DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Resources Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

APPENDIX A Biological Resource Assessment, WRA 2018 Biological Resources Assessment ZONE 7 TRAIL PROJECT (APN: 99-550-2-3) LIVERMORE, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Pat Sotelo Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District 4444 East Avenue Livermore, California 94550 WRA Contacts: Geoff Smick [email protected] Kari Dupler [email protected] Date: October 2018 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94702 (415) 454-8868 tel [email protected] www.wra-ca.com ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Project Area Description .................................................................................... 6 1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................ 9 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 9 2.1 Sensitive Biological Communities ...................................................................... 9 2.1.1 Waters of the United States ................................................................... 9 2.1.2 Waters of the State ................................................................................ 9 2.1.3 Other Sensitive Biological Communities .............................................. 10 2.1.4 Relevant Local Policies, Ordinances, and Regulations ........................ 10 2.2 Special-Status Species and Critical Habitat ..................................................... 11 3.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................. 12 3.1 Biological Communities ................................................................................... 13 3.1.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities ................................................. 13 3.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities ........................................................ 13 3.2 Special-Status Species ................................................................................... 14 3.2.1 Literature Review ................................................................................. 14 3.2.2 Site Assessment .................................................................................. 14 4.0 RESULTS ............................................................................................................... 15 4.1 Soils ................................................................................................................ 15 4.2 Biological Communities ................................................................................... 18 4.2.1 Non-sensitive Biological Communities ................................................. 18 4.2.2 Locally Sensitive Biological Communities ............................................ 21 4.3 Special-status Species .................................................................................... 21 4.3.1 Special-status Plant Species ............................................................... 21 4.3.2 Special-status Wildlife Species ............................................................ 27 4.4 Special-status Wildlife Species Unlikely to Occur within the Project Area ......... 33 5.0 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION ............................................................. 34 5.1 Significance Threshold Criteria ........................................................................ 34 5.2 Avoidance and Minimization Measures ........................................................... 35 5.3 Potential Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures ............................ 35 6.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 39 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project Area Location Map .................................................................................6 Figure 2. Soils within the Project Area ............................................................................. 16 Figure 3. Biological Communities within the Project Area ................................................ 19 Figure 4. Special-Status Plants Documented within 5 miles of the Project Area .............. 21 Figure 5. Special-status Wildlife Species within a 5-Mile Radius of the Project Area ....... 27 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Description of California Rare Plant Ranks and Threat Codes ........................... 11 Table 2. Description of East Bay CNPS Rare Plant Rankings ......................................... 12 iii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Wildlife and Plant Species Observed in the Project Area Appendix B – Potential for Special-status Species to Occur in the Project Area Appendix C – Representative Photographs of the Project Area LIST OF PREPARERS Jonathan Hidalgo, Project Manager Kari Dupler, Senior Wetland Biologist Susie Bennett, Biologist Rei Scampavia, Biologist Gregory Sproull, Associate Biologist iv LIST OF ACRONYMS AWS Alameda whipsnake BRA Biological Resource Assessment CAL-IPC California Invasive Plant Council CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CESA California Endangered Species Act CFGC California Fish and Game Code CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRLF California red-legged frog CTS California tiger salamander CWA Clean Water Act EACCS East Alameda County Conservation Strategy EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act LARPD Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act NWI National Wetland Inventory RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geologic Survey WBWG Western Bat Working Group WRA WRA, Inc. v 1.0 INTRODUCTION WRA, Inc. (WRA) prepared this biological resource assessment (BRA) report on behalf of the Livermore Area Recreation and Parks District (LARPD) for the installation of a proposed trail through Zone 7 managed land (Project). The Project Area is located approximately 0.67 mile southeast of the City of Livermore in unincorporated Alameda County, California (Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 99-550-2-3) (Figure 1). The approximately 4.78-acre Project Area comprises an approximately 2-mile single-track walking trail alignment that contains a 10-foot buffer on each side to provide space for minor trail alignment adjustments. Much of the proposed trail is located along an existing cattle trail and an existing access road. This BRA report includes an evaluation of published background information relevant to the Project and findings from a site visit conducted throughout the Project Area on August 23, 2018. The purpose of this BRA was to gather information necessary to complete a review of biological resources protected under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to support the regulatory permit application process. This report describes the results of previous site visits that occurred in the Project Area and reviews relevant existing information in order to evaluate the Project Area for: (1) the potential to support special-status plant and wildlife species; (2) the potential presence of sensitive biological communities, such as wetlands or riparian habitats; and (3) the potential presence of other sensitive biological resources protected by local, state, and federal laws and regulations. This report also identifies potential impacts to biological resources that would result from the Project, discusses avoidance and minimization measures that would protect natural resources, and recommends mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts under CEQA. This BRA is based on information available at the time of the study and on-site conditions observed during the August 23, 2018 survey performed in the Project Area. A delineation of Waters of the United States (“waters”), subject to United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), and Waters of the State, subject to Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, was conducted concurrently with the BRA site visit on August 23, 2018 (WRA 2018). Habitat and species information associated with the Project Area are considered suitable for an evaluation of the Project’s biological resources impacts under CEQA; however, additional protocol-level plant and wildlife surveys for certain species may be necessary to obtain permits or other regulatory approvals from state and federal regulatory agencies prior to Project implementation. 1.1 Project Area Description The Project Area consists of a trail corridor that is approximately 10,417 feet (1.9 miles) long and 20 feet wide, which totals to approximately 4.78 acres (Figure 1). The Project Area is situated on rolling hills composed of non-native annual grasslands and patches of oak woodland. A majority of the Project Area is designed to follow an existing cattle trail and along an existing access road. The Project Area is located in the northeastern corner of the La Costa Valley United States Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle (USGS 2015e). The Project Area is bound by Sycamore Grove Park to the northwest and agricultural land and the Livermore Division of the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System Hospital
Recommended publications
  • San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

    San Francisco Bay Area Integrated Regional Water Management Plan October 2019 Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. ii Chapter 1: Governance ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Governance Team and Structure ...................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 Coordinating Committee ......................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Stakeholders .......................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 Identification of Stakeholder Types ....................... 1-4 1.2.3 Letter of Mutual Understandings Signatories .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.1 Alameda County Water District ............................. 1-6 1.2.3.2 Association of Bay Area Governments ................. 1-6 1.2.3.3 Bay Area Clean Water Agencies .......................... 1-6 1.2.3.4 Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency ................................................................. 1-8 1.2.3.5 Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District .................................. 1-8 1.2.3.6 Contra Costa Water District .................................. 1-9 1.2.3.7
  • Marin Islands NWR Sport Fishing Plan

    Marin Islands NWR Sport Fishing Plan

    Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 MARIN ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 3 SPORT FISHING PLAN 3 1. Introduction 3 2. Statement of Objectives 4 3. Description of the Fishing Program 5 A. Area to be Opened to Fishing 5 B. Species to be Taken, Fishing periods, Fishing Access 5 C. Fishing Permit Requirements 7 D. Consultation and Coordination with the State 7 E. Law Enforcement 7 F. Funding and Staffing Requirements 8 4. Conduct of the Fishing Program 8 A. Permit Application, Selection, and/or Registration Procedures (if applicable) 8 B. Refuge-Spec if ic Fishing Regulat ions 8 C. Relevant State Regulations 8 D. Other Refuge Rules and Regulations for Sport Fishing 8 5. Public Engagement 9 A. Outreach for Announcing and Publicizing the Fishing Program 9 B. Anticipated Public Reaction to the Fishing Program 9 C. How Anglers Will Be Informed of Relevant Rules and Regulations 9 6. Compatibility Determination 9 7. Literature Cited 9 List of Figures Figure 1. Proposed Sport Fishing Area Fishing…………………………………6 Marin Islands NWR Fishing Plan Page 2 MARIN ISLANDS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SPORT FISHING PLAN 1. Introduction National Wildlife Refuges are guided by the mission and goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), the purposes of an individual refuge, Service policy, and laws and international treaties. Relevant guidance includes the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, and selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and Fish and Wildlife Service Manual.
  • Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources

    Section 3.4 Biological Resources 3.4- Biological Resources

    SECTION 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4- BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section discusses the existing sensitive biological resources of the San Francisco Bay Estuary (the Estuary) that could be affected by project-related construction and locally increased levels of boating use, identifies potential impacts to those resources, and recommends mitigation strategies to reduce or eliminate those impacts. The Initial Study for this project identified potentially significant impacts on shorebirds and rafting waterbirds, marine mammals (harbor seals), and wetlands habitats and species. The potential for spread of invasive species also was identified as a possible impact. 3.4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES SETTING HABITATS WITHIN AND AROUND SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY The vegetation and wildlife of bayland environments varies among geographic subregions in the bay (Figure 3.4-1), and also with the predominant land uses: urban (commercial, residential, industrial/port), urban/wildland interface, rural, and agricultural. For the purposes of discussion of biological resources, the Estuary is divided into Suisun Bay, San Pablo Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay (See Figure 3.4-2). The general landscape structure of the Estuary’s vegetation and habitats within the geographic scope of the WT is described below. URBAN SHORELINES Urban shorelines in the San Francisco Estuary are generally formed by artificial fill and structures armored with revetments, seawalls, rip-rap, pilings, and other structures. Waterways and embayments adjacent to urban shores are often dredged. With some important exceptions, tidal wetland vegetation and habitats adjacent to urban shores are often formed on steep slopes, and are relatively recently formed (historic infilled sediment) in narrow strips.
  • 3.4 Biological Resources for the Purpose of This EIR, Biological Resources Comprise Vegetation, Wildlife, Natural Communities, and Wetlands and Other Waters

    3.4 Biological Resources for the Purpose of This EIR, Biological Resources Comprise Vegetation, Wildlife, Natural Communities, and Wetlands and Other Waters

    Impact Analysis Alameda County Community Development Agency Biological Resources 3.4 Biological Resources For the purpose of this EIR, biological resources comprise vegetation, wildlife, natural communities, and wetlands and other waters. Potential biological resource impacts associated with the program and the two individual projects are analyzed. Potential impacts are described quantitatively and qualitatively in Section 3.4.2, Environmental Impacts. This section also identifies specific and detailed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for potentially significant impacts on biological resources, where necessary. 3.4.1 Existing Conditions Regulatory Setting Federal Endangered Species Act Pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have authority over projects that may result in take of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the act. Take is defined under the ESA, in part, as killing, harming, or harassing. Under federal regulations, take is further defined to include habitat modification or degradation that results, or is reasonably expected to result, in death or injury to wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. If a likelihood exists that a project would result in take of a federally listed species, either an incidental take permit, under Section 10(a) of the ESA, or a federal interagency consultation, under Section 7 of the ESA, is required. Several federally listed species—vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta longiantenna), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red‐legged frog (Rana draytonii), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica)—have the potential to be affected by activities associated with the Golden Hills and Patterson Pass projects as well as subsequent repowering projects.
  • Biological Resources Assessment

    Biological Resources Assessment

    Biological Resources Assessment Valle Vista Properties HAYWARD, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: William Lyon Homes, Inc. 2603 Camino Ramon, Suite 450 San Ramon, California 94583 Contact: Scott Roylance WRA Contact: Mark Kalnins [email protected] Date: July 10, 2017 Revised: November 16, 2017 2169-G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94702 (415) 454-8868 tel [email protected] www.wra-ca.com This page intentionally blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 3 2.1 Sensitive Biological Communities .............................................................................. 3 2.2 Special-Status Species .............................................................................................. 8 2.3 Relevant Local Policies, Ordinances, Regulations ..................................................... 9 3.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 9 3.1 Biological Communities ............................................................................................ 10 3.1.1 Non-Sensitive Biological Communities ...................................................... 10 3.1.2 Sensitive Biological Communities .............................................................. 10 3.2 Special-Status Species ...........................................................................................
  • Alameda Whipsnake: the Fasttest Snake in the West by Mike Westphal

    Alameda Whipsnake: the Fasttest Snake in the West by Mike Westphal

    Alameda Whipsnake: The Fasttest Snake in the West by Mike Westphal A narrow footpath circles the crest of Mt. Diablo. The sunlight comes early to this high place and in May will warm the rocky soil around the manzanita bushes early in the morning, once the fog has burned away. If you were a snake - a fast snake, a snake that hunted lizards by day - you would live in a place like this, a place among the shrubbery where you could heat up and go. If you, on the other hand, up and go. If you, on the other hand, were a person and Photo by Sheila Larsen / USFWS wanted to pay a call on the Alameda whipsnake, you might also come here. A simple wooden rail follows the footpath on the downhill side. Walk slowly along the rail and watch the ground. Be quiet and alert. The Alameda whipsnake does not wait. If it sees you and doesn’t want to hang around, it will be gone before you even know what you’re looking at. If you are careful enough, you may see a rare and beautiful snake - a snake built for speed. Its body is long (to six feet) annd whiplike (hence the name). The neck is slender, topped with a darting head that houses the big eyes of a visual predator. In color, it is the deep, deep green traditional to British racecars; it is detailed on either side with a bold orange stripe. The whipsnake is polished and glossy in the morning sun. Stare at it as long as you can, for this is no "sit-and-wait" predator, and will soon move away to chase down a fat lizard for breakfast.
  • Masticophis Lateralis Euryxanthus)

    Masticophis Lateralis Euryxanthus)

    Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 3, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 58933 EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2000. PART 1837ÐSERVICE CONTRACTING Alameda whipsnakes range from 91 to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 122 centimeters (3 to 4 feet) in length. James H. Dolvin, NASA Headquarters, 2. Subpart 1837.70 is removed. The dorsal surface is sooty black in Office of Procurement, Contract [FR Doc. 00±25249 Filed 10±2±00; 8:45 am] color with a distinct yellow-orange Management Division (Code HK), BILLING CODE 7510±01±M stripe down each side. The forward Washington, DC 20546. (202) 358±1279, portion of the bottom surface is orange- email: [email protected]. rufous colored, the midsection is cream colored, and the rear portion and tail are SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR pinkish. The adult Alameda whipsnake A. Background Fish and Wildlife Service virtually lacks black spotting on the In 1991, Subpart 1837.70, Acquisition bottom surface of the head and neck. of Training, was added to the NFS. 50 CFR Part 17 Juveniles may show very sparse or weak black spots. Another common name for Section 1837.7000, Acquisition of off- RIN 1018±AF98 the-shelf training courses, provided that the Alameda whipsnake is the ``Alameda striped racer'' (Riemer 1954, the Government Employees Training Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Act of 1958, 5 U.S.C. 4101 et seq., could Jennings 1983, Stebbins 1985). and Plants; Final Determination of The Alameda whipsnake is one of two be used as the authority for acquisition Critical Habitat for the Alameda subspecies of the California whipsnake of ``non-Governmental off-the-shelf Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis (Masticophis lateralis).
  • Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis Lateralis Euryxanthus) 5-Year

    Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis Lateralis Euryxanthus) 5-Year

    Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photograph by Sheila Larson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Sacramento, California September 2011 5-YEAR REVIEW Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, be changed in status from threatened to endangered, or that the status remain unchanged. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process defined in the Act that includes public review and comment.
  • Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region

    Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region

    Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region July 2009 Executive Summary Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region Pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. §1855(b)), the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as the federal lead and co-lead agencies, respectively, submit this Programmatic Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region. This document provides an assessment of the potential effects of the on-going dredging and dredged material placement activities of all federal and non-federal maintenance dredging projects in the action area (see Figure 1.1 located on page 3). The SF Bay LTMS program area spans 11 counties, including: Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco counties. It does not include the mountainous or inland areas far removed from navigable waters. The geographic scope of potential impacts included in this consultation (action area) comprises the estuarine waters of the San Francisco Bay region, portions of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) west of Sherman Island and the western portion of the Port of Sacramento and Port of Stockton deep water ship channels. It also includes the wetlands and shallow intertidal areas that form a margin around the Estuary and the tidal portions of its tributaries.
  • Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

    Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

    64306 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 234 / Friday, December 5, 1997 / Rules and Regulations Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; E.O. SUBCHAPTER TÐSMALL PART 177ÐCONSTRUCTION AND 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. PASSENGER VESSELS (UNDER 100 ARRANGEMENT 277; 49 CFR 1.46. GROSS TONS) 20. The authority citation for part 177 § 121.710 [Corrected] continues to read as follows: PART 175ÐGENERAL PROVISIONS 15. In § 121.710, remove the words Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; E.O. ``part 160, subpart 160.041, of this 18. The authority citation for part 175 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. chapter'' and add, in their place, the 277; 49 CFR 1.46. words ``approval series 160.041''. continues to read as follows: 21. In § 177.500, in paragraph (j)(1), Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306; 49 U.S.C. remove the last word ``and'' and add, in PART 122ÐOPERATIONS App. 1804; 49 CFR 1.45, 1.46. Sec. 175.900 its place, the word ``or''; and revise also issued under 44 U.S.C. 3507. 16. The authority citation for part 122 paragraph (o)(1) to read as follows: continues to read as follows: 19. In § 175.400, in the definition for § 177.500 Means of escape. Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 3306, 6101; E.O. ``High Speed Craft'', in the equation ``V 12234, 45 FR 58801, 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. = 3.7 × displ 1667 h'', add a decimal point * * * * * 277; 49 CFR 1.46. (o) * * * before the number ``1667'', and add, in (1) The space has a deck area less than § 122.604 [Corrected] alphabetical order, a definition for 30 square meters (322 square feet); ``wood vessel'' to read as follows: 17.
  • MARTIN GRIFFIN an Oral History Interview Conducted by Debra Schwartz in 2015

    MARTIN GRIFFIN an Oral History Interview Conducted by Debra Schwartz in 2015

    Mill Valley Oral History Program A collaboration between the Mill Valley Historical Society and the Mill Valley Public Library MARTIN GRIFFIN An Oral History Interview Conducted by Debra Schwartz in 2015 © 2015 by the Mill Valley Public Library TITLE: Oral History of Martin Griffin INTERVIEWER: Debra Schwartz DESCRIPTION: Transcript, 37 pages INTERVIEW DATE: October 20th, 2015 In this oral history, physician, naturalist, champion of open spaces and bane of developers Martin Griffin recounts with warmth and humor his long and extraordinarily active life. Born in Ogden, Utah, in 1920 to nature-loving parents, Martin moved with his family to Portland, Oregon, when the Great Depression hit, and then down to Los Angeles and finally up to Oakland, where he attended elementary school through high school. Martin recalls some early experiences that shaped his love for the environment, including his involvement with the Boy Scouts, where he met the graduate student entomologist Brighton C. “Bugs” Cain, who profoundly inspired him. It was also as a boy that Martin came over to Mill Valley for the first time, making his way by ferry and train, to go hiking on Mt. Tamalpais. He conjures the beautiful vision he had from the ridge that day of white birds down on Bolinas Lagoon, a vision which made such a powerful impression on him and would, years later, feed the flames of his conservationist passion. Martin recounts being involved in ROTC while an undergraduate at U.C. Berkeley, later attending medical school at Stanford, where he got married, and moving over to Marin to begin his medical practice.
  • Appendix H Cultural Resources

    Appendix H Cultural Resources

    GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL APPENDIX H CULTURAL RESOURCES This appendix contains the following items: The Cultural Resources Existing Conditions and Survey Methodology Report and Archaeological Survey to support the assessment of the effects of the proposed project on historic properties. Documentation of coordination with tribal governments including the FAA’s government-to-government consultations with tribes in accordance with Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments and FAA Order 1210.20 American Indian and Alaska Native Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedures. Documentation of the FAA’s consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Office in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act that resulted in the FAA’s determination that the Gnoss Field Airport Runway Extension Project would have no effect on historic properties. Landrum & Brown Appendix H - Cultural Resources June 2014 Page H-1 GNOSS FIELD AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FINAL THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Landrum & Brown Appendix H - Cultural Resources June 2014 Page H-2 CULTURAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SURVEY METHODOLOGY REPORT AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT For the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to Evaluate the Proposed Extension of Runway 13/31 at Gnoss Field Airport Marin County, Novato, California Dwight D. Simons, Ph.C and Kim J. Tremaine, Ph.C., RPA TREMAINE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 859 Stillwater Road, Suite 1 West Sacramento, CA 95605 November 6, 2009 Revised July 18, 2011 Submitted To Landrum and Brown, Inc. 11279 Cornell Park Drive Cincinnati, OH 45242 Page H-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................