources are non-renewable.

This section presents documentation on reported paleontological deposits on the Lytton property and surrounding region, as well as an analysis on the potential for unreported paleontological resources to be present on the project site.

Regulatory Background The Antiquities Act of 1906 (PL 59-209; 16 United States Code 431 et seq.; 34 Stat. 225) calls for the protection of historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest on Federal land. While neither the Antiquities Act nor its implementing regulations (found at 43 CFR 3) explicitly mention fossils or paleontology, the inclusion of “object[s] of antiquity” in the Act has been interpreted to extend to paleontological resources by many federal agencies. As such, projects involving federal lands require permits for paleontological resource evaluation and mitigation efforts that involve excavation, collection, etc. Additional provisions appear in the Archaeological and Historic Data Preservation Act of 1974, as amended, for the survey, recovery, and preservation of significant scientific, prehistoric, historic, archaeological, or paleontological data, in such cases wherein this type of data might be otherwise destroyed or irrecoverably lost as a result of Federal projects.

Typologies and Formation Processes The processes involved in the preservation of paleontological resources result in several types of remains. It is noted that only a small percentage of ancient life forms and their traces have been exposed to conditions favorable to preservation. Factors affecting the persistence of paleontological resources vary between species, and broadly include geological formation processes, climate, soil and rock chemistry, and organism morphology. Paleontological resources are discussed here as fossil remains, although other types of remains occur elsewhere.

Fossils are the remains of plants and animals embedded in layers of rock, which have retained some degree of their original characteristics over a long period of time. Remains are buried under layers of sediment, which under building pressure become sedimentary rock. Paleontological remains can be those of organism structure, such as skeletal parts, shell, tree trunks, pollen, endocasts or imprints, or they can be remnants of activity, such as footprints or tunnels of burrowing organisms. Soft tissues are less frequently fossilized, because they usually decay before fossilization processes take place. Since fossil remains occur in sedimentary rock formations, they tend to persist unless the rock has undergone significant changes. Fossils, therefore, do not occur in metamorphic rock formations.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-40 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

Fossils of considerable age may be subject to varying degrees of mineralization, at times resulting in the total replacement of original, organic matter by minerals. The agents of mineralization are most commonly comprised of calcium carbonates, such as calcite and aragonite, and silicates, such as quartz, opal and chalcedony. Less common materials are iron disulfides such as pyrite and marcasite; limonite; sulphates such as gypsum; phosphates such as calcium phosphate and vivianite; and glauconite. These minerals are typically transported in minute quantities by seeping water, with aggregation over time.

Plant fossils, shell fossils, pollen and microfossils are generally more frequent than fossils of vertebrates. Thus, vertebrate fossils are considered significant. Invertebrate fossils are considered significant if they are scarce or diagnostic of date range, or if they constitute a segment of a unique paleoenvironmental framework. Paleontologists may additionally determine significance on a case-by case basis.

All surficial geologic deposits on the Lytton property are Pleistocene to Recent in age. Weaver (1949) completed initial mapping of these deposits. He classified all deposits as Quaternary alluvium. Chapman and Bishop (1988) mapped almost the entire Windsor area as younger Quaternary alluvium and Miller (1972) mapped this alluvium as Yolo Silt Loam overlying the Franciscan Formation. Weaver (1949) and Chapman and Bishop (1988) mention no fossil localities in these deposits.

A search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) database indicates that 503 paleontological specimens have been reported in Sonoma County (UCMP, 2008). Areas along the eastern edge of the Russian River Valley and adjacent North Coast Range have the highest frequency of fossils in the County. Within Sonoma County, the vast majority of fossil specimens have been documented within five major geologic formations, none of which occur in proximity to the project site. These formations include: Merced, Gualala, Glen Ellen, Petaluma, and Sonoma Tuff (UCMP, 2008). Regionally, significant fossil discoveries have been made within the Sonoma Tuff formation in the eastern hills of the North Coast Range near Calistoga. Of particular importance is the Calistoga Petrified Forest I and II localities, located roughly 13 miles east of the project area.

Potential for Fossil Discovery The depositional environments of the sediments underlying the Lytton property were alluvial fans and marshes associated with the Russian River drainage. Fossil occurrences are not usually common in alluvial fan deposits because of the high probability of reworking and damage of any skeletal and plant material as it is transported and deposited.

In addition, indicators of significant paleontological resources within the project site and immediate vicinity are absent in the sources consulted, and no such resources were observed in the course of surface reconnaissance surveys by AES in 2007, 2008, and 2009. The geologic formation upon which the project site is located has not produced significant paleontological specimens of scientific consequence and is unlikely to do so in the future.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-41 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

3.6 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS / ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

3.6.1 SONOMA COUNTY Demographics Sonoma County is located 35 miles from the San Francisco Bay Area and lies in the North Coast Ranges of northwestern California. Additionally, Sonoma County is adjacent to Marin, Mendocino, Lake, Napa, Solano and Contra Costa counties. Sonoma County is home to nine incorporated cities and to seventeen unincorporated areas. As shown in Table 3-10, the county had an estimated population of 485,000 people in 2008. The largest city in Sonoma County is Santa Rosa. The cities of Petaluma and Rohnert Park are the next most populated. The Sonoma County General Plan assumes that 73 percent of the population growth experienced in the County through the year 2020 will be directed to incorporated cities and 27 percent will be absorbed in the unincorporated area (Sonoma County, 2008).

TABLE 3-10 SONOMA COUNTY POPULATION 2000-2008 Sonoma 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 County 458,614 464,543 468,501 470,829 473,521 475,461 476,956 479,668 484,470

Cloverdale 6,831 7,082 7,333 7,481 7,959 8,197 8,412 8,479 8,577 Cotati 6,471 6,612 6,816 6,850 7,042 7,300 7,348 7,503 7,532 Healdsburg 10,915 11,378 11,640 11,616 11,631 11,651 11,648 11,654 11,706 Petaluma 54,550 55,435 55,730 55,804 56,057 56,337 56,455 56,743 57,418 Rohnert Park 42,236 42,272 42,198 42,412 42,256 42,229 42,824 42,772 43,062 Santa Rosa 147,595 149,520 151,933 153,879 154,855 155,471 156,407 157,319 159,981 Sebastopol 7,774 7,799 7,809 7,783 7,765 7,756 7,718 7,727 7,714 Sonoma 9,275 9,498 9,474 9,569 9,714 9,783 9,844 9,898 9,943 Windsor 22,744 23,533 24,112 24,403 24,855 25,342 25,887 26,315 26,564 Unincorp- 150,223 151,414 151,456 151,032 151,387 151,395 150,413 151,258 151,973 orated County Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001- 2008, with 2000 Benchmark, Sacramento, CA, May 2008

Community of Windsor Demographic data for the Windsor area (zip code 95492) is representative of the population within the project area. As shown in Table 3-10, the estimated 2008 population of Windsor was approximately 26,564 persons.

The 2000 U.S. Census reported that there were roughly 8,060 housing units in the community of Windsor with approximately 7,872 units occupied. Owner-occupied housing units made up 79.6 percent (6,266 units) of the housing stock and renter-occupied housing 20.4 percent (1,606 units), with a 2.3 percent vacancy rate. The existing residences in the area consist of single-family rural residential homes. However, high density and multi-family residential zoning designations are identified for areas northeast of the project site. As such, it is anticipated that residential development will increase near the project site.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-42 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

3.6.2 THE LYTTON RANCHERIA Statistical information for the Lytton Rancheria was obtained from the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Population and Labor Force Report, 2005 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2005). As shown in Table 3-11, the total Tribal enrollment for the Lytton Rancheria in 2005 was approximately 273 members. Of this total, approximately 150 Tribal members were over the age of 16.

TABLE 3-11 LYTTON RANCHERIA POPULATION AND LABOR FORCE ESTIMATES Tribe Population Factor Members

Enrollment 273 Total Eligible for Services 273 Under age 16 123 Age 16 through 64 145 At age 65 and over 5 Not available for work 16 Available for work (total workforce) 134 Employed 59 Not employed 75 Source: US Department of the Interior, 2005

3.6.3 ECONOMY Sonoma County had an estimated median household income of $53,645 in 2004, which was seven percent higher than the state average. The 2000 median household income in Windsor was $62,781, which was approximately 13 percent higher than Sonoma County. The Bay Area real median household income was the highest in the state (California Center for Leadership, 2007).

3.6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOR MINORITY AND LOW INCOME POPULATIONS

The project site is located adjacent to the Town of Windsor within incorporated Sonoma County. Land uses surrounding the project site consist of undeveloped land, agricultural fields, and sparse residential development. Residential development is primarily located within clusters of housing communities developed northeast of the project site adjacent to Windsor River Road.

All projects involving a federal action (funding, permit, or land) must comply with Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, as amended, which directs federal agencies to take the appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health or environment of minority, low-income, and Native American populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Low income is defined based on U.S. Census Bureau established poverty thresholds and is discussed further below.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-43 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

The following six principles are provided as guidance for the analysis of impacts under NEPA (CEQ, 1997:9):

Agencies should consider the composition of the affected area, to determine whether minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes are present in the area affected by the proposed action.

Agencies should consider relevant public health data and industry data concerning the potential for multiple or cumulative exposure to human health or environmental hazards in the affected population and historical patterns of exposure to environmental hazards.

Agencies should recognize the interrelated cultural, social, occupational, historical, or economic factors that may amplify the natural and physical environmental effects of the proposed agency action.

Agencies should, as appropriate, acknowledge and seek to overcome linguistic, cultural, institutional, geographic, and other barriers to meaningful participation, and should incorporate active outreach to affected groups.

Agencies should assure meaningful community representation in the process.

Agencies should seek tribal representation in the process.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in the EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analysis, (April 1998) provides the following guidance for defining and assessing impacts to minority and/or low-income populations:

A minority population may be present if the minority population percentage of the affected area is ‘meaningfully greater’ than the minority population percentage in the general population or other ‘appropriate unit of geographic analysis’.

The NEPA analysis should also make every effort to identify the presence of distinct minority communities residing both within, and in close proximity to, the Proposed Project, and to identify those minority groups which utilize or are dependent upon natural resources that could be potentially affected by the Proposed Project.

Pursuant to the CEQ guidance, low-income populations in an affected area (that area in which the Proposed Project will or may have an effect) should be identified with the statistical poverty thresholds from the U.S. Census Bureau on Income and Poverty.

In identifying low-income populations, agencies may consider as a community a group of individuals living in geographic proximity to one another or set of individuals (such as migrant workers or Native Americans) where either type of group experiences common conditions of environmental exposure.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-44 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

In 2000 the estimated population of Windsor area was approximately 23,688 persons, with the following ethnic breakdown of minority populations as defined in the Executive Order Section 101 (1-101) (US Census Bureau, 2000a):

White 79.2 percent (18,763 people) Hispanic 23.5 percent (5,555 people) Native American or Alaska Native 1.5 percent (348 people) Asian 2.2 percent (530 people) African American 0.8 percent (186 people) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.1 percent (32 people)

In 2000, the Sonoma County total population was 458,614 people, with the following ethnic breakdown (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b):

White 81.6 percent (374,209 people) Hispanic 17.3 percent (79,511 people) Native American or Alaska Native 1.2 percent (5,389 people) Asian 3.1 percent (14,098 people) African American 1.4 percent (6,522 people) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.2 percent (934 people)

U.S. Census data for the year 2000 reported the average household size in Windsor as 2.99 persons, which results in a federal poverty threshold of $13,874 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000c). As identified above, the 2000 median household income in Windsor was $62,781. Since the median household income level is $48,907 above the poverty threshold, Windsor is not defined as a low- income community. Pursuant to the CEQ and USEPA guidance on environmental justice analysis, there are no low-income populations identified in the project area.

3.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

3.7.1 TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS This section describes the existing intersections in the vicinity of the project site. A more detailed description and analysis is included in the Traffic Impact Study (Abrams Associates, 2009) (Appendix G).

INTERSECTIONS

The Traffic Impact Study (Abrams Associates, 2009) (Appendix G) evaluated the following ten intersections:

Eastside Road and Windsor River Road Windsor River Road and Proposed Project Entrance (#1) Windsor River Road and River Oak Lane -Proposed Project Entrance (#3) Windsor River Road and Starr Road

Analytical Environmental Services 3-45 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

Windsor River Road and Windsor Road Windsor River Road and Bell Road Windsor River Road and Old Redwood Highway Windsor River Road and South Bound Highway 101 Ramps Windsor River Road and North Bound Highway 101 Ramp – Lakeside Road Windsor River Road and Project Entrance (#3)

Intersections were selected for analysis by Abrams Associates, Inc, based on their proximity to the site, Town of Windsor, Sonoma County, and Caltrans guidelines, and their potential to be impacted by the Proposed Project. All intersections were analyzed for the AM peak hour (7:30 – 8:30 AM), and the PM commute peak hour (5:00-6:00 PM).

METHODOLOGY Level of Service Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure reflecting the traffic operation of the intersection, with LOS A representing best performance, and LOS F the worst. LOS describes the traffic conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Table 3-12 shows the corresponding average total delay per vehicle and a description of vehicular conditions at signalized intersections for each LOS category from A to F. These intersections are evaluated based upon the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodologies. Table 3-13 provides similar information for unsignalized intersections.

TABLE 3-12 LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Level-of-Service Description LOS “A” Free flow. If signalized, conditions are such that no V/C Range1 0.0 – 0.60 vehicle phase is fully utilized and no vehicle waits Average Stop Delay (seconds) 0.0 – 10.0 through more than one red indication. Very slight or no delay. LOS “B” Stable flow. If signalized, an occasional approach V/C Range 0.61 – 0.70 phase is fully utilized; vehicle platoons are formed. Average Stop Delay (seconds) 10.1 – 20.0 Slight delay. LOS “C” Stable flow or operation. Drivers occasionally may V/C Range 0.71 – 0.80 have to wait through more than one red phase. Average Stop Delay (seconds) 20.1 – 35.0 Acceptable delay. LOS “D” Approaching unstable flow or operation; queues V/C Range 0.81 – 0.90 develop but quickly clear. Tolerable delay. Average Stop Delay (seconds) 35.1 – 55.0 LOS “E” Unstable flow or operation; the intersection has V/C Range 0.91 – 1.00 reached capacity. Congestion and intolerable delay. Average Stop Delay (seconds) 55.1 – 80.0 LOS “F” Forced flow or operation. Intersection operates V/C Range2 1.00 or less below capacity. Jammed. - Measured 1.01 or more Average Stop Delay (seconds) >80 NOTES: 1 The “V/C” ratio is the ratio of the traffic volume to the roadway capacity (both in vehicles per hour) 2 While forecast demands can exceed maximum capacity, actual measured volumes theoretically cannot. Since traffic intersections arise at capacity demand conditions, the calculated V/C ratios for LOS “F” conditions can be substantially below a V/C of 1.00. Source: Abrams Associates, 2009

Analytical Environmental Services 3-46 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

TABLE 3-13 LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Average Total Delay Traffic Condition (seconds/vehicle) A <10 No Delay B >10 – 15 Short Delay C >15 – 25 Moderate Delay D >25 – 35 Long Delay E >35 – 50 Very Long Delay F >50 Volume > Capacity Source: Abrams Associates, 2009

Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service Table 3-14 summarizes the existing a.m. and p.m. peak-hour LOS at each study intersection, with the exception of intersection #2 (future stop sign). Eight out of nine study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Intersection #9 (Windsor River Road and NB Highway 101 Off-Ramp-Lakeside Road) currently operate at LOS E+.

Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian System Existing sidewalks and developed bike lanes along Windsor River Road terminate east of the project site near the Town of Windsor. The designated Class II lanes within the Town of Windsor are on-road lanes with designated striping and signage, whereas the Class III lanes closer to the project site are on-road with no designated lanes. The Sonoma County Transportation Authority Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan indicates that bike lanes along unincorporated Windsor River Road are expected to be designated as Class II (Sonoma County Transportation Authority, 2008). Observations of the road indicate that pedestrian and bicycle activities are low.

Transit Service Sonoma County Transit provides bus services to Sonoma County, and surrounding communities, including the Town of Windsor. Route 60 provides regional service between Cloverdale and Santa Rosa and operates on Windsor River Road and Starr Road on one-hour headways. Route 66 (Windsor Shuttle) provides local service through the Town of Windsor with headways of just over an hour.

TABLE 3-14 EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE AND AVERAGE DELAY OF STUDY INTERSECTIONS Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak PM Peak LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay #1. Eastside Road and Stop Sign B 10.1 B 10 Windsor River (Future) Road #3. Windsor River Road Stop Sign A 9.7 A 9.5 and Project (Future) Entrance (#3) #4. Windsor River Road All-Way Stop B 11.2 A 9.6 and Starr

Analytical Environmental Services 3-47 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

Intersection Traffic Control AM Peak PM Peak LOS Average Delay LOS Average Delay Road #5. Windsor River Road Traffic Signal C 30.4 C+ 22.0 and Windsor Road #6. Windsor River Road Stop Sign C 19.9 C 21.6 and Bell Road #7. Windsor River Road Traffic Signal C 29.7 C 31.1 and Old Redwood Hwy #8. Windsor River Road Traffic Signal B 15.9 B 16.6 and SB Hwy 101 Ramps #9. Windsor River Road and NB Hwy Traffic Signal C- 32.1 E+ 59.1 101 Off-Ramp – Lakeside Road #10. Windsor River Road Stop Sign A 9.7 A 9.5 and Project Entrance #2 Source: Abrams Associates, 2009

3.8 LAND USE

NEPA requires an assessment of a project’s effect on adopted land use plans as well as plans that have been formally proposed and are being actively pursued by officials of the jurisdiction. Accordingly, adopted and proposed land use regulations are discussed below.

Land uses on the 92-acre project site include six single-family residences and their ancillary structures as well as undeveloped oak woodland habitat. The site is located in unincorporated Sonoma County near the urban/rural community of Windsor, California, which is located approximately 150 feet north of the project site. As shown in Figure 3-5, APNs 066-191-017, 066-191-018, and 066-191-022 are located within the Town of Windsor Sphere of Influence and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Land between the project site and the Town of Windsor is comprised of rural residences, agriculture, and open space.

3.8.1 SONOMA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN (2020) According to the Sonoma County General Plan, APNs 066-300-028 and 066-300-033 have a land use designation of “Resources and Rural Development” (RRD), which protects lands used for timber, geothermal, and mineral resources production and for natural resource conservation (Figure 3-5). Under this designation, single-family homes/dwellings are permitted at low densities, between 20 and 320 acres per dwelling. These parcels are also zoned as “RRD” with the “Scenic Resources” combining district (Figure 3-5). RRD-zoned parcels may contain houses

Analytical Environmental Services 3-48 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment LEGEND

Approximate Property Boundary d d R R

r Town of Windsor Sphere r of Influence/Urban Growth Boundary r r a a t t S

ZONING DESIGNATIONS S Spriingffiielld Ctt Land Intensive Agriculture Siiriius Dr

E E AR Agriculture and Residential District

a a

s s

t t

s s RRD Resources and Rural Development i i

d d

e e

LAND USE DESIGNATIONS R R

d r

Land Intensive Agriculturt e

RR Rural Residential

RRD Resources and Rural Development

e t

err Rd t S orr Riiv Feet S Wiinds Wiindsor Riiver Rd

0 400 800 Dortthea Ctt

Venttnor Ave

IInd iiana Ave

tt Riichardson Rd S A

SOURCE: Healdsburg, CA” USGS 7.5 Topographic Quadrangle, Section 15, T8N, R8W & R9W, Mt. Diablo Baseline & Merdian; Sonoma County Lytton Residential Development EA / 207513 Permit Resource Planning Dept, 2004; AES 2009 Figure 3-5 Sonoma County Land Use and Zoning Map 3.0 Affected Environment at the same densities allowed in RRD land use areas (SCZC, 1993b).

The remaining six parcels within the project site have a land use designation of “Rural Residential” (RR) (Figure 3-5). The primary permitted use of RR is detached single-family homes, with other permitted uses including attached dwellings, farming, small scale animal husbandry, small scale home care and group care facilities, and other uses incidental to and compatible with the primary use. Densities for development in RR areas range from 1 to 20 acres per dwelling (SCZC, 1993a).

Land uses surrounding the project site include RRD land use designations to the northwest, west, and south. Further west, along the Russian River, land is designated as “Land Intensive Agriculture.” Lands to the northeast, east, and southeast have “Agricultural and Residential District” (AR) designations (Figure 3-5). AR-zoned parcels may contain houses at the same densities allowed in RR land use areas (SCZC, 1993a).

3.8.2 TOWN OF WINDSOR GENERAL PLAN (2015) APNs 066-191-017, 066-191-018, and 066-191-022 are located within the Town of Windsor Sphere of Influence, UGB and Special Planning Area E (Figure 3-6). According to the Town of Windsor General Plan Map, these parcels have a land use designation of “Estate Residential/Low Density Residential” (ER). Under this designation single-family homes are permitted at densities from 0.2-3 dwelling units/acre or 0.6-8.6 persons/acre.

As shown in Figure 3-6, an agricultural buffer area is located on portions of APNs 066-191-017, 066-191-018, and 066-191-022. Agricultural buffers are meant to protect the continued viability of neighboring agricultural operations. The Town of Windsor General Plan (2015) indicates that if the existing agricultural property lies outside the UGB, then the agricultural buffer should be permanent. Currently, the area contains several structures and a road; no permanent buffer is located in the agricultural buffer area.

APNs 066-191-017, 066-191-018, and 066-191-022 are located within Special Planning Area E. Items to be studied within Area E include an interconnected street system to provide a connection between Windsor River Road and Gumview Road and/or Windsor River Road and Starr View Road; area drainage and the use of detention points; biotic resources, the rural atmosphere, an appropriate density within the Estate Residential range, the community edge, and the Town’s western gateway. Policies specific to this planning area include:

New residences in this area should be compatible with the existing low density, dispersed development pattern. Special attention should be accorded to natural resources preservation because the area contains both oaks and riparian habitat. Because of the site’s natural amenities and location at the periphery of the Urban Growth Boundary, the Town should encourage the use of landscaped setbacks and trails to help define the edge for the neighborhood and the boundary for the Town’s urban limits.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-50 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment d d R R

r r r r a a t t S S Spriingffiielld Ctt Siiriius Dr

E E

a a

s s

t t

s s

i i

d d

e e

R R

d r

e t

err Rd t S orr Riiv S Wiinds Wiindsor Riiver Rd

Dortthea Ctt

Venttnor Ave

IInd iiana Ave

S LEGEND S

Approximate Property Boundary

Town of Windsor Sphere of Influence/Urban Growth Boundary CITY OF WINDSOR LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

Special Planning Area E

Agricultural Buffer

r Low Density Residential r

S Low-Medium Density Residential S

Open Space Feet tt Riichardson Rd S A Parks 0 400 800 Public/Quasi-Public

SOURCE: Town of Windsor, 2005; Brelje & Race Civil Engineers, 2005; AES 2009 Lytton Residential Development EA / 207513 Figure 3-6 Town of Windsor Land Use Designations 3.0 Affected Environment

In conjunction with discretionary review for development proposals in this area, the use of onsite detention ponds to reduce stormwater peak flows off-site shall be included in the environmental analysis and required if determined to reduce stormwater peak flow downstream.

3.8.3 AGRICULTURE

REGULATORY SETTING Williamson Act The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, better known as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter contracts with private land owners to maintain agricultural or open space use on their properties in exchange for lower property tax assessments. These contracts have a term of no less than 10 years and are automatically renewed unless a notice of cancelation or nonrenewal is given (CDC, 2008). The project site is not under an active Williamson Act Contract, although several parcels in the vicinity, including a parcel immediately south of the site, are under a Williamson Act Contract (Figure 3-7).

Farmland Protection Policy Act The Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-98) contained the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (Subtitle I of Title XV, Section 1539-1549). The purpose of the FPPA is to minimize the impact of Federal programs on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), within the California Department of Conservation (CDC), maps activity from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on a continuing basis. The FMMP produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s agricultural resources (CDC, 2004).

The FPPA created the farmland classification system which consists of five specific farmland categories, all of which are found in the County. These categories include:

Prime Agriculture Land: Soils which have the best combinations of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of crops. The land must have been used for the production of irrigated crops at sometime during the two updated cycles prior to the mapping date (7 U.S.C. 4201(c)(1)(A)).

Unique Farmland: Soils other than prime farmland that are used for the production of specific high value food and fiber crops. These soils have a special combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of high quality or high yields of specific crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods (7 U.S.C. 4201(c)(1)(B)).

Important Farmland: Soils other than prime or unique farmland that is of statewide or local importance for the production of crops. The appropriate State or local government determines the important farmland with concurrence from the State Conservationist. In some localities,

Analytical Environmental Services 3-52 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment LEGEND d Approximate Property Boundary d Feet R R

r r r r a Sonoma County Parcels a t t S S Williiamson Act Prime Agricultural Land Spriingffiielld0 Ctt 400 800 Siiriius Dr

E E

a a

s s

t t

s s

i i

d d

e e

R R

d d

e t err Rd t

v S orr Rii S Wiinds Wiindsor Riiver Rd

Dortthea Ctt

Venttnor Ave

IInd iiana Ave

S Riichardson Rd S

tt S A

Lytton Residential Development EA / 207513 SOURCE: Sonoma County Permit Resource Planning Dept, 2004; AES 2009 Figure 3-7 Williamson Act Map 3.0 Affected Environment farmlands of statewide and local importance may include tracts of land that have been designated for agriculture by state law or local ordinance (7 U.S.C. 4201(c)(1)(C)).

Grazing Land: Defined in Government Code § 65570(b)(3) as: “…land on which the existing vegetation, whether grown naturally or through management, is suitable for grazing or browsing of livestock.

The project site consists of three FMMP land classifications, farmland of local importance, grazing land, and other land. The classification of other land is given to lands which are not included in any other mapping category. Examples of lands classified as other land include low density rural developments, brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock (CDC, 2006). A map of the project site’s classifications is represented in Figure 3-8. The land to the west, across Eastside Road, is classified as prime agricultural land. The land to the north, south, and east is a mixture of farmland of local and statewide importance, prime farmland, and grazing land.

The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), an agency of the Department of Agriculture (DOA), fulfills the directives of the Soil and Water Conservation Act (16 USC § 2001-2009) by identifying significant areas of concern for the protection of our resources. NRCS uses a land evaluation and site assessment (LESA) system to establish a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (FCIR) score. The FCIR is completed on form AD-1006 (NRCS, 2008b). The FCIR form has two components: land evaluation, which rates soil quality up to 100 points, and the site assessment, which measures other factors that affect the farm’s viability up to 160 points.

The total FCIR score is used as an indicator for the project’s sponsor to consider alternative sites if the potential adverse impacts on the farmland exceed the allowable level. Sites receiving a combined score of less than 160 (out of 260 possible points) do not require further evaluation; alternative project locations should be considered for sites with a combined score greater than 160 points. An FCIR form was completed for the project site (Appendix H). The project site received a total of 93 points; as this score is less than 160 points, no further evaluation is needed.

Sonoma County Right to Farm Ordinance The Sonoma County Right to Farm Ordinance was adopted in 1999 by the Board of Supervisors to support County policies regarding the conservation and enhancement of agricultural operations in unincorporated County lands. The stated purpose and intent of the Right to Farm Ordinance is to reduce impacts to County agricultural resources “by limiting the circumstances under which properly conducted agricultural operations on agricultural land may be considered a nuisance.” The ordinance promotes a good-neighbor policy by requiring that users of property adjacent to or near agricultural operations be notified of the inherent potential problems associated with being located near such operations, including noise, odors, dust, operation of machinery, application of fertilizers, soil amendments, seeds and pesticides and other potential effects. Through annual notification through a notice included with their annual tax bill, it is intended that property owners will better understand the potential consequences of being located near agricultural operations. The ordinance states that attendant conditions from properly conducted agricultural

Analytical Environmental Services 3-54 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment n L e d M n R ari e le

e Mildr i ed Ct v l

Pl H lton Fu Arata Ln re Ln elfio L B o s A m

d ig

R n o L s d r b Po W le R llard Way r R il d e i M d lc R H r d o D e i x d M o J

K s a R Ru w ne D a d Rio o r r t o i d n d H R R ld Gumview Rd w o d

h d y der

l R i O D W Starburs awn Way h t Ct l d c R Fontana Rd e

r e t Starr View Dr W d s Co w k ll a e l o r c t e e o

o n D n ay d Gemini D W R n r i o D H R Or r w a r Robbie Way i y n

t B r

a e e k r e i w r S

E E y t ir n a llington C Springfield Ct e s W W t R

s a i y i v d e e r P R O a r d a k Glen Dr k Buckingham Dr

s R L re Ln Wild Oak Dr n shi

E Hamp

Windsor River Rd d B V R

l e l

I Vivi an Ct l e W l all St S B

R t

Creek view Pl

d t

r y

o h

A t

d a

I n

i C

W S Woody Cree S k Ln

R Richardson Rd d Plant Rd R

r S r S A St

t U

L D

S S t B St U E H St S St t C St

t G

S S K t lo P S St er Rd A St Reiman Ln

W k e e k r Ambe a C r R O r idg s o e W n d ay i W Wilson Ln Cooper Way

Jones Rd Russian River Gravel Company Rd LEGEND

Property Boundary Prime Farmland Farmland of Local Potential

k Water Bodies Farmland of Statewide Importance Grazing Land e e r Shiloh Rd C

Creek/Stream Unique Farmland Other Lanld o o Irrigated Farmland Urban Pand Built-Up Land Feet k e Nonirrigated Farmland e Water Area Sanders Rd Ballard Rd r K C n e 0 960 1,920 Farmland of Local Importancre Out of Survey Area c o h

s t

d R i n d W

Lytton Residential Development EA / 207513 SOURCE: State of California FMMP, 2006; Sonoma County GIS Data, 2/9/2007; AES 2009 Figure 3-8 Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP) Designations 3.0 Affected Environment operations shall not be considered a nuisance to adjacent property owners and shall be accepted as being a normal and necessary aspect of being located in a rural area (Sonoma County, 1999).

According to the 2007 Sonoma County Crop Report the value of agricultural production for the County was approximately $635,055,700. The majority of that value, $416, 549, 600, was from the cultivation of wine grapes. Wine grape cultivation covers approximately 60,000 acres of Sonoma County. Other crops include livestock and poultry, nursery plants, vegetables, apples, and oat hay.

3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES

3.9.1 WATER SUPPLY APN 066-300-028 has an existing connection to the local municipal water provider for the area, the Windsor Water District (WWD). The WWD primarily collects and distributes water from a collection of groundwater wells located near the Russian River; one of these wells is located to the northwest of the project site across Eastside Road. Water is supplied to the Town of Windsor through two large transmission mains, one of which parallels the northern boundary of the project site, along Windsor River Road. The other four residences located on the project site, as well as neighboring residences and vineyards, currently utilize potable water from groundwater wells in the area. The principal aquifer in the region and vicinity of the project site is the Glen Ellen Formation. As discussed in Section 3.2.2 the groundwater yields in the Glen Ellen Formation are highly variable, as the hydraulic properties vary over small distances and the permeability is generally low.

Due to an approved voter initiative in 1998, which was later incorporated into the Town of Windsor General Plan, areas outside of the Town Boundary are not to be served with water supply or sewer services by the municipality.

3.9.2 WASTEWATER SERVICE

The Windsor Wastewater Treatment, Reclamation, and Disposal Facility (WWTRDF), located at 8400 Windsor Road, includes biological secondary treatment and advanced wastewater treatment (AWT). The WWTRDF is capable of treating 2.25 million gallons per day (mgd), average dry weather flow and 7.2 mgd, peak weekly wet weather flow. Treated and UV (ultra violet) disinfected effluent is reclaimed on Town-owned and private landscapes. Advanced treated effluent that is not reclaimed is discharged to Mark West Creek during the allowed discharge period (NCWQCB, 2007c). The point of discharge is shown on Figure 5 of Appendix E.

The project site is not currently developed for a direct connection to the municipal wastewater service system in the area. The existing, onsite residences are currently served by septic systems, as are other nearby residences. The WWTRDF is responsible for the proper treatment, storage, and disposal of wastewater in the Town of Windsor. As with the municipal water supply system, wastewater services for residences outside Town of Windsor City Limits are not provided by the municipality.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-56 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

3.9.3 SOLID WASTE Management of non-hazardous solid waste in Sonoma County is mandated by Assembly Bill (AB) 939, the California Integrated Waste Management Act. The purpose of AB 939 is to reduce, recycle, and reuse solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible; improve regulation of existing solid waste landfills; ensure that new solid waste landfills are environmentally sound; streamline permitting procedures for solid waste management facilities; and specify the responsibilities of local governments to develop and implement integrated waste management programs.

AB 939 set forth policies and mandated requirements for the State and local governments. Among them is a hierarchy of preferred waste management practices. The highest priority is to reduce the amount of waste generated at its source (source reduction). Second in the hierarchy is to reuse, by extending the life of existing products and recycling those wastes that can be reused as components or feed stock for the manufacture of new products, and by composting organic materials. Source reduction, reuse, recycling and composting are jointly referred to as waste diversion methods because they divert waste from disposal. Third and lowest in the hierarchy is disposal by environmentally safe transformation in a landfill. AB 939 and California Public Resources Code 41780 enforce this prioritization by requiring that all local jurisdictions, cities, and counties divert 50 percent of the total waste stream from landfill disposal by the year 2000 and each year thereafter (using 1990 as the base year). Each local jurisdiction must demonstrate compliance by instituting source reduction programs. The County’s waste diversion rate for 2006 was 64 percent. Waste that is not diverted for recycling is currently hauled out of the county to one of four private landfills (Sonoma County, 2008).

The project site is located in an area served by Windsor Refuse and Recycling, subsidiary to North Bay Corporation, which is a private contractor serving Sonoma County with solid waste services. Residents are provided with three roll out bins for garbage, organic wastes, and recyclables. Recyclables include glass, paper, plastic, and cardboards with a CRV 1-7 rating.

3.9.4 ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides electrical and natural gas services to the Town of Windsor. Some rural areas do not have access to natural gas service due to lack of infrastructure. The majority of existing homes on the project site use individual propane tanks for a gas source. Propane providers in the area include Ferrell Gas and Americas Propane Inc. Natural gas for the private residence on APN 066-191-020 is provided by PG&E. AT&T provides the telecommunication services to the project area through transmission lines running parallel to Windsor River Road, north of the project site. AT&T also has internet, wireless phone, and long distance phone services. A variety of providers offer cellular and cable service in the County.

3.9.5 LAW ENFORCEMENT California is a Public Law 280 state that allows for state criminal law enforcement jurisdiction on Tribal trust lands; however, this jurisdiction does not include regulatory civil law authority.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-57 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

Depending on the crime (pursuant to Public Law 280 and the Major Crimes Act), the U.S. Marshals may provide support in specified situations. Law enforcement services for the unincorporated portions of the County are provided by the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department headquartered in Santa Rosa. The Department is also under contract to provide law enforcement services to the Town of Windsor and the City of Sonoma. The Windsor Police Department (WPD) and Sonoma Police Department (SPD) are staffed by Sheriff’s Department employees and receive the same services as the unincorporated portions of the County. These services include but are not limited to: a helicopter unit, canine (K9) unit, crime scene investigation team, narcotics unit, special operations unit, bomb unit, and coroner unit (SCSD, 2009).

In the 2007-2008 fiscal year, the Department had 1.17 sworn officers per 1,000 civilians and received approximately 18,114 incident calls for the Town of Windsor (SCSD, 2009). The Windsor Police Department is the closest Sheriff’s station and is located approximately 0.96 miles northeast of the project site.

3.9.6 FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL The Windsor Fire Protection District (WFPD) provides fire suppression and emergency medical services to the Town of Windsor and some surrounding unincorporated areas, which include the project site. As a fire protection district, WFPD is governed by an elected five-person Board of Directors and is funded through taxes and donations. The WFPD has 10 paid employees and 31 volunteers to serve 30,000 people in 30 square miles (5 square miles of Town of Windsor; 25 square miles surrounding unincorporated area). WFPD staffs two fire stations: Station 1, located at 8200 Old Redwood Highway, and Station 2, located at 444 Windsor River Road. Station 1 is open 24 hours a day 7 days a week and is staffed with two fire captains, two fire engineers, and at least one fire fighter. Station 2 is staffed with volunteers from 10 a.m. – 6 p.m. daily. Due to the population increase over the last decade, the WFPD is currently constructing a new Station 2 at 8600 Windsor Road (WFPD, 2008). The existing Station 2 is the closest station approximately 1 mile from the site. However, when Station 2 is closed, Station 1, located approximately 2.5 miles southeast, would serve the site. Response time to the project site ranges between 5-12 minutes (WFPD, 2004)

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) aids local fire departments in wildfire situations. It maintains the most resources in the fire season from late May to early October. CAL FIRE has a responsibility to provide wildland fire services to the project site, as is located in a State Responsibility Area that has a moderate wildfire threat (FRAP, 2007). The nearest CAL FIRE station is located at 1745 Redwood Drive in Healdsburg, approximately 5.5 miles north of the project site. The Sonoma Air Attack Base (SAAB), located at the Sonoma County Airport, is one of 13 CAL FIRE Air Attack Bases statewide. The SAAB responds to an average of 300 calls per year both in and out of its immediate response area, which covers 4,000 square miles (CAL FIRE, 2005).

According to the Coastal Valley Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Agency (2008), Redwood Empire Dispatch Communications Authority (REDCOM) is a joint powers authority (JPA), which operates the Sonoma County EMS Dispatch Center. REDCOM provides Emergency

Analytical Environmental Services 3-58 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

Medical Dispatch and pre-arrival instructions to the County’s Public Safety Answering Points. Ambulance services or emergency medical services are dispatched through 911 and are provided by several companies, including nine ground ambulance providers and two helicopter providers. The response time for the project site depends on which provider is available and where they are located. The nearest hospital emergency room is Healdsburg District Hospital, located at 1375 University St in Healdsburg, California.

3.9.7 PUBLIC SCHOOLS The project site is located within the Windsor Unified School District (WUSD). Schools within approximately one mile of the site that are part of the WUSD are Cali Calmecac Charter School, Windsor High School, Windsor Oaks Academy, and Windsor Creek Elementary. Table 3-15 shows the location, grade range, and 2007-2008 enrollment for each of the schools.

Other schools in the vicinity, not associated with the WUSD, include the Windsor Cooperative Nursery, Grace Academy, and Santa Rosa Junior College Public Safety Training Center. According to the Windsor General Plan, a future 40-acre high school will be designed within Windsor by 2015.

TABLE 3-15 PUBLIC SCHOOLS

School Location Grade Range 2007-2008 Enrollment

Cali Calmecac 9491 Starr Rd. K-8 980

Windsor High School 8695 Windsor Rd. 9-12 1,608

Windsor Oaks Academy 8681 Windsor Rd. 10-12 82 Windsor Creek 8955 Conde Lane 2-3 521 Elementary Source: WUSD, 2007

3.9.8 PARKS AND RECREATION The Austin Creek State Recreation Area (SRA) and the Armstrong Red Woods State Natural Reserve (SNR) are located approximately 10 miles west of the project site. The SRA offers campsites specific to bikers and hikers, campers, and families. The 5583-acre SRA also boasts numerous trails for hiking and horseback riding that scale the park’s rugged topography, with elevations ranging from 150-1500 feet (CSP, 2008a). The SNR borders the SRA to the south and is accessible thought the same entrance. The 805-acre park does not have campsites, but it does have trails for hikers, horseback riders, and nature lovers throughout the redwood grove. There is a visiting center with information on the exhibits and programs available in the SNR (CSP, 2008b). The Windsor Golf Club is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the project site.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-59 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

3.10 NOISE

3.10.1 NOISE EXPOSURE AND COMMUNITY NOISE Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) which is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain.

Environmental noise is typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). A dBA is a dB corrected for the variation in frequency response of the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. In general, A-weighting of environmental sound consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound, taking into account the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extremely high frequencies than in the frequency mid-range.

An individual’s noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. However, community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources in the community noise environment. What makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day is the addition of short duration single event noise sources such as aircraft flyovers, vehicle pass-bys, sirens, etc., which are readily identifiable to the individual. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment varies the community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors such as Leq,

Ldn, and Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which averages noise over a specified number of hours.

Part of community noise level is construction noise. Construction noise is dominated by heavy equipment and is discussed further in Section 4.11. In general, noise emitted from construction projects is intermittent and short-term in nature and will generally occur during the daytime hours.

Generally, the noise environment in a community is dominated by traffic noise. Typically it takes an additional 200 vehicles per hour to increase the ambient noise levels in an area (Traffic Noise Calculator, 2007).

3.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING

The Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal agencies, consider outdoor day-night noise exposure up to 65 dBA, Ldn as acceptable under most circumstances. The FHWA considers 75 dBA as acceptable during construction, if construction is conducted between the hours of 7 am and 6 pm (FHWA, 2006).

Analytical Environmental Services 3-60 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment

Sonoma County General Plan The Sonoma general plan policies are listed for the purpose of analyzing off-reservation impact from traffic noise. Policies contained within the Sonoma County General Plan, 1989 (General Plan) provide standards for ambient noise levels. The following Goal and Objectives are applicable:

Noise level performance standards in Table NE-2 (shown as Table 3-16) below are to be applied as performance standards for noise producing land uses which may affect noise sensitive land uses and vice versa. Infrequent single events such as passage of a train, truck, or airplane may interfere with adjacent uses even though the cumulative noise exposure is within acceptable limits. These events call for a single event noise standard. The potential for sleep disturbance is often the main concern in these cases.

Goal NE-1.1: Protect people from the harmful effects of exposure to excessive noise and to achieve an environment in which people and land uses may function without impairment from noise.

Objective NE-2.1: Protect the present noise environment and prevent intrusion of new noise sources which would substantially alter the noise environment.

TABLE 3-16 NOISE LEVEL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Maximum Exterior Noise Level Standards, dBA Category Cumulative Duration of Noise Daytime 7 a.m. Nighttime10 p.m. Event in any one-hour period to 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 1 30-60 Minutes 50 45 2 15-30 " 55 50 3 5-15 " 60 55 4 1-5 " 65 60 5 0-1 " 70 65

Sonoma County, 2008

The following policies shall be used to achieve the above objective:

NE-2a: Designate areas within Sonoma County as noise impacted if they are exposed to existing or projected exterior noise levels exceeding 60 dB Ldn, 60 dB CNEL, or the performance standards of Table NE-2 (Shown as Table 3-16).

NE-2b: Avoid noise sensitive land use development in noise impacted areas unless effective measures are included to reduce noise levels. For noise due to traffic on public roadways, railroads and airports, reduce exterior noise to 60 dB Ldn or less in outdoor activity areas and interior noise levels to 45 dB Ldn or less with windows and doors closed. Where it is not possible

Analytical Environmental Services 3-61 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment to meet this 60 dB Ldn standard using a practical application of the best available noise reduction technology, a maximum level of up to 65 dB Ldn may be allowed but interior noise level shall be maintained so as not to exceed 45 dB Ldn.

3.10.3 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, and parks and other outdoor recreation areas generally are more sensitive to noise than are commercial and industrial land uses. A sensitive receptor is defined as any living entity or aggregate of entities whose comfort, health, or well-being could be impaired or endangered by the existence of the criteria pollutant, whether it is emissions or noise, in the atmosphere.

Sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site include primarily nearby residences. The closest of these are located approximately 100 feet east of APN 066-191-022 and approximately 100 feet east of APN 066-191-020. Another nearby residence is located approximately 150 feet north of APN 066-300-031, on the north side of Windsor River Road. Approximately eight residences are located on large individual parcels within 0.25 miles of the proposed project. A high-density residential development is located directly north of APN 066-191-022; approximately 10 houses in this development are located along Windsor River Road in the vicinity of the Proposed Project’s northeast corner. The nearest schools are the Windsor Cooperative Nursery and the Cali Calmecac Charter School, both of which are located approximately 0.50 miles from the project site.

3.10.4 EXISTING NOISE SOURCES

The noise environment surrounding the project site is influenced primarily by vehicle noise traveling on Windsor River Road. The surrounding area is mainly populated with single-family residences. Therefore, the area is characterized as rural suburban and is assumed to have a typical ambient noise level of 55 dBA during the day and 45 dBA or less at night.

3.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Two Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) and three supplemental Phase I ESAs were conducted for the 92-acre project site to determine if any Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) exist (Appendix J). RECs refer to the presence or likely presence of conditions on a property that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. This includes hazardous substances and petroleum products. All Phase I ESAs were prepared in accordance with the BIA Guidelines (602 DM Chapter 2) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice E 1527-05. The ESAs included site reconnaissance, review of federal and state regulatory agency records and databases, interviews with local officials and property owners and review of historical aerial photographs of

Analytical Environmental Services 3-62 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment the 92-acre project site. Following is a summary of the site reconnaissance for each parcel.

APN 066-191-017 includes one single-story house, one mobile home and a detached barn. The remaining land consists of pasture and open space. The house is supplied with water by an onsite domestic well and is equipped with a septic system. A 500-gallon propane tank, two tires, water trough, and a pile of non-hazardous debris were observed on the parcel (AES, 2009d).

APN 066-191-018 includes one pole mounted transformer (AES, 2009d).

APN 066-191-020 includes one single-story 1,800 square foot house. The remaining land consists of pasture and open space. The house is supplied with water by an on-site domestic well. The house is equipped with a septic system located in the driveway with visible inspection covers. Two 55-gallon drums of bio diesel (non-petroleum) and other non-hazardous debris were observed. Although the two 55-gallon drums were not in secondary containment, no leaks or visible stains were observed (AES, 2009e).

APN 066-191-022 includes four chicken coops which are used for storage, while an additional coop is overgrown with berry bushes. The remaining land consists of pasture and open space (AES, 2009d).

APN 066-300-028 includes two two-story houses and one storage shed. The remaining land consists of undeveloped oak woodland. The houses are supplied with water by the Town of Windsor. Each house has a 325-gallon propane tank and septic system (AES, 2008a).

APN 066-300-031 includes a two-story house and a shop/carport. The remaining land consists of undeveloped oak woodland. The house is supplied with water by an on-site domestic well. The house is equipped with a septic system. Containers of anti-freeze, motor oil, brake fluid, and gasoline were observed in the shop/carport area. None of the chemicals were in bulk quantity and all were stored within approved commercial containers. No unusual chemical odors or surface staining were observed on any portion of the parcel (AES, 2007a).

APN 066-300-033 consists primarily of undeveloped oak woodland. Non-hazardous debris was observed, including appliances, an automobile, two camper shells, an empty 55-gallon drum and several piles of wood debris (AES, 2007b).

Database searches were conducted for records of known storage tank sites and known sites of hazardous materials generation, storage, or contamination. Databases were searched for sites and listings up to 1.5 miles from a point roughly equivalent to the center of the 92-acre property. Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR) indicated a total of two sites within a 0.5-mile radius of all parcels. The first site is the Windsor Prisoner of War Camp (POW) located approximately 0.40 miles north of the project site. No address is given for the former POW site. Historically, the site was used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as a camp for migrant farm workers and later as a POW labor camp during World War II. There are no records of hazardous material being released on the site. No potential hazards related to Department of Defense activity have

Analytical Environmental Services 3-63 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment 3.0 Affected Environment been located at this site. Based on the current regulatory status and lack of violations reported, this site is not considered to represent a likely past, present, or material threat of release on the property (AES, 2009d). The second site is the Eff Waugh site which is located approximately 0.44 miles southwest of the project site at 9228 Eastside Road, Healdsburg, California. The site is listed on the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) and the California State Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites (Cortese) databases for the release of gasoline into the groundwater. Preliminary site assessments are underway and affected soils were being excavated and removed to an approved site during the time the Phase I site assessments were being conducted (AES, 2007a).

Based on the site reconnaissance of the parcels, review of federal and state regulatory agency records and databases, interviews with local officials and property owners and review of historical aerial photographs, the Phase I ESAs did not identify any Recognized Environmental Conditions on the parcels.

3.12 VISUAL RESOURCES

The visual characteristics of the project site and surrounding areas are similar to the rest of the Town of Windsor and typical of rural Sonoma County. The Sonoma County General Plan designates the project site as Resources and Rural Development, which allows low-density development as well as resource management and enhancement activities, including but not limited to the management of timber, geothermal and aggregate resources, fish and wildlife habitat, and watershed. APNs 066-300-028 and 066-300-033 are located within the Eastside Road Scenic Landscape Unit, which require the uses and intensities of any land development to be consistent with preservation of important scenic features (Sonoma County, 2008). Specific objectives related to scenic resources in the Open Space Element of the Sonoma County General Plan call for the retention of the rural, scenic character of Scenic Landscape Units by permitting very low density uses, minimizing cuts and fills of ridges and hills, and protecting ridges and crests of prominent hills from the silhouetting of structures against the sky.

The project site is sparsely developed with six single-family houses, three barns, and four chicken coops located throughout the property. The site is primarily comprised of gently sloping to hilly mixed oak woodland habitat, with mature trees found throughout the 92 acres. Highway 101 is located approximately two miles to the east and is not visible from the project site. Main access is provided by Windsor River Road, which is a two-lane rural collector road with a speed limit of 45 mph and paved shoulders. Regular street lamps are not provided along Windsor River Road or Eastside Road, and most local residences use limited outdoor lighting. Photographs of the surrounding visual setting and some of the nearest sensitive visual receptors are provided in Figure 3-9.

Analytical Environmental Services 3-64 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment PHOTO 1 PHOTO 2 View of Windsor River Road facing west. View of residence located east of APN 066-191-022.

PHOTO 3 PHOTO 4 View of residence located east of APN 066-191-020. View of residence located north of APN 066-300-031.

PHOTO 5 PHOTO 6 View of a residential development located north of APN 066-191-022. View of vineyards and winery located south of APN 066-300-031.

Lytton Residential Development EA / 207513 SOURCE: AES, 2009 Figure 3-9 Site Photographs 3.0 Affected Environment

Visual resources surrounding the project site include views of Windsor River Road (Photo 1, Figure 3-9), Eastside Road, commercial vineyards, and mostly low-density rural residential development. Surrounding areas have limited views of the project site due to screening from hilly terrain and extensive vegetation around and within the project site.

Sensitive visual receptors are limited to nearby residences. The closest of these are located approximately 100 feet east of APN 066-191-022 (Photo 2, Figure 3-9) and approximately 100 feet east of APN 066-191-020 (Photo 3, Figure 3-9). Another nearby residence is located approximately 150 feet north of APN 066-300-031, on the north side of Windsor River Road (Photo 4, Figure 3-9). Approximately eight residences are located on large (>1 acre) individual parcels within 0.25 miles of the proposed project. A high-density residential development is located directly north of APN 066-191-022; approximately 10 houses in this development are located along Windsor River Road in the vicinity of the Proposed Project’s northeast corner. However, this neighborhood has an eight-foot high fence bordering Windsor River Road that effectively screens views to and from the project site (Photo 5, Figure 3-9). A single winery is located immediately south of APN 066-300-031, within extensive associated vineyards (Photo 6, Figure 3-9).

Analytical Environmental Services 3-66 Lytton Property Residential Development 207513 Environmental Assessment