Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
5% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2351
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 102 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
1 . Festuca perennis 30 X FAC Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Bromus hordeaceus 10 FACU
Elymus caput-medusae 30 X UPL - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia 20 X UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 10 FAC Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2352
SOIL Sampling Point: 102
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 85 5YR 4/6 15 C PL/M Clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
15% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2353
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 103 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 50 x 3 = 150 5.
10 10 Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 60 300 UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 50 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: 120 (A) 460 (B)
2. Festuca perennis 40 X FAC
Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 10 FAC Prevalence Index B/A = -- 3.83 3.
Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia 10 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Vicia Sativa 10 FACU Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 120 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2354
SOIL Sampling Point: 103
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 95 5YR 5/8 5 C PL/M Clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
5% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2355
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 104 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 70 x 3 = 210 5.
FACU species 10 x 4 = 40 Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 20 100 UPL species x 5 =
Festuca perennis 60 X FAC 1 . Column Totals: 100 (A) 350 (B) Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia 20 X UPL 2.
Vicia sativa 10 FAC Prevalence Index B/A = -- 3.5 3.
Helminthotheca echioides 10 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2356
SOIL Sampling Point: 104
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 100 Clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
No Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2357
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 105 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Festuca perennis 40 X FAC 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Lotus corniculatus 10 FAC
Bromus hordeaceus 20 X FACU - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia 10 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Helminthotheca echioides 20 X FACU Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2358
SOIL Sampling Point: 105
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 90 5YR 5/8 10 C PL/M Clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
10% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2359
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 106 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 50 x 3 = 150 5.
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 50 250 UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 35 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: 100 (A) 400 (B)
2. Festuca perennis 35 X FAC
Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 10 FAC Prevalence Index B/A = -- 4 3.
Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia 15 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Phalaris paradoxa 5 FAC Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2360
SOIL Sampling Point: 106
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 95 5YR 5/8 5 C PL/M Clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
5% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2361
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 107 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 25 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Malvella leprosa 20 X FACU 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B) Helminthotheca echioides 30 X FACU 2.
Bromus hordeaceus 10 FACU - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Festuca perennis 20 X FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Trifolium subterraneum 20 X UPL Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2362
SOIL Sampling Point: 107
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 90 5YR 5/8 10 C M Clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
10% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2363
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 108 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 50 x 3 = 150 5.
FACU species 30 x 4 = 120 Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 20 100 UPL species x 5 =
Plantago lanceolata 30 X FAC 1 . Column Totals: 100 (A) 370 (B) Bromus diandrus 20 X UPL 2.
Bromus hordeaceus 30 X FACU Prevalence Index B/A = -- 3.7 3.
Lotus corniculatus 20 X FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2364
SOIL Sampling Point: 108
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 95 5YR 5/8 5 C M/PL Clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
5% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2365
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 109 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 30 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Plantago lanceolata 20 X FAC
Bromus hordeaceus 25 X FACU - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 15 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Briza minor 10 FAC Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6. Festuca perennis 10 FAC
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 110 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2366
SOIL Sampling Point: 109
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
No Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2367
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 110 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 35 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Parentucellia viscosa 25 X FAC
Lotus corniculatus 15 FAC - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Helminthotheca echioides 30 X FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Festuca perennis 15 FAC Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 120 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2368
SOIL Sampling Point: 110
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 95 5YR 5/8 5 C M clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
5% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2369
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 111 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground concave Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Seasonally inundated depression is dominated by wetland vegetation.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
1 . Juncus xiphioides 20 X OBL Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Lythrum hyssopifolia 5 OBL
Bromus hordeaceus 15 FACU - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Helminthotheca echioides 15 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Lotus corniculatus 25 X FAC Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. Leontodon saxatilis subsp. longirostris 15 FACU 6.
Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 5 FAC Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Satisfies wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2370
SOIL Sampling Point: 111
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 95 5YR 5/6 5 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
5% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2371
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 112 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground concave Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Seasonally inundated depression is dominated by wetland vegetation.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
1 . Eryngium aristulatum var. aristulatum 20 X OBL Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Eleocharis macrostachya 40 X OBL
Pleuropogon californicus var. californicus 10 OBL - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 70 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 30 % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Satisfies wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2372
SOIL Sampling Point: 112
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 80 5YR 5/8 20 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
20% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Vegetation suppression indicating long term inundation; Deep hoof prints Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2373
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 113 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 50 x 3 = 150 5.
FACU species 20 x 4 = 80 Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 30 150 UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 30 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: 100 (A) 380 (B) Bromus hordeaceus 10 FACU 2.
Festuca perennis 20 X FAC Prevalence Index B/A = -- 3.8 3.
Leontodon saxatilis subsp. longirostris 20 X FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Elymus triticoides 20 X FAC Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2374
SOIL Sampling Point: 113
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
No Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2375
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 114 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 55 x 3 = 165 5.
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 35 175 UPL species x 5 =
Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 30 X FAC 1 . Column Totals: 90 (A) 340 (B)
2. Festuca perennis 15 FAC
Centaurea calcitrapa 35 X UPL Prevalence Index B/A = -- 3.4 3.
Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum 10 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 90 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 10 % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria. Cirsium vulgare and Raphanus sativus also present Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2376
SOIL Sampling Point: 114
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 95 5YR 4/4 5 C M/PL clay-loam
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
5% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2377
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 115 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Seasonally inundated depression is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 3 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. micranthus 20 X FACW 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B) Pleuropogon californicus var. californicus 30 X OBL 2.
Eryngium aristulatum var. aristulatum 20 X OBL - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Polypogon monspeliensis 15 FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Rumex crispus 15 FAC Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. Cotula coronopifolia 10 OBL 6.
Hordeum brachyantherum 5 FACW Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8. Festuca perennis 5 FAC
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 120 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Satisfies wetland vegetation criteria. Cuscata sp. and Lythrum hyssopifolia also present.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2378
SOIL Sampling Point: 115
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 75 5YR 5/8 25 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
25% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2379
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 116 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 40 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B) Convolvulus arvensis 10 UPL 2.
Festuca perennis 20 X FAC - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Bromus hordeaceus 10 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Taraxacum officinale 20 X FACU Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2380
SOIL Sampling Point: 116
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 90 5YR 5/4 10 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
10% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2381
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 117 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 40 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B) Trifolium subterraneum 40 X UPL 2.
Convolvulus arvensis 10 UPL - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Festuca perennis 10 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2382
SOIL Sampling Point: 117
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 85 5YR 4/6 15 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
15% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2383
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 118 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): On hill none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 80 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B) Leontodon saxatilis subsp. longirostris 5 FACU 2.
Convolvulus arvensis 5 UPL - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Lysimachia arvensis 5 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Festuca perennis 5 FAC Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria. On the 'hill' Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2384
SOIL Sampling Point: 118
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 95 5YR 4/6 5 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
5% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2385
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 119 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): On hill none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 40 x 3 = 120 5.
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 70 350 UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 60 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: 110 (A) 470 (B) Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia 10 UPL 2.
Festuca perennis 40 X FAC Prevalence Index B/A = -- 4.2 3.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 110 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2386
SOIL Sampling Point: 119
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 95 5YR 4/6 5 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
5% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2387
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 120 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): hillslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none 3 Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 40 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B) Leontodon saxatilis subsp. longirostris 10 FACU 2.
Bromus hordeaceus 20 X FACU - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Festuca perennis 30 X FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Centaurea solstitialis 10 UPL Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 110 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2388
SOIL Sampling Point: 120
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
No Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2389
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 121 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Helminthotheca echioides 30 X FACU 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B) Elymus caput-medusae 70 X UPL 2.
Vicia sativa 5 FACU - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Festuca perennis 10 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 115 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2390
SOIL Sampling Point: 121
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks fill 10YR 3/2 100 clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
No Redox. Mixed Soil Profile.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2391
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 122 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Bromus diandrus 40 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Plantago lanceolata 10 FAC
Taraxacum officinale 20 X FACU - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Festuca perennis 30 X FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2392
SOIL Sampling Point: 122
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/3 100 clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
No Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2393
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 123 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 00 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Bromus hordeaceus 35 X FACU 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B) Elymus caput-medusae 50 X UPL 2.
Leontodon saxatilis subsp. longirostris 5 FACU - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Plantago lanceolata 10 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2394
SOIL Sampling Point: 123
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 98 5YR 4/6 2 C M clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Insufficient Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2395
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 124 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 55 x 3 = 175 5.
FACU species 25 x 4 = 100 Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 20 100 UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 20 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: 100 (A) 375 (B)
2. Bromus hordeaceus 20 X FACU
Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 20 X FAC Prevalence Index B/A = -- 3.75 3.
Festuca perennis 30 X FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Helminthotheca echioides 5 FACU Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. Lotus corniculatus 5 FAC 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2396
SOIL Sampling Point: 124
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 75 5YR 4/6 25 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
25% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2397
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 125 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 60 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B) Bromus hordeaceus 30 X FACU 2.
Festuca perennis 20 X FAC - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Helminthotheca echioides 10 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 120 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2398
SOIL Sampling Point: 125
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 85 5YR 4/6 15 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
15% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2399
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 126 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 100 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Leontodon saxatilis subsp. longirostris 10 FACU - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 110 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2400
SOIL Sampling Point: 126
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 95 5YR 5/4 5 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
5% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2401
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 127 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 40 x 3 = 120 5.
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 70 350 UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 50 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: 110 (A) 470 (B)
2. Festuca perennis 40 X FAC
Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia 10 UPL Prevalence Index B/A = -- 4.27 3.
Bellardia trixago 10 UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 110 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2402
SOIL Sampling Point: 127
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 80 5YR 4/4 20 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
20% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2403
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 128 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Trifolium subterraneum 40 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Leontodon saxatilis subsp. longirostris 5 FACU
Bromus hordeaceus 20 X FACU - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Festuca perennis 20 X FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Helminthotheca echioides 5 FACU Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6. Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 10 FAC
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2404
SOIL Sampling Point: 128
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 85 5YR 4/4 15 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
15% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2405
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 129 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground concave Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 50 x 3 = 150 5.
FACU species 20 x 4 = 80 Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 30 150 UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 30 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: 100 (A) 380 (B)
2. Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 30 X FAC
Bromus hordeaceus 20 X FACU Prevalence Index B/A = -- 3.8 3.
Festuca perennis 20 X FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2406
SOIL Sampling Point: 129
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 95 5YR 4/4 5 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
5% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2407
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 130 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 70 x 3 = 210 5.
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 40 200 UPL species x 5 =
Deinandra corymbosa 40 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: 110 (A) 410 (B)
2. Festuca perennis 40 X FAC
Briza minor 15 FAC Prevalence Index B/A = -- 3.72 3.
Plantago lanceolata 15 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 110 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2408
SOIL Sampling Point: 130
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 95 5YR 4/6 5 C M/PL loam
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
5% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2409
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 131 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground concave Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Seasonally inundated depression is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 3 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Eryngium aristulatum var. aristulatum 30 X OBL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B) Lythrum hyssopifolia 15 OBL 2.
Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 30 X FAC - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Festuca perennis 25 X FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Satisfies wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2410
SOIL Sampling Point: 131
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 80 5YR 4/6 20 C M/PL clay-loam
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
20% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2411
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 132 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Deinandra corymbosa 20 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B) Elymus caput-medusae 70 X UPL 2.
Festuca perennis 20 X FAC - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 10 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 120 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2412
SOIL Sampling Point: 132
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 90 5YR 4/4 10 C M/PL clay-loam
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
10% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2413
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 133 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground concave Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Seasonally inundated depression is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Eryngium aristulatum var. aristulatum 35 X OBL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 35 X FAC
Rumex crispus 15 FAC - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. micranthus 10 FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Festuca perennis 15 FAC Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 120 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Satisfies wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2414
SOIL Sampling Point: 133
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 85 5YR 4/6 15 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
15% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2415
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 134 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground concave Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Seasonally inundated depression is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 4 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Eryngium aristulatum var. aristulatum 35 X OBL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Lotus corniculatus 20 X FAC
Polypogon monspeliensis 25 X FACW - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Rumex crispus 20 X FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Festuca perennis 10 FAC Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6. Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 10 FAC
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 120 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Satisfies wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2416
SOIL Sampling Point: 134
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/1 90 5YR 4/4 10 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
10% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2417
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 135 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground concave Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Seasonally inundated depression is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 3 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Hordeum brachyantherum 35 X FACW 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 20 X FAC
Polypogon monspeliensis 15 FACW - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Lotus corniculatus 20 X FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Festuca perennis 10 FAC Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Satisfies wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2418
SOIL Sampling Point: 136
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 90 5YR 4/6 10 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
10% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2419
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 136 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground concave Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Seasonally inundated depression is dominated by hydrophytic vegetation.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 100 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Eryngium aristulatum var. aristulatum 25 X OBL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Polypogon monspeliensis 35 X FACW
Hordeum brachyantherum 15 FACW - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Rumex crispus 10 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Lotus corniculatus 15 FAC Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Satisfies wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2420
SOIL Sampling Point: 136
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 90 5YR 5/6 10 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
10% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2421
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 137 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 2 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 4 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 40 x 3 = 120 5.
FACU species 40 x 4 = 160 Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 40 200 UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 40 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: 120 (A) 380 (B)
2. Festuca perennis 20 X FAC
Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 20 X FAC Prevalence Index B/A = -- 3.17 3.
Helminthotheca echioides 10 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Bromus hordeaceus 30 X FACU Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 120 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2422
SOIL Sampling Point: 137
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 90 5YR 5/4 10 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
10% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2423
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 138 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 0 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Deinandra corymbosa 30 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Taraxacum officinale 15 FACU
Parentucellia viscosa 10 FACU - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Elymus caput-medusae 20 X UPL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Bromus diandrus 30 X UPL Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 105 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2424
SOIL Sampling Point: 138
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 98 5YR 5/4 2 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Insufficient Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2425
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 139 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 45 x 3 = 135 5.
FACU species 15 x 4 = 60 Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 40 200 UPL species x 5 =
Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 15 FAC 1 . Column Totals: 100 (A) 395 (B) Elymus caput-medusae 40 X UPL 2.
Festuca perennis 30 X FAC Prevalence Index B/A = -- 3.95 3.
Deinandra corymbosa 15 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
UPL Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 100 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2426
SOIL Sampling Point: 139
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 90 5YR 4/4 10 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
10% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2427
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 140 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 35 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Bromus hordeaceus 35 X FACU
Festuca perennis 20 X FAC - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Vicia sativa 10 FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia 5 UPL Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 105 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2428
SOIL Sampling Point: 140
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 3/2 95 5YR 4/6 5 C M/PL clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
5% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2429
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 141 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 2 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 50 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
FAC species 50 x 3 = 150 5.
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 55 275 UPL species x 5 =
Elymus caput-medusae 50 X UPL 1 . Column Totals: 105 (A) 425 (B)
2. Festuca perennis 50 X FAC
Deinandra corymbosa 5 UPL Prevalence Index B/A = -- 4.04 3.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6.
Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 105 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2430
SOIL Sampling Point: 141
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 100 clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
No Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2431
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region
Project/Site: Giovannoni City/County: American Canyon, Napa Sampling Date: 05/26/16 Applicant/Owner: Giovannoni Trust State: Sampling Point: CA 142 Hope Kingma, Devin Jokerst Section 11&14, Township 4 North, Range 4 West Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Level ground none Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%) Subregion (LRR): California Lat: 38 11' 56.61" N Long: 122 16' 0.82" W Datum: NAD83 Soil Map Unit Name: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are ''Normal Circumstances'' present? Yes naturally problematic?
Are Vegetation Soil No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Upland.
Remarks:
VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1 . That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 1 (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant
3. Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
4. Percent of Dominant Species -- Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW or FAC: 33 (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
1 .
2. Multiplv bv:
3. OBL species x 1 =
4. FACW species x 2 =
5. FAC species x 3 =
Total Cover FACU species x 4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x 5 =
1 . Helminthotheca echioides 10 FACU Column Totals: (A) (B)
2. Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia 25 X UPL
Elymus caput-medusae 10 UPL - Prevalence Index B/A = - 3.
Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum 5 FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4.
Leontodon saxatilis subsp. longirostris 10 FACU Dominance Test is >50% Prevalence Index is:<3.0¹
5. 6. Festuca perennis 20 X FAC
Trifolium subterraneum 20 X UPL Morphological Adaptations¹ (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
7. 8.
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation¹ (Explain) 105 -- Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
¹Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
I .
2. -- Total Cover Hydrophytic
Vegetation
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust Present? Yes No Does not satisfy wetland vegetation criteria.
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
--
2432
SOIL Sampling Point: 142
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %% Color (moist) Type¹ LOC² Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR 2/2 95 5YR 4/4 5 C PL/M clay
¹Type: C= Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. ²Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric SoiIS3:
Histosol (Al) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (I-RR 13) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (Fl) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) ³Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (Sl) Vernal Pools (F9)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
5% Redox.
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primarv Indicators (minimum of one reciuired: check all that applv) Secondarv Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Surface Water (Al) Salt Crust (B1 1)
High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12)
Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Water Marks (BI) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 2.0
2433
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
Giovannoni Project Site
City of American Canyon, California
Attachment A: Table of Aquatic Resources
Monk & Associates
Waters_Name Cowadin_Code HGM_Code Measurement_Type Amount Units Waters_Types Latitude Longitude Local_Waterway W 1 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 9,063 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 2 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 44,951 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 3 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 357 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 4 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 472 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 5 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 208 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 6 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 23 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 7 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 1,970 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 8 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 164 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 9 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 253 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 10 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 485 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 11 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 110 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 12 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 271 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 13 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 35 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 14 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 24 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 15 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 495 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 16 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 144,468 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 17 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 1,972 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 18 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 33 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 19 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 64 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 20 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 290 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 21 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 202 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 22 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 354 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 23 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 350 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 24 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 3,371 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 25 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 3,102 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 26 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 603 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 27 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 144 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 28 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 140 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 29 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 1,510 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 30 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 221 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 31 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 181 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 32 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 302 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 33 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 4,647 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 34 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 1,637 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 35 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 43 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 36 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 297 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 37 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 130 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 38 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 75 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 39 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 765 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 40 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 358 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 41 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 951 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 42 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 267 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 43 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 36 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 44 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 1,151 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 45 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 1,112 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 46 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 40 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 47 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 200 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 48 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 389 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 49 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 988 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek 2434
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
Giovannoni Project Site
City of American Canyon, California
Attachment A: Table of Aquatic Resources
Monk & Associates
W 50 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 38 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 51 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 5,161 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 52 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 10 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 53 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 309 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 54 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 665 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 55 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 315 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 56 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 362 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 57 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 45 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 58 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 154 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 59 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 56 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 60 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 71 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 61 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 1914 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 62 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 249 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 63 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 3903 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 64 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 47 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 65 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 115 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 66 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 172 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 67 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 808 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 68 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 1397 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 69 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 116 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 70 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 197 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 71 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 148 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 72 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 10123 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 73 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 6,448 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 74 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 47 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 75 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 978 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 76 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 55 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 77 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 785 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 78 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 4858 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 79 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 2,320 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 80 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 2,253 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 81 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 1,441 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 82 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 688 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 83 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 2655 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 84 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 9,569 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 85 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 74 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 86 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 2188 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 87 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 149 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 88 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 222087 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 89 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 195 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W 90 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 3151 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek LW 1 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 115 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek LW 2 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 225 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek LW 3 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 8 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek LW 4 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 38 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek LW 5 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 1,410 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek LW 6 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 394 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek LW 7 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 253 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek LW 8 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 197 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek 2435
Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
Giovannoni Project Site
City of American Canyon, California
Attachment A: Table of Aquatic Resources
Monk & Associates
LW 9 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 87 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek LW 10 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 1,044 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek LW 11 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 150 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek LW 12 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 130 SQ_FT NRPWW 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek IW 1 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 62 SQ_FT ISOLATE 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek IW 2 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 97 SQ_FT ISOLATE 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek IW 3 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 229 SQ_FT ISOLATE 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek IW 4 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 3,117 SQ_FT ISOLATE 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek IW 5 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 17019 SQ_FT ISOLATE 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek IW 6 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 935 SQ_FT ISOLATE 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek IW 7 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 853 SQ_FT ISOLATE 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek IW 8 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 481 SQ_FT ISOLATE 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek IW 9 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 2,625 SQ_FT ISOLATE 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek IW 10 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 1159 SQ_FT ISOLATE 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek IW 11 PEM2 DEPRESS Area 12725 SQ_FT ISOLATE 38º11' 56.61" N 122º16' 0.82" W No Name Creek W = Seasonal Wetland
LW = Linear Wetland
IW = Isolated Wetland
2436
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
C.3 - USACE 2016 Weland Verification Map
C-417
2437
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2438
2439
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2440
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
C.4 - LSA 2016 Dry Season Branchiopods Report
C-421
2441
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2442
10/27/20 (G:\PROJECTFILES\Giovannoni\Giovannoni\USFWS\FS Report 90 Day\LSA Dry Season Survey\Giovonnoni Dry Season Report Draft 11‐23‐ 16b.doc)
BERKELEY
CARLSBAD
FRESNO
IRVINE
PALM SPRINGS
POINT RICHMOND
RIVERSIDE
ROCKLIN
SAN LUIS OBISPO
157 Park Place. Pt. Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 www.lsa.net November 23, 2016
Sarah Markegard
Recovery Permit Coordinator
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2800 Cottage Way, Room W2605
Sacramento, CA 95825
Subject: Results of 2016 Dry Season Listed Branchiopod Surveys for the Giovonnoni Property and Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension,
Napa County, California,
(USFWS Reference No. 2012‐TA‐0388)
Dear Ms. Markegard:
This letter provides the results of a dry season presence/absence survey for listed branchiopods.
The survey was performed by LSA Inc. (LSA) for Monk and Associates, Inc. (Monk Asso.) during the summer of 2016 to document the presence or absence of the federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) (VPFS) within Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension and the 210–acre Giovonnoni Property (Study Site). The Study Site is located just south of the Napa Municipal Airport, just north of the City of American Canyon in Napa County, California. (See Figure 1). The dry season survey was conducted according to federal standards and serves as one part of the full protocol necessary to determine the presence or absence of listed branchiopods on the Study Site.
The Study Site, near the southern end of the Napa Valley, is located west of California State Highway 29 and just east of the Napa River in Central Napa County, California. The property can be found within the NW ¼ of Section 13 and the NE ¼ of Section 14, with smaller portions in the SE1/4 of Section 11 and the SW corner of the SW ¼ of Section 12, Township 4 North, Range 4 West on the Cuttings Wharf, California 7.5‐minute USGS quadrangle and is roughly centered at UTM 4,228,200N/564,250E. (refer to Figures 1). The Study Site is bounded by Devlin Road and open space to the north, the Biagi Brothers warehouse on the west, railroad tracks owned by Union Pacific on the east and Green Island Road and additional Union Pacific railroad tracks to the south. Several smaller parcels extend into the Study Site from Green Island Road. Open lands used to graze livestock and buffer the Napa Municipal Airport extend to the north. Warehouses and light industrial complexes surround the Study Site on the remaining three sides, with some open lands and vineyards beyond.
The Study Site consists of two separate parcels (See Figure 2). The larger property, the Giovonnoni property, consists of 212 acres of fallow lands currently used for grazing. Historical photos indicate the property may have been used for dry farming occasionally in the past. The second parcel includes location of theDevlin Road/ Vine Train Extension that bisects the Giovonnoni Property from 2443
10/27/20 (G:\PROJECTFILES\Giovannoni\Giovannoni\USFWS\FS Report 90 Day\LSA Dry Season Survey\Giovonnoni Dry Season Report Draft 11‐23‐ 16b.doc)
2 north to south. The two parcels are located within the one property and were surveyed at the same time.
METHODS
The 2016 dry season surveys of the Study Site were conducted by LSA Senior Biologist David Muth (under Federal 10(a)(1)(A) Permits TE‐797345 and TE‐839213) in accordance with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods date May 31, 2015. The surveys were approved by you (Sarah Markegard) in a letter to Sarah Lynch of Monk Asso. on August 18, 2016.
Mr. Muth collected a series of 10 ml soil aliquots from each of the potential habitat areas in the Study Site on August 23, 2016. The number of aliquots varied depending on the size of the feature, but followed the requirements specified in the USFWS Guidelines. The soil was dry at the time of collection and stored in plastic zip‐lock bags marked to indicate the site of collection.
The soil was processed by Mr. Muth on September 9 and 30, and October 10, 2016. Samples were processed individually by placing the collected material into five‐gallon buckets filled with 1 to 2 gallons of 5% brine solution to resaturate soils. During the approximately 10 to 15 minutes saturation period, the bucket was occasionally stirred to ensure all biological material was released and floated to the surface. In small aliquots, the biological material was poured through a series of four sieves with mesh sizes of 710, 355, 212 and 150 microns. The sieves were stacked with the largest mesh size at the top to the smallest mesh size on the bottom. Material was washed through the set with water. Particles trapped in the two smallest sieve sizes were saved for analysis by washing them onto blotter paper to dry.
The sieved material was examined by Mr. Muth on October 12, 14 and 30, 2016 using a 10 to 40 power Olympus stereo‐optic scope. A reference cyst collection was available and could be used when necessary for comparison of any cysts found in the samples. Soil material will be stored with LSA until final deposition can be arranged.
RESULTS
Soil samples were collected from 22 features within the Study Site (See Figure 2). All of the features sampled for this survey are either highly disturbed, seasonal wetland remnants or the artificial result of historical disking and other land disturbances. The features are fed water from direct rainfall or adjacent runoff. Most of the suitable habitat observed in the Study Site features appeared to be far less than the potential wetland area indicated on a preliminary Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional delineation. In only five features (W‐1, W‐16, W‐89, W‐95 and W‐101), were suitable habitat areas equal to the wetland area. Characteristics and delineated area of the features are provided as part of Table A.
2444
10/27/20 (G:\PROJECTFILES\Giovannoni\Giovannoni\USFWS\FS Report 90 Day\LSA Dry Season Survey\Giovonnoni Dry Season Report Draft 11‐23‐ 16b.doc)
3 No cysts from any listed genera of fairy shrimp or tadpole shrimp were observed in any of the processed soil samples. Most did contain some evidence of aquatic invertebrates (microscopic material such as copepod eggs, cladoceran ephippium, and/or ostracod shells) typically associated with seasonally ponding features that support invertebrate fauna.
Table A – Feature Characteristics and Results of Dry Season Surveys, Giovonnoni Property, Napa County
Feature Delineated Area Origin
Fairy or Tadpole Shrimp Eggs Found
in Samples
W‐1 9,063 sq. ft. Swale blocked by minor berm,
compacted soils
None, no anostroca or notostroca
eggs
W‐2 44,951 Shallow, low area in drainage
Topographic low area associated
with constructed drain channel
None, no anostroca or notostroca
eggs
W‐16 144,468 Swale blocked by railroad berm None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐24 3,371 Topographic depression None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐25 3,102 Topographic depression None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐33 4,647 Low area blocked by road and
adjacent parcel, compacted soils
None, no anostroca or notostroca
eggs
W‐44 1,151 Shallow topographic depression,
compacted soils
None, no anostroca or notostroca
eggs
W‐51 5,161 Low area in drainage None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐62 1,914 Shallow topographic depression None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐64 3,903 Shallow seasonal wetland remnant None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐73 10,123 Shallow seasonal wetland remnant None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐74 6,448 Shallow seasonal wetland remnant None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐79 4,858 Seasonal wetland remnant None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐80 2,320 Shallow seasonal wetland remnant None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐84 2,655 Seasonal wetland remnant None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐85 9,569 Seasonal wetland remnant, part of
89 None, no anostroca or notostroca
eggs
2445
10/27/20 (G:\PROJECTFILES\Giovannoni\Giovannoni\USFWS\FS Report 90 Day\LSA Dry Season Survey\Giovonnoni Dry Season Report Draft 11‐23‐ 16b.doc)
4 Feature Delineated Area Origin
Fairy or Tadpole Shrimp Eggs Found
in Samples
W‐87 2,188 Shallow seasonal wetland remnant None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐89 222,087 Swale blocked by railroad berm None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐91 3,151 Low area along fence, part of 89 None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐94 3,117 Shallow topographic depression None, no anostroca or notostroca eggs
W‐95 17,019 Swale blocked by abandoned road,
compacted soils
None, no anostroca or notostroca
eggs
W‐101 12,725 Low area blocked by road and
adjacent parcel, compacted soils
None, no anostroca or notostroca
eggs
CONCLUSIONS
No cysts (eggs) from any genus of listed vernal branchiopod were found within any of the samples collected and processed during this 2016 protocol level dry season survey. Based on this dry season survey, it does not appear that listed large branchiopods occur on the Giovonnoni Property or the Devlin Road and Vine Trail Expansion site. A wet season survey will be required to complete the federal protocol and make a final determination regarding the potential presence or absence of these species.
Please contact me if you require any additional information.
Sincerely,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
David Muth
Senior Herpetologist
Attachments: Certification
Figure 1: Regional and Project Location
Figure 2: Locations of Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp on the Study Site Data Sheets
cc:
Sarah Lynch, Monk and Associates
2446
10/27/20 (G:\PROJECTFILES\Giovannoni\Giovannoni\USFWS\FS Report 90 Day\LSA Dry Season Survey\Giovonnoni Dry Season Report Draft 11‐23‐ 16b.doc)
5 I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SURVEY REPORT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS FULLY AND ACCURATELY REPRESENTS MY WORK:
SURVEYOR: PERMIT NUMBER DATE:
TE‐797234/TE‐839213 November 23, 2016
David Muth
2447
Project
Site
SOURCE: ESRI World Streetmap, National Geographic World Map I:\MSA1603\GIS\Maps\Figure 1_Regional Location and Project Site.mxd (11/22/2016) FIGURE 1
Giovannoni Property
American Canyon, Napa County, California
Regional Location and Project Site
Project
Site
0 2500 5000
FEET
2448
W 89
W 16
W 95
W 2
W 2
W 1
W 101
W 73
W 85
W 74
W 51
W 79
W 33
W 64
W 24
W 91
W 94
W 25
W 84
W 80
W 87
W 44 W 62
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community SOURCE: Length/area dimensions and preliminary wetland delineation from Monk & Associates.
I:\MSA1603\GIS\Maps\Bio\Aquatic Monitoring\Figure 2_2016 Dry Season Surveys.mxd (11/23/2016) Figure 2
Giovannoni Property
Features Sampled for 2016 Dry Season Surveys
LEGEND
Project Site (~210 Acres)
Proposed Alignment (4.5 Acres)
50 Ft Buffer Proposed Alignment
Wetlands (554,892 Sq. Ft., 12.74 Acres)
Linear Wetlands (2,466 Lin. Ft., 4,051 Sq. Ft., 0.09 Acre) Constructed Wetland (1,762 Sq. Ft., 0.04 Acre)
Construction Related Linear Wetland (1,263 Lin. Ft., 2,526 Sq. Ft., 0.06 Area) Wetland Sampled for 2016 Dry Season Survey
0 175 350
FEET
2449
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2450
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
C.5 - M & A 2017 Wet Branchiopods Season Report
C-431
2451
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2452
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Consultants
1136 Saranap Ave., Suite Q Walnut Creek California 94595 (925) 947-4867 FAX (925) 947-1165
VERNAL POOL BRANCHIOPOD SURVEYS
ON THE
GIOVANNONI PROPERTY
AND THE
DEVLIN ROAD AND VINE TRAIL EXTENSION PROJECT SITE
CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Service File No. 2012-TA-0388
March 31, 2017
Prepared for:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Sacramento Field Office
Recovery Branch
2800 Cottage Way, Room W2605
Sacramento, California 95825-1846
Attention: Ms. Sarah Markegard, Recovery Permit Coordinator Mr. Ryan Olah, Coast-Bay Division Chief
Prepared by:
Monk & Associates, Inc.
Contact: Ms. Sarah Lynch
2453
Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey Report
Giovannoni, Napa County, CA
i
MONK & ASSOCIATES
SUMMARY
In the winter of 2016-2017, Monk & Associates, Inc. (M&A) conducted wet season protocol surveys for federally-listed large vernal pool Branchiopods on the Giovannoni Property which includes the Devlin Road and Vine Trail Extension project site in the City of American Canyon, Napa County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The Giovannoni Property (herein referred to as the “project site”) is located west of Highway 29 and east of the Napa River. During appropriately timed, protocol wet season surveys M&A did not identify any fairy shrimp species or vernal pool tadpole shrimp on the project site. M&A’s negative wet season sampling results confirm dry season sampling results obtained by Mr. David Muth of LSA Associates, Inc (LSA) in the summer of 2016. Mr. Muth’s dry season sampling results were detailed in LSA’s report that was submitted separately to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on November 23, 2016. 2454
Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey Report
Giovannoni, Napa County, CA
ii
MONK & ASSOCIATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... 1
3. PURPOSE FOR CONDUCTING VERNAL POOL CRUSTACEAN SURVEYS ....................... 2
4. SURVEY METHODS ...................................................................................................................... 2
5. SURVEY RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 2
5.1 Survey Dates ............................................................................................................................ 2
5.2 Characteristics of Pools and Swales Sampled ........................................................................ 3
5.3 Organisms Identified in Sampled Pools .................................................................................. 3
6. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 4
7. SURVEY AND REPORT PREPARATION PARTICIPANTS ..................................................... 5
8. LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................................................... 6
FIGURES
Figure 1. Giovannoni Property Regional Map
Figure 2 Giovannoni Property Project Site Location Map
Figure 3. Closest Known Records of Vernal Pool Branchiopods to the Giovannoni Property, City of American Canyon, California
SHEET
Sheet 1. Giovannoni Project Site Areas Surveyed for Vernal Pool Branchiopods
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A. Photographs of the Giovannoni Project Site Attachment B. Vernal Pool Branchiopod Data Sheets
2455
Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey Report
Giovannoni, Napa County, CA
1 MONK & ASSOCIATES
1. INTRODUCTION
In the winter of 2016-2017, Monk & Associates, Inc. (M&A) completed wet season sampling (protocol surveys) for large vernal pool Branchiopods on the Giovannoni Property Project Site (herein referred to as the “project site”). This project site is located west of Highway 29 and east of the Napa River in the City of American Canyon, Napa County, California (Figures 1 and 2).
Protocol surveys for federally listed vernal pool Branchiopods were conducted in accordance with: (1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (USFWS 2015); (2) the conditions stipulated in M&A’s Federal 10(a)(1)(A) permit (number PRT-776608); and (3) M&A’s California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) scientific collector permits. M&A received written authorization to conduct wet season protocol surveys on the project site from USFWS’ Sacramento Field Office on August 19, 2016 (email communication between S. Lynch of M&A and Sarah Markegard of the USFWS’ Sacramento Field Office).
This report has been prepared in accordance with USFWS’ Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (2015) distributed to Federal 10(a)(1)(A) permittees. Below we provide a description of the project site, the purpose for conducting vernal pool Branchiopod surveys on the project site, and our survey methods and results.
2. PROJECT SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The approximately 210-acre project site is in northwestern American Canyon, Napa County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The project site is located west of Highway 29 and east of the Napa River. Southern Pacific Railroad and Green Island Road occur along the southern project site boundary, and a freight-only railroad borders the project site to the west. Northeast of the project site there is a recently constructed industrial warehouse (the Napa Logistics Phase I project) and northwest of the project site is an open field with non-native annual grassland and seasonal wetlands that is approved by the City of American Canyon and the resource agencies for development as a commercial warehouse project (the Napa Logistics Phase II project). Industrial businesses occur to the west, east and south of the project site. Figure 2 provides an aerial photograph of the project site that illustrates the project site and the surrounding land use. Figure 3 is a close up aerial photograph of the project site.
The project site is relatively flat and generally slopes to the northwestern corner of the project site where No Name Creek, an ephemeral channel, flows off the site. A small hillock characterizes the southwestern portion of the site. Although the remaining portions of the project site are relatively flat, there are portions with depressional microrelief that have been exacerbated by cattle grazing and long-term inundation resulting in a hummocky landscape. As a result, there are small seasonal wetlands and swales scattered throughout the site, and larger, deeper wetlands on the eastern and southern portions of the site (see Sheet 1).
2456
Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey Report
Giovannoni, Napa County, CA
2 MONK & ASSOCIATES
3. PURPOSE FOR CONDUCTING VERNAL POOL CRUSTACEAN SURVEYS The purpose for conducting the dry and wet-season Branchiopod surveys was to determine if wetlands onsite support federally-listed branchiopods such as the vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) which is known to occur 0.5-mile northwest of the project site along the south end of the Napa Airport and west of Highway 29 (CNDDB Occurrence No. 232) (Figure 3).
4. SURVEY METHODS
Survey methods were conducted in accordance with USFWS’ May 2015 revised Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. These survey guidelines require adequate sampling of all pools/swales on a property at least once every two weeks beginning when they hold greater than 3 cm of standing water twenty-four hours after a rain event. In accordance with the Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods, surveys were conducted starting in December 2016 and continued until pools were no longer inundated (or held less than 3 centimeters of water), or until they experienced at least 90 days of continuous inundation.
Sampling procedures entailed dip-netting each inundated pool/swale with a fine mesh standard aquatic net (12-inch diameter triangular net bag). The net was dragged through the pool’s water column for approximately 12 to 24 inches (depending on the size of the pool), and then passed back over the same area to catch any invertebrates that may have been stirred up by the current.
The edges as well as the centers of pools and swales were sampled. Depending on the size of the pool, one to several dips with the net was made before it was determined that fairy shrimp/vernal pool tadpole shrimp were not present in the pool on that particular day. For longer swales or pools (i.e., greater than 25 feet in length), several sampling points were established along the swale and these same points were sampled during each survey.
After each pass with the net, the net was checked for fairy shrimp and/or vernal pool tadpole shrimp, and other invertebrates. During each sampling event, overall site conditions and weather, including the date of the last rain event, were recorded on a standardized datasheet or in field notes. Additionally, during each sampling event measurements were made of each pool’s size, water depth, and vegetation composition. All invertebrates present in each pool were identified to order (e.g., Copepoda, Ostracoda) and recorded on the datasheet. Similarly, any amphibians present were identified to species, and their life cycle stage was noted (e.g., egg mass, larvae, adult). Copies of the datasheets are included as Attachment B.
5. SURVEY RESULTS
No fairy shrimp or tadpole shrimp were identified in any wetland feature onsite during the course of the wet season surveys. M&A only observed common invertebrates and amphibians such as Cladocera, Hemiptera, Ostracods, clam shrimp (Cyzicus sp) and Sierran tree frog larvae (Pseudacris sierra) (Attachment B). Below we provide the survey dates and a general description of habitats sampled onsite.
5.1 Survey Dates
Starting in November 2016 and continuing through February 2017, M&A conducted seven (7) separate dip-netting surveys on the project site. Survey dates were November 11 and 28, 2016, 2457
Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey Report
Giovannoni, Napa County, CA
3 MONK & ASSOCIATES
December 19, 2016, January 5, 2017, January 18, 2017, February 1, 2017 and February 15, 2017.
The February 15, 2017 survey marked 90 days of continuous inundation (a complete survey period as specified in the survey protocol).
5.2 Characteristics of Pools and Swales Sampled
Sheet 1 (attached) indicates the locations of the potential vernal pool Branchiopod habitats identified by M&A during our initial site assessment and our subsequent wetland assessment field studies conducted in 2016. Since seasonal wetlands are scattered throughout the project site and all experience varying degrees of inundation, M&A determined that those pools that provide the most suitable Branchiopod habitat are those that are not flowing, only inundate seasonally (as opposed to perennially) and those that support Obligate (OBL) and Facultative-Wet (FACW) hydrophytic vegetation (and not just Facultative (FAC) vegetation, for example, Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis) and Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum) which can be found in upland or wetland habitats).
Suitable vernal pool Branchiopod habitats are found in topographic depressions scattered throughout the project site. These wetlands range from shallow depressions of 2 inches to 12 inches deep which are dominated primarily by native wetland species including annual semaphore grass (Pleuropogon californicus var. californicus), California coyote thistle (Eryngium aristulatum var. aristulatum), smooth goldfields (Lasthenia glaberrima), Great Valley popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. micranthus) and wavy stemmed popcorn flower (P. undulatus). Non-native wetland species include rabbit’s foot grass (Polypogon monspilensis) and brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia) also occur in some of the sampled wetlands. Water in these wetlands was primarily tea-colored but due to the number of storm events that occurred during the winter of 2016-2017 and the amount of runoff that ensued, some pools experienced turbid conditions.
5.3 Organisms Identified in Sampled Pools
No vernal pool Branchiopods were identified in any aquatic feature sampled onsite. While the OBL and FACW vegetation dominated pools (Sheet 1) were initially thought to provide “suitable” habitat for vernal pool branchiopods, we determined the wetlands do not support federally-listed branchiopods. This conclusion was drawn based on the results of LSA’s dry season surveys and M&A’s wet season surveys. The sampled wetlands were found to support:
Copepods, Ostracods, Cladocera, Hemiptera, clam shrimp, and Sierran tree frog larvae.
2458
Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey Report
Giovannoni, Napa County, CA
4 MONK & ASSOCIATES
6. CONCLUSIONS
No federally-listed fairy shrimp or vernal pool tadpole shrimp were identified on the project site during wet season surveys conducted in the winter of 2016-2017. No common species of fairy shrimp were identified either (for example, Linderiella occidentalis). Only common invertebrate species such as Copepods, Ostracods, Cladocera, Hemiptera, and clam shrimp were identified.
These survey findings corroborate the dry season sampling results obtained by LSA Associates for the project site. M&A also identified Sierran tree frog eggs and larvae in pools. No other amphibians were observed.
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS SURVEY REPORT AND ATTACHED EXHIBITS FULLY AND ACCURATELY REPRESENTS MY WORK:
_____________________________ TE-776608-10 March 20, 2017 Surveyor Permit Number Date
2459
Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey Report
Giovannoni, Napa County, CA
5 MONK & ASSOCIATES
7. SURVEY AND REPORT PREPARATION PARTICIPANTS
Sarah Lynch, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Protocol Surveys and Report Preparation Geoff Monk, Certified Wildlife Biologist, Report Oversight 2460
Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey Report
Giovannoni, Napa County, CA
6 MONK & ASSOCIATES
8. LITERATURE CITED
California Natural Diversity Data Base (BIOS 5). 2016. RareFind 3.2. California Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
USFWS (U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service). 2015. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. 24 pps. May 31, 2015.
2461
2462
2463
2464
2465
Giovannoni Project Site Representative Photographs
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Photograph #1: View of ditch portion of Wetland 88, looking northeast (November 1, 2016) Photograph #2: View of Wetland 88 looking south (November 1, 2016) 2466
Giovannoni Project Site
Wet-Season Survey Representative Photographs
City of American Canyon, California
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Photograph #3: View of Isolated Wetland 5, looking south (November 28, 2016) Photograph #4: View of Wetland 16, looking south (December 12, 2016) 2467
Giovannoni Project Site
Wet-Season Survey Representative Photographs
City of American Canyon, California
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Photograph #5: View of Wetland 16, looking west (December 12, 2016) Photograph #6 View of No-Name Creek, looking North (January 5, 2017) 2468
Giovannoni Project Site
Wet-Season Survey Representative Photographs
City of American Canyon, California
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Photograph #7: View of Isolated Wetland 5, looking northwest (February 1, 2017) Photograph #8: View of Wetland 88, looking south-southwest (February 1, 2017) 2469
2470
2471
2472
2473
2474
2475
2476
City of American Canyon—Giovannoni Logistics Center Project Draft EIR
FirstCarbon Solutions
C.6 - M & A 2018 Devlin Road Biological Resources Assessment C-457
2477
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2478
City of American Canyon | Devlin Road and Napa Valley Vine Trail Extension Project – Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix C
Biological Resource Analysis
2479
City of American Canyon | Devlin Road and Napa Valley Vine Trail Extension Project – Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration This page is intentionally left blank
2480
MONK & ASSOCIATES
Environmental Consultants
1136 Saranap Ave., Suite Q Walnut Creek California 94595 (925) 947-4867 FAX (925) 947-1165
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS
DEVLIN ROAD /VINE TRAIL EXTENSION PROJECT
CITY OF AMERICAN CANYON, CALIFORNIA
October 15, 2018
Prepared for
GHD, Inc.
2235 Mercury Way, Suite 150
Santa Rosa, California 95407
Attention: Mr. Matt Wargula
Prepared by
Monk & Associates, Inc.
1136 Saranap Avenue, Suite Q
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Contact: Ms. Sarah Lynch
2481
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
i
MONK & ASSOCIATES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
2. PROPERTY LOCATION AND SETTING .................................................................................... 1
3. PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................................... 2
4. ANALYSIS METHODS .................................................................................................................. 2
5. RESULTS OF RESEARCH AND PROJECT SITE ANALYSES ................................................ 3
5.1 Topography .............................................................................................................................. 3
5.2 Soils .......................................................................................................................................... 3
5.2.1 CLEAR LAKE CLAY, DRAINED ......................................................................................... 3
5.2.2 HAIRE LOAM ......................................................................................................................... 3
5.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................ 3
5.4 Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats ........................................................... 4
5.4.1 NON-NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLANDS ...................................................................................... 4
5.4.2 SEASONAL WETLANDS, AND SWALES .................................................................................. 5
5.5 Wildlife Corridors .................................................................................................................... 5
6. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DEFINITION ................................................................................. 6
6.1 Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 6
6.2 Potential Special-Status Plants on the Project Site ................................................................. 8
6.3 Potential Special-Status Animals in the Project Site .............................................................. 9
6.3.1 VERNAL POOL FAIRY SHRIMP ................................................................................................... 9
6.3.2 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG ........................................................................................... 10
6.3.3 NORTHERN HARRIER .............................................................................................................. 11
6.3.4 SWAINSON’S HAWK ................................................................................................................ 11
6.3.5 GOLDEN EAGLE ....................................................................................................................... 12
7. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR NATIVE WILDLIFE, FISH, AND PLANTS .............. 13
7.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ........................................................................................... 13
7.1.1 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY .......................................................................................................... 15
7.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................... 15
7.2 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act ....................................................................................... 16
7.2.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 16
7.3 California Endangered Species Act ...................................................................................... 16
7.3.1 SECTION 2081 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ........................................ 16
7.3.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 18
7.4 California Fish and Game Code § 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 ....................................... 18
7.4.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 18
7.5 City of American Canyon General Plan ............................................................................... 19
7.5.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 20
7.6 City of American Canyon Municipal Code Pertaining to Trees .......................................... 21
7.6.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................... 21
8. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND STATE .................................................................................................................................. 22
8.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction and General Permitting .................................. 22
8.1.1 SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ............................................................................ 22
8.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 25 2482
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
ii
MONK & ASSOCIATES
8.2 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) / California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ............................................................................................................ 25
8.2.1 SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ............................................................................ 25
8.2.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 26
8.2.3 PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT .......................................................... 26
8.2.4 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 27
8.2.5 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) .............................. 27
8.2.6 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 29
8.3 RWQCB Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program ........................................................ 30
8.3.1 RWQCB PHASE II PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................... 31
8.3.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 32
8.4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Protections ...................................................... 32
8.4.1 SECTION 1602 OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE ........................................................ 32
8.4.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 33
9. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REGULATIONS ................... 33
9.1.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ........................................................................ 34
10. IMPACTS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 34
10.1 Significance Criteria ............................................................................................................ 34
10.1.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................................................................................... 34
11. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED MITIGATION ................................................... 35
11.1 Ground Nesting Raptors ...................................................................................................... 35
11.1.1 IMPACT BIO-1: THE PROJECT MAY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON GROUND NESTING RAPTORS. ......................................................................................................................................... 35
11.1.2 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-1: GROUND-NESTING RAPTORS ............................................ 36
11.2 Nesting Passerine Birds ....................................................................................................... 36
11.2.1 IMPACT BIO-2: THE PROJECT MAY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON NESTING PASSERINE BIRDS. .............................................................................................................................................. 36
11.2.2 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-2: NESTING PASSERINE BIRDS .............................................. 37
11.3 Waters of the United States/ State ....................................................................................... 37
11.3.1 IMPACT BIO-3: THE PROJECT MAY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES/ STATE. ................................................................................................................. 37
11.3.2 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-3: WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES/STATE ........................ 37
11.4 Nesting Swainson’s Hawk .................................................................................................. 38
11.4.1 IMPACT BIO-4: THE PROJECT MAY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON NESTING SWAINSON’S HAWKS ............................................................................................................................................. 38
11.4.2 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-4: SWAINSON’S HAWK .......................................................... 38
11.5 Nesting Golden Eagle .......................................................................................................... 39
11.5.1 IMPACT BIO-5: THE PROJECT MAY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON NESTING GOLDEN EAGLES ............................................................................................................................................ 39
11.5.2 MITIGATION MEASURE 5. FOR IMPACTS TO NESTING GOLDEN EAGLES .......................... 39
12. LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................. 41
2483
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
iii
MONK & ASSOCIATES
FIGURES
(At Back of Report)
Figure 1. Regional Map of the Devlin Road Vine Trail Extension Project Site.
Figure 2. Devlin Road Vine Trail Extension Project Site Location.
Figure 3. Aerial Photograph of the Devlin Road Vine Trail Extension Project Site.
Figure 4. Closest Known Records for Special-Status Species Within 3 Miles of the Devlin Road Vine Trail Extension Project Site.
Figure 5. USFWS Critical Habitat in the Vicinity of the Devlin Road Vine Trail Extension Project
TABLES
(At Back of Report)
Table 1. Plant Species Observed on the Devlin Road Vine Trail Extension Project Site.
Table 2. Wildlife Species Observed on the Devlin Road Vine Trail Extension Project Site.
Table 3. Special-Status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Devlin Road Vine Trail Extension Project Site.
Table 4. Special-Status Animal Species Known to Occur in the Vicinity of the Devlin Road Vine Trail Extension Project Site.
SHEETS
(At Back of Report)
Sheet 1. Confirmed Aquatic Resources Delineation Map, Giovannoni Property (which includes the Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project Site), City of American Canyon, California
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A. Potential Wetland Impacts Along the Devlin Road Vine Trail Extension Project 2484
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
1 MONK & ASSOCIATES
1. INTRODUCTION
Monk & Associates, Inc. (M&A) has prepared this biological resource analysis for the proposed Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension project site (herein referred to as the project site) located in the City of American Canyon, California (Figures 1 and 2). The purpose of our analysis is to provide a description of existing biological resources on the project site and to identify potentially significant impacts that could occur to sensitive biological resources from the proposed extension of Devlin Road and the Vine Trail (the project) through the project site.
Biological resources include common plant and animal species, and special-status plants and animals as designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and other resource organizations including the California Native Plant Society. Biological resources also include waters of the United States and State, as regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW. Our analysis includes a formal delineation of “waters of the U.S.” that has been confirmed by the Corps, the regulatory agency that defines waters of the U.S. This aquatic resources delineation, Sheet 1, shows the extent of the Corps’ jurisdiction on the project site.
This biological resources analysis provides a regulatory review of environmental regulations that have applicability to the proposed project. Finally, this analysis also provides mitigation measures for “potentially significant” and “significant” impacts that could occur to biological resources from the implementation of the project. Whenever possible, upon implementation, the prescribed mitigation measures would reduce impacts to levels considered less than significant pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 Cal.
Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq). Accordingly, this report is suitable for review and inclusion in any review being conducted by the City of American Canyon for the proposed project pursuant to the CEQA.
2. PROPERTY LOCATION AND SETTING
The approximately 12.1-acre project site is located in northwestern American Canyon, Napa County (Figure 1). The project site is relatively flat. It is characterized by a mosaic of non-native annual grassland and seasonal wetlands; it is currently grazed by cattle.
This linear project site travels through the approximate middle of privately owned grazing land (the Giovannoni Property) (Figure 2). Highway 29 is located east of the project site and the Napa River is to the west. Southern Pacific Railroad and Green Island Road occur along the southern project site boundary. Northeast of the project site there is a recently constructed industrial warehouse (the Napa Logistics Phase I project) and northwest of the project site is an open field with non-native annual grassland and seasonal wetlands that is approved by the City of American Canyon and the resource agencies for development as a commercial warehouse project (the Napa Logistics Phase II project). Industrial businesses occur to the west and east of the Giovannoni Property, and to the south of the project site. Figure 2 provides an aerial photograph of the project site that illustrates the project site and the surrounding land use. Figure 3 is a close up aerial photograph of the project site.
2485
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
2 MONK & ASSOCIATES
3. PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of American Canyon is proposing to extend the existing Devlin Road and Vine Trail through the project site as shown in Figures 2 and 3. This road extension will join the City of American Canyon’s Green Island Road industrial area with an existing segment of Devlin Road that currently terminates at the north end of the project site. Further to the north of this termination, on the northern City of American Canyon limits, another segment of Devlin Road is currently approved to be constructed by Napa County. When both the project and the Napa County segments of Devlin Road are completed, the City of American Canyon’s Green Island Road industrial area will have direct connectivity with the Napa Airport business and industrial area and will facilitate trucking commerce between these two vital areas that keeps truck traffic off the already congested Highway 29, the only current route between these vital industrial/commerce areas.
4. ANALYSIS METHODS
Prior to preparing this biological resource analysis, M&A researched the most recent version of CDFW’s Natural Diversity Database, RareFind 3.2 application (CNDDB 2016) for historic and recent records of special-status plant and animal species (that is, threatened, endangered, rare) known to occur in the region of the project site. M&A also searched the 2016 electronic version of the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2001) for records of special-status plants known in the region of the project site. All special-status species records were compiled in tables. M&A examined all known record locations for special-status species to determine if special-status species could occur on the project site or within an area of affect.
In the spring and summer of 2016, M&A biologists conducted special-status plant surveys and a wetland delineation on the project site. The wetland delineation was conducted on April 15, 2016 by M&A Biologists Mr. Geoff Monk and Ms. Hope Kingma. Special-status plant surveys were conducted between March and July 2016 on the project site. The first survey was conducted on March 25 by Ms. Sarah Lynch and Mr. Jesse Reebs, the next survey on April 19 by Ms. Lynch and Mr. Devin Jokerst, the third survey on May 26 by Ms. Kingma and Mr. Jokerst, and the fourth and final survey on July 18, 2016 by Mr. Jokerst and Ms. Caitlyn Bishop. These surveys were appropriately timed to cover the blooming period of special-status plants known from the region. Finally, formal protocol level surveys for large vernal pool Branchiopods (fairy shrimp) were conducted on the project site. Following the USFWS’ survey protocol (USFWS 2015), and as approved by the USFWS on August 18, 2016, one season of dry season sampling was conducted in the summer of 2016 by M&A’s subconsultant, Mr. David Muth of LSA Associates.
One season of wet season surveys was conducted in the winter of 2016-2017 by M&A biologist Ms. Lynch. Wet season surveys commenced in November 2016 and were completed by the end of February 2017. The results of our literature research and field surveys are provided in the sections below.
2486
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
3 MONK & ASSOCIATES
5. RESULTS OF RESEARCH AND PROJECT SITE ANALYSES
5.1 Topography
The project site is relatively flat. There are portions with depressional microrelief that have been exacerbated by cattle grazing and long-term inundation resulting in a hummocky landscape. As a result there are small seasonal wetlands and swales scattered throughout this linear site.
5.2 Soils
The Soils Conservation Service (SCS), now called the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), mapped two soil types for the project site (NRCS Soils data mart website http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/app/). The mapped soil units are Clear Lake clay drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes and Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes. During M&A’s wetland delineation, test pits were dug to examine project site soils and confirmed that much of the project site’s soils are consistent with the soil descriptions provided by the NRCS.
5.2.1 CLEAR LAKE CLAY, DRAINED
The Clear Lake series consists of poorly drained soils on old alluvial fans and basins. Elevation is 22 to 2000 feet. These soils formed in alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. The plant cover is annual grasses and forbs. The mean annual precipitation is 25 to 35 inches, and the mean annual temperature is 59 to 63 degrees. Available water capacity is 10.3 inches.
5.2.2 HAIRE LOAM
The Haire Loam series consists of moderately well-drained soils, slow to rapid runoff, and very slow permeability on alluvial fans and terraces. Elevation is 20 to 2402 feet. These soils formed in alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. The plant cover is annual grasses and forbs. The mean annual precipitation is 25 to 30 inches and the mean annual temperature is 57 to 61 degrees Farenheit. Available water capacity is 6.5 inches.
5.3 Hydrology
There are no streams or drainages on the project site. The headwater of “No Name Creek” occurs approximately 1,000 feet plus to the west of the project site within the Giovannoni property.
While this ephemeral headwater does not influence the project site’s hydrology, ultimately stormwater that falls on the project site or emanates from sheet flows to the northeast of the project site, continues westward entering No Name Creek. On the project site depressional micro-topography in areas of Clear Lake clay soils has allowed water to sit perched at the soil surface above the water table resulting in the formation of seasonal wetlands. The presence of slowly permeable, saturated soils in combination with heavy cattle grazing during the winter months has created an overall hummocky landscape. As a result, the Corps has confirmed that there are approximately 0.21-acre of small seasonal wetlands scattered within the project site or that would be affected/filled by the project.
2487
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
4 MONK & ASSOCIATES
5.4 Plant Communities and Associated Wildlife Habitats
A complete list of plant species observed on the project site is presented in Table 1.
Nomenclature used for plant names follows The Jepson Manual Second Edition (Baldwin 2012) and changes made to this manual as published on the Jepson Interchange Project website (http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange/index.html). Table 2 is a list of wildlife species observed on the project site. Nomenclature for wildlife follows CDFW’s Complete list of amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species in California (2014) and any changes made to species nomenclature as published in scientific journals since the publication of CDFW’s list.
5.4.1 NON-NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLANDS
Non-native annual grasslands are dominated by introduced annual grasses and forbs that are highly adapted to disturbance and colonize sites with a history of high intensity, continual disturbance. Dominant non-native grasses on the project site, in order of dominance, include Italian ryegrass (Festuca perennis), medusa head (Elymus caput-medusae), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), and Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica). Common non-native forbs found on the project site, in order of dominance, include bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), subterranean clover (Trifolium subterranean), broad-leaf filaree (Erodium botrys), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), yellow glandweed (Parentucellia viscosa), Mediterranean linseed (Bellardia trixago) and bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides).
Due to continual grazing on the project site, very few native taxa remain. The few significant, natives are butter and eggs (Triphysaria versicolor subsp. faucibarbata), purple owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta), and hayfield tarplant (Hemizonia congesta ssp. luzulifolia). Though not dominant, other native species found on the project site include Ithuriel’s spear (Triteleia laxa), blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum), and white brodiaea (Triteleia hyacinthina).
The project site is a linear feature in the middle of a much larger, contiguous area of non-native grassland habitat that comprises the Giovannoni parcel. The project site’s grassland, taken together with the adjacent Giovannoni grassland community provides habitat for a wide variety of species. Graniverous (seed-eating) birds such as mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), and insectivorous birds such as Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), American pipit (Anthus rubescens), and western meadow lark (Sturnella neglecta), all of which were observed during the March through July 2016 surveys. Two other insectivorous birds observed during site surveys were large flocks of migrating and over-stopping marbled godwits (Limosa fedoa) and long-billed curlews (Numenius americanus), which were observed probing the ground and cow “patties” with their long bills, looking for insects. Other animals observed in the grassland included black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) and California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beechyi), and raptors such as American kestrel (Falco sparverius) and redtailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), which prey on the smaller birds and mammals. Fox scat, likely red fox (Vulpes vulpes), was also observed in the grassland.
2488
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
5 MONK & ASSOCIATES
5.4.2 SEASONAL WETLANDS AND SWALES
Seasonal wetlands and swales occur in the project site’s topographic low areas (Exhibit A).
Cattle seasonally roam the project site and their hooves leave deep pock marks and create hummocky topography in and around the wetlands. The exterior of the seasonal wetlands are primarily dominated by a combination of non-native wetland and facultative plant species including Italian ryegrass, Mediterranean barley, bristly ox-tongue, annual beard grass (Polypogon monspilensis), birdfoot trefoil, and English plantain, along with upland species, such as Harding grass and soft chess. Moving interior along the wetland where there are longer periods of inundation, species observed encompass native wetland species including meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), annual semaphore grass (Pleuropogon californicus var. californicus), creeping spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), various rush species (Juncus balticus ssp. ater, J. bufonius, J. phaeocephalus, and J. xiphioides), California coyote thistle (Eryngium aristulatum var. aristulatum), smooth goldfields (Lasthenia glaberrima) and Great Valley popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. micranthus).
Seasonal wetlands provide wildlife with a seasonal water source that allows animals to drink and forage in the water during the winter and spring months and sometimes into the early summer.
Amphibians will lay their eggs in seasonal wetland habitats and complete much of their life cycle in the wetlands. Invertebrates such as mayflies (Ephemeroptera), damselflies (Odonata), and predaceous diving beetles (Dytiscidae) are commonly associated with inundated seasonal wetland habitats and complete their life cycle in the wetlands. Wildlife observed using these wetlands during the 2016 surveys included black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Sierran tree frog, long-billed curlew and marbled godwit.
5.5 Wildlife Corridors
Wildlife corridors are linear and/or regional habitats that provide connectivity to other natural vegetation communities within a landscape fractured by urbanization and other development.
Wildlife corridors have several functions: 1) they provide avenues along which wide-ranging animals can travel, migrate, and breed, allowing genetic interchange to occur; 2) populations can move in response to environmental changes and natural disasters; and 3) individuals can recolonize habitats from which populations have been locally extirpated (Beier and Loe 1992).
All three of these functions can be met if both regional and local wildlife corridors are accessible to wildlife. Regional wildlife corridors provide foraging, breeding, and retreat areas for migrating, dispersing, immigrating, and emigrating wildlife populations. Local wildlife corridors provide access routes to food, cover, and water resources typically within restricted habitats available for use by resident wildlife species with restricted home ranges. Migrant birds that usually are adapted to higher levels of disturbance may also temporarily perch or feed in these restricted habitats.
The project site is a linear feature that encompasses approximately 12.1 acres of a 210-acre parcel. Running north-south through the 210-acre parcel, the narrow project site if developed could disrupt a local east-west movement corridor through the 210-acre parcel. No regionally significant wildlife population is known to have any migration corridor in the City of American Canyon, and thus, no regionally significant wildlife corridor would be disrupted by construction of the project. A local wildlife use area occurs within the 210-acre Giovannoni property. Thus, 2489
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
6 MONK & ASSOCIATES
common local species could be affected by the construction of the project. The terrestrial animals that use the Giovannoni property, and thus that could be disrupted by the project include common rodents, rabbits, small canids, raccoons, skunks and opossums. These animals use the surrounding Giovannoni property for local foraging, hunting, water, and possibly for finding mates. While development of the project site for a road and trail would impact a minor local wildlife corridor it would not, however, disrupt a regional wildlife corridor or a significant wildlife corridor since the Giovannoni property is otherwise surrounded by developed areas and thus provides no connection with any regionally significant open space. All surrounding parcels have been developed or are approved for development (e.g., the Napa Logistics Phase II project site). Migratory birds that temporarily stop on the Giovannoni parcel would not be affected by the project. They would simply avoid the road area for stop overs simply using other available areas for resting/perching/foraging. There would be no significant effect on migratory birds from the construction of the project.
6. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DEFINITION
6.1 Definitions
For purposes of this analysis, special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts (CESA and FESA, respectively) or other regulations, and species that are considered rare by the scientific community (for example, the CNPS). Special-status species are defined as:
plants and animals that are listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the CESA (Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq.; 14 CCR §670.1 et seq.) or the FESA (50 CFR 17.12 for plants; 50 CFR 17.11 for animals; various notices in the Federal Register [FR] for proposed species);
plants and animals that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA (50 CFR 17; FR Vol. 64, No. 205, pages 57533-57547, October 25, 1999); and under the CESA (California Fish and Game Code §2068); plants and animals that meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (14 CCR §15380) that may include species not found on either State or Federal Endangered Species lists; Plants occurring on Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4 of CNPS’ electronic Inventory (CNPS 2001). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) recognizes that Ranks 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B of the CNPS inventory contain plants that, in the majority of cases, would qualify for State listing, and CDFW requests their inclusion in EIRs. Plants occurring on CNPS Ranks 3 and 4 are "plants about which more information is necessary," and "plants of limited distribution," respectively (CNPS 2001). Such plants may be included as special-status species on a case by case basis due to local significance or recent biological information (more on CNPS Rank species below); 2490
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
7 MONK & ASSOCIATES
migratory nongame birds of management concern listed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern in the United States: The list 1995; Office of Migratory Bird Management; Washington D.C.; Sept. 1995); animals that are designated as "species of special concern" by CDFW (2016); Animal species that are “fully protected” in California (Fish and Game Codes 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515).
Bat Species that are designated on the Western Bat Working Group’s (WBWG) Regional Bat Species Priority Matrix as: “RED OR HIGH.” This priority is justified by the WBWG as follows: “Based on available information on distribution, status, ecology, and known threats, this designation should result in these bat species being considered the highest priority for funding, planning, and conservation actions. Information about status and threats to most species could result in effective conservation actions being implemented should a commitment to management exist. These species are imperiled or are at high risk of imperilment.”
In the paragraphs below we provide further definitions of legal status as they pertain to the special-status species discussed in this report or in the attached tables.
Federal Endangered or Threatened Species. A species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the FESA is protected from unauthorized “take” (that is, harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap) of that species. If it is necessary to take a Federal listed Endangered or Threatened species as part of an otherwise lawful activity, it would be necessary to receive permission from the USFWS prior to initiating the take.
State Threatened Species. A species listed as Threatened under the state Endangered Species Act (§2050 of California Fish and Game Code) is protected from unauthorized “take” (that is, harass, pursue, hunt, shoot, trap) of that species. If it is necessary to “take” a state listed Threatened species as part of an otherwise lawful activity, it would be necessary to receive permission from CDFW prior to initiating the “take.”
California Species of Special Concern. These are species in which their California breeding populations are seriously declining and extirpation from all or a portion of their range is possible.
This designation affords no legally mandated protection; however, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15380), some species of special concern could be considered “rare.” Pursuant to its rarity status, any unmitigated impacts to rare species could be considered a “significant effect on the environment” (§15382). Thus, species of special concern must be considered in any project that will, or is currently, undergoing CEQA review, and/or that must obtain an environmental permit(s) from a public agency.
CNPS Rank Species. The CNPS maintains an “Inventory” of special status plant species. This inventory has four lists of plants with varying rarity. These lists are: Rank 1, Rank 2, Rank 3, and Rank 4. Although plants on these lists have no formal legal protection (unless they are also state 2491
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
8 MONK & ASSOCIATES
or federal listed species), CDFW requests the inclusion of Rank 1 species in environmental documents. In addition, other state and local agencies may request the inclusion of species on other lists as well. The Rank 1 and 2 species are defined below:
Rank 1A: Presumed extinct in California;
Rank 1B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere; Rank 2B: Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.
All of the plants constituting Rank 1B meet the definitions of Section 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing (CNPS 2001). Rank 2 species are rare in California, but more common elsewhere. Ranks 3 and 4 contain species about which there is some concern, and are reviewed by CDFW and maintained on “watch lists.” Additionally, in 2006 CNPS updated their lists to include “threat code extensions” for each list.
For example, Rank 1B species would now be categorized as Rank 1B.1, Rank 1B.2, or Rank 1B.3. These threat codes are defined as follows:
.1 is considered “seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat)”;
.2 is “fairly endangered in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened)”; .3 is “not very endangered in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known).”
Under the CEQA review process only CNPS Rank 1 and 2 species are considered since these are the only CNPS species that meet CEQA’s definition of “rare” or “endangered.” Impacts to Rank 3 and 4 species are not regarded as significant pursuant to CEQA.
Fully Protected Birds. Fully protected birds, such as the white-tailed kite and golden eagle, are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3511). Fully protected birds may not be “taken” or possessed (i.e., kept in captivity) at any time.
6.2 Potential Special-Status Plants on the Project Site Figure 4 provides a graphical illustration of the closest known records for special-status species within 3 miles of the project site and helps readers visually understand the number of sensitive species that occur in the vicinity of the project site. No special-status plants have been mapped on or adjacent the project site. However, according to the CNPS’ Inventory and CDFW’s CNDDB, a total of 18 special-status plant species are known to occur in the project site region (Table 3). In order to address the presence of those special-status plant species in which the project site provides suitable habitat conditions, M&A conducted monthly surveys between March and July. These surveys covered the known blooming periods of the potentially occurring plant species. During these surveys, M&A botanists walked meandering transects throughout the project site identifying every plant observed to the level necessary to determine its rarity status (that is, species, subspecies or variety). Those plants that could not be readily identified in the field were collected and brought back to the lab for “keying” (that is, identification under a microscope using a dichotomous key). No special-status plants were identified on the project site 2492
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
9 MONK & ASSOCIATES
during March through July 2016 surveys. Thus, no impacts to special-status plants would be expected from project implementation.
6.3 Potential Special-Status Animals in the Project Site Figure 4 provides a graphical illustration of the closest known records for special-status species within 3 miles of the project site and helps readers visually understand the number of sensitive species that occur in the vicinity of the project site. No special-status animal records have ever been mapped on or adjacent to the project site. However, a total of 25 special-status animal species are known to occur in the region of the project site (Table 4). Because of the sensitivity of five (5) of the special-status animal species known to occur in the area we further discuss these species below. These include vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsonii), and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos).
6.3.1 VERNAL POOL FAIRY SHRIMP
Vernal pool fairy shrimp was designated as threatened in its entire range on September 19, 1994 (Federal Register 59:48136-48153). Critical habitat for this species was originally designated on August 6, 2003 (Federal Register 68: 46683-46867), and the designation was revised on August 11, 2005. Critical habitat unit designations by individual fairy shrimp species were published on February 10, 2006 (Federal Register 71:7117). The project site is 0.40-mile southeast of designated critical habitat.
The vernal pool fairy shrimp is a small aquatic crustacean that ranges in size from ½-inch to one inch long. Fairy shrimp feed on algae, bacteria, protozoa, rotifers and bits of detritus. The vernal pool fairy shrimp occupies a variety of different vernal pool habitats, from small, clear, sandstone rock pools to large, turbid, alkaline, grassland valley floor pools. It tends to occur in smaller pools (less than 0.05-acre) that are most commonly found in grass or mud bottomed swales, or basalt flow depression pools in unplowed grasslands. It has also been collected in large vernal pools (e.g., 25 acres). Vernal pool fairy shrimp have been collected from early December to early May (USFWS 1994).
The female drops eggs to the pool bottom or the eggs remain in the brood sac until the mother dies and sinks. When the pool dries out, so do the eggs (known as cysts when dry). They remain in the dry pool bed until rains and other environmental stimuli hatch them. Cysts can withstand heat, cold and prolonged desiccation. When the pools refill, some, but not all, of the cysts may hatch. The cyst bank in the soil may contain cysts from several years of breeding. Average time to maturity is only forty-one days. In warmer pools, it can be as little as eighteen (Eriksen and Belk 1999).
The vernal pool fairy shrimp is widespread but not abundant. Known populations extend from Shasta County through most of the length of the Central Valley to Tulare County. Along the central coast, they range from northern Solano County to Pinnacles National Monument in San Benito County. Four additional, disjunct populations exist in Southern California. The ephemeral wetlands that support this network of populations are remnants of what was formerly a pristine vernal pool ecosystem, which has been converted to primarily agricultural and urban uses. 2493
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
10 MONK & ASSOCIATES
The project site provides potentially suitable habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Following USFWS’ survey protocol (2015), as approved by the USFWS, M&A conducted dry season sampling for vernal fairy pool cysts in August 2016. Also, as approved by USFWS, wet season sampling was initiated in November 2016 when wetland features present on the project site held greater than 1 inch of standing water; wet season sampling continued through February 2017 for a total wet season sampling period of 90 days. No fairy shrimp of any genus or species (for example, Linderiella or Branchinecta, or their cysts were identified on the project site during dry season and wet season sampling. Based on these dry and wet season sampling results with negative findings, M&A concludes that the project would not result in impacts to the vernal pool fairy shrimp or any other federally listed fairy shrimp species. Since these two seasons of fairy shrimp surveys followed all methods prescribed in the USFWS’ 2015 survey protocol M&A can state with confidence that there will be no significant impacts to vernal pool fairy shrimp. No mitigation is warranted for this species.
6.3.2 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG
The California red-legged frog was federally listed as threatened on May 23, 1996 (Federal Register 61: 25813-25833) and as such is protected pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act. On March 16, 2010 the USFWS issued the final designation for California red-legged frog Critical Habitat (USFWS 2010). The 2010 Critical Habitat maps (Federal Register dated March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51:12815-12864) show that the project site is located approximately 2.1 miles west of Critical Habitat Unit SOL-3 (Figure 5). The California redlegged frog is also a state “species of special concern.” This frog is also a California “species of special concern.” California “species of special concern” are species in which their California breeding populations are seriously declining and extirpation from all or a portion of their range is possible. This title affords no legally mandated protection for this species; however, pursuant to CEQA (14 CCR §15380), any project related impacts to this species would be regarded as significant.
California red-legged frogs are typically found in slow-flowing portions of perennial streams, and in intermittent streams, and hillside seeps that maintain pool environments or saturated soils throughout the summer months. Riparian vegetation such as willows (Salix sp.) and emergent vegetation such as cattails are preferred red-legged frog habitats, though not necessary for this species to be present. This frog is also found in human-made ponds. Populations of the California red-legged frog will be reduced in size or eliminated from ponds supporting nonnative species such as bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), Centrarchid fish species (such as sunfish, blue gill, or largemouth bass), and signal and red swamp crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus and Procambarus clarkii, respectively), all known California red-legged frog predators.
The closest known record for the California red-legged frog is a 2008 sighting approximately 1.6 miles east of the project site in North Slough (CNDDB Occurrence No. 1062). This location is on the east side of Highway 29 and is not hydrologically connected to the project site. There are no California red-legged frog records on the west side of Highway 29. There is no perennial water or long-term inundation that occurs on or adjacent to the project site. The seasonal wetlands onsite are too shallow and seasonally inundated to provide habitat for this large native 2494
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
11 MONK & ASSOCIATES
frog species which requires water most months of the year. Thus, it is improbable that the California red-legged frog would occur on the project site. Pursuant to CEQA, the proposed project would have no significant impacts on California red-legged frogs. No mitigation is warranted for this species.
6.3.3 NORTHERN HARRIER
The northern harrier is a state species of special concern. This raptor is also protected under California Fish and Game Code §3503.5 that protects nesting raptors and their eggs/young. The northern harrier is also protected from direct take under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR
10.13). Northern harriers build grass-lined nests on the ground within dense, low-lying vegetation in a variety of habitats, though they are typically found nesting in grassland or marsh habitats. They usually nest on level to near level ground. This species is particularly vulnerable to ground predators such as coyotes (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and various snake species. Ground nesting birds in general are also subject to disturbance by agricultural practices. Northern harriers likely forage over the project site and may nest in the open grasslands that provide suitable nesting habitat for this species. Hence, development of the proposed project could result in impacts to nesting northern harriers. See the Impacts and Mitigations section for details.
6.3.4 SWAINSON’S HAWK
The Swainson's hawk is a state listed threatened species afforded protection pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act. While it has no special federal status, it is protected from direct take under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711).
Swainson’s hawks, their nests, eggs, and young are also protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3503, §3503.5, §3513, and §3800). Finally, pursuant to CEQA, this hawk would be considered “rare” and impacts to its nest sites would be regarded as significant.
The Swainson’s hawk is generally a summer visitor to California. In the fall months, most Swainson’s hawks migrate to South America before returning to the United States to breed once again in the late spring. There is a small population of Swainson’s hawks that remain resident in California year-round. The nesting population of Swainson’s hawks in California was reduced considerably over historical nesting populations by the time it was afforded protections pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act in 1984. Since that time, the nesting population of Swainson’s hawk has significantly recovered in California, as have other raptor species that were previously protected both as State and Federal listed species. Both the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus ssp. anatum) and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) were similarly listed species under both the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts, but have both been delisted owing to population recovery. The Swainson’s hawk nesting population also likely has greatly recovered, but owing to the absence of a thorough population census in California since the species was listed by the CDFW, it remains protected pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act.
The Swainson’s hawk inhabits open to semi-open areas at low to middle elevations in valleys, dry meadows, foothills, and level uplands (Kochert 1986). It nests almost exclusively in trees and will nest in almost any tree species that is at least 10 feet tall (Schmutz et. al. 1984). Nests are constructed in isolated trees that are dead or alive along drainages and in wetlands, or in windbreaks in fields and around farmsteads (Palmer 1988). Swainson’s hawks occasionally nest 2495
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
12 MONK & ASSOCIATES
in shrubs, on telephone poles, and on the ground. In the Central Valley of California, the majority of Swainson's hawk nests and territories are associated with riparian systems and nests are commonly found in cottonwoods and oaks (Schlorff et. al. 1984). They have also been documented nesting in eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), black walnut (Juglans hindsii), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), almond (Prunus dulcis), Osage orange (Maclura pomifera), Arizona cypress (Cupressus arizonica) and pine (Pinus spp.) (CNDDB records).
Foraging habitats include alfalfa fields, fallow fields, beet, tomato, and other low-growing row or field crops, dry-land and irrigated pasture, and rice land when not flooded (CDFG 1994). The Swainson's hawk generally forages in open habitats with short vegetation containing small mammals, reptiles, birds, and insects. Its primary prey in the Central Valley is California meadow vole (Microtus californicus). Agricultural areas are often preferred over more natural grassland habitats due to larger prey populations. In addition, agricultural practices (planting, maintenance, harvesting, disking) allow for access to prey, and very likely increases foraging success of Swainson’s hawks when farm equipment flushes prey during harvesting (observed many times by G. Monk). During the nesting season, Swainson’s hawks usually forage within two miles of their nests. Swainson’s hawk does not require habitats that contain many perches because it most often searches for prey aerially; therefore it can occupy habitats with few or no perches except the nest tree (James 1992).
The closest known Swainson’s hawk record to the project site is approximately 2.1 miles north (CNDDB Occurrence No. 1718). There is no nesting habitat on or near this linear project site; however, eucalyptus trees that are located approximately 0.5-mile west of the project site and other large trees 0.5 mile south of the project site provide potential nesting habitat. Using California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Swainson’s hawk survey guidelines (CDFG 2000), M&A biologist, Mr. Jesse Reebs, conducted a formal nesting survey for Swainson’s hawks including all potential habitats within a mile of the project site for the Napa Logistics Phase II project immediately adjacent to the project site. Swainson’s hawk nesting surveys were conducted April 5 and June 10, 2016 and February 27, 2017; no Swainson’s hawks or evidence of any raptor nesting was observed within a zone of influence of the project site. However, because the Swainson’s hawk is a mobile species and could nest within a zone of influence of the proposed project, preconstruction surveys are necessary to ensure that the project will not impact this hawk. See the Impacts and Mitigations section for details.
6.3.5 GOLDEN EAGLE
The golden eagle is fully protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c).
Additionally, its nest, eggs, and young are protected from direct “take” under the California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800). Finally, it is protected from direct take under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711).
Golden eagles are found breeding throughout western North America in remote open habitats.
Typical habitats in North America include savannah woodland habitats, grasslands, aspen parkland, high and low deserts, and in taiga and zone habitats. Golden eagles feed on fresh carrion or take live prey ranging in size from small rodents to as large as new born fawns. More typical prey includes rabbits, hares, and waterfowl. Golden eagles build nests in large trees, often eucalyptus, oaks, or conifers, or on large vertical cliffs. On rare occasions nests are found on the 2496
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
13 MONK & ASSOCIATES
ground, especially in expansive prairie habitats where cliffs and/or trees are scarce. Often this species will return each year to the same nest stacking new sticks on the existing nest structure.
These birds are very sensitive to disturbance near the nest site, particularly in remote regions where human activities are minimal.
There are two nesting records for golden eagles within 2.1 miles of the project site. One was a former nesting location in a eucalyptus tree surrounded by vineyard (CNDDB Occurrence No. 82); this tree was located northwest of the project site. In approximately 2008 this tree was cut down and no nesting habitat remains. The only other golden eagle nesting record that M&A is aware of is a nest site within the Newell Open Space within the City of American Canyon. This nest, also in a eucalyptus tree, was active in 2016 and 2017. It is also approximately 2.1 miles east of the project site (Mr. Reebs found this nest site and submitted a CNDDB record in 2016). The proposed project would not affect this golden eagle nest site. There is no nesting habitat for golden eagles on the project site; however, the eucalyptus trees located approximately 0.5-mile west of the project site may provide suitable habitat for golden eagles. M&A biologist, Jesse Reebs, has conducted several nesting surveys for Swainson’s hawks in these eucalyptus trees as part of the survey requirements for the Napa Logistics Phase II project. Swainson’s hawk nesting surveys were conducted April 5 and June 10, 2016 and February 27, 2017; no Swainson’s hawks, golden eagles, or evidence of any raptor nesting was observed in these trees during the surveys. Yet, since the golden eagle is a mobile species, preconstruction nesting surveys would be necessary.
See the Impacts and Mitigations section for details.
7. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR NATIVE WILDLIFE, FISH, AND PLANTS This section provides a discussion of those laws and regulations that are in place to protect native wildlife, fish, and plants. Under each law we discuss their pertinence to the proposed development.
7.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) forms the basis for the federal protection of threatened or endangered plants, insects, fish and wildlife. FESA contains four main elements, they are as follows:
Section 4 (16 USCA §1533): Species listing, Critical Habitat Designation, and Recovery Planning: outlines the procedure for listing endangered plants and wildlife.
Section 7 (§1536): Federal Consultation Requirement: imposes limits on the actions of federal agencies that might impact listed species.
Section 9 (§1538): Prohibition on Take: prohibits the "taking" of a listed species by anyone, including private individuals, and State and local agencies.
Section 10: Exceptions to the Take Prohibition: non-federal agencies can obtain an incidental take permit through approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan. 2497
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
14 MONK & ASSOCIATES
In the case of salt water fish and other marine organisms, the requirements of FESA are enforced by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS enforces all other cases. Below, Sections 9, 7, and 10 of FESA are discussed since they are the sections most relevant to the proposed project.
Section 9 of FESA as amended, prohibits the "take" of any fish or wildlife species listed under FESA as endangered. Under Federal regulation, "take" of fish or wildlife species listed as threatened is also prohibited unless otherwise specifically authorized by regulation. "Take," as defined by FESA, means "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” "Harm" includes not only the direct taking of a species itself, but the destruction or modification of the species' habitat resulting in the potential injury of the species. As such, "harm" is further defined to mean "an act which actually kills or injures wildlife; such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering" (50 CFR 17.3). A December 2001 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, Jeff Menges, vs. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Land Management, and the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity) ruled that the USFWS must show that a threatened or endangered species is present on a project site and that it would be taken by the project activities. According to this ruling, the USFWS can no longer require mitigation based on the probability that the species could use the site. Rather they must show that it is actually present.
Section 9 applies to any person, corporation, federal agency, or any local or State agency. If "take" of a listed species is necessary to complete an otherwise lawful activity, this triggers the need to obtain an incidental take permit either through a Section 7 Consultation as discussed further below (for federal actions or private actions that are permitted or funded by a federal agency), or requires preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) pursuant to Section 10 of FESA (for state and local agencies, or individuals, and projects without a federal “nexus”).
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that each federal agency consult with the USFWS to ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of an endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for listed species. Critical habitat designations mean: (1) specific areas within a geographic region currently occupied by a listed species, on which are found those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of a listed species and that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a listed species that are determined essential for the conservation of the species.
The Section 7 consultation process only applies to actions taken by federal agencies that are considering authorizing discretionary projects. Section 7 is by and between the NMFS and/or the USFWS and the federal agency contemplating a discretionary approval (that is, the “federal nexus agency,” for example, the Corps or the Federal Highway Administration). Private parties, cities, counties, etc. (i.e., applicants) may participate in the Section 7 consultation at the discretion of the federal agencies conducting the Section 7 consultation. The Section 7 consultation process is triggered by a determination of the “action agency” – that is, the federal 2498
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
15 MONK & ASSOCIATES
agency that is carrying out, funding, or approving a project - that the project “may affect” a listed species or critical habitat. If an action is likely to adversely affect a listed species or designated critical habitat, formal consultation between the nexus agency and the USFWS/NMFS is required. As part of the formal consultation, the USFWS/NMFS may resolve any issues informally with the nexus agency or may prepare a formal Biological Opinion assessing whether the proposed action would be likely to result in “jeopardy” to a listed species or if it could adversely modify designated critical habitat. If the USFWS/NMFS prepares a Biological Opinion it will contain either a “jeopardy” or “non-jeopardy” decision. If the USFWS/NMFS concludes that a proposed project would result in adverse modification of critical habitat or would jeopardize the continued existence of a federal listed species (that is, it will issue a jeopardy decision), the nexus federal agency would be most unlikely to authorize its discretionary permit.
If the USFWS/NMFS prepares a “non-jeopardy” Biological Opinion, the nexus federal agency may authorize the discretionary permit making all conditions of the Biological Opinion conditions of its discretionary permit. A non-jeopardy Biological Opinion constitutes an “incidental take” permit that allows applicants to “take” federally listed species while otherwise carrying out legally sanctioned projects.
For non-federal entities, for example private parties, cities, counties that are considering a discretionary permit, Section 10 provides the mechanism for obtaining take authorization. Under Section 10 of FESA, the applicant for an "incidental take permit" is required to submit a "conservation plan" to the USFWS or NMFS that specifies, among other things, the impacts that are likely to result from the taking, and the measures the permit applicant will undertake to minimize and mitigate such impacts, and the funding that will be available to implement those steps. Conservation plans under FESA have come to be known as "habitat conservation plans" or "HCPs" for short. The terms incidental take permit, Section 10 permit, and Section 10(a)(1)(B) permit are used interchangeably by the USFWS. Section 10(a)(2)(B) of FESA provides statutory criteria that must be satisfied before an incidental take permit can be issued.
7.1.1 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
FESA gives regulatory authority to the USFWS for federally listed terrestrial species and nonanadromous fish. The NMFS has regulatory authority over federally listed marine mammals and anadromous fish.
7.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The project site does not have stream channels or drainages to support fish; hence there would be no impacts to federally listed fish. Focused surveys for special-status plants have been conducted on the project site and no federally listed plant species have been identified; thus, there would be no project-related impacts to federally listed plants (or any other special-status plant). USFWS approved wet and dry season protocol surveys for vernal pool fairy shrimp have been conducted on the project site and none were identified. There are no other federally listed species issues relating to the project site. No impacts to federally listed species are expected from implementation of the proposed project. The project will have no significant effects on FESA listed species.
2499
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
16 MONK & ASSOCIATES
7.2 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, July 3, 1918, as amended 1936, 1960, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1978, 1986 and 1989) makes it unlawful to “take” (kill, harm, harass, shoot, etc.) any migratory bird listed in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section
10.13, including their nests, eggs, or young. Migratory birds include geese, ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds, wading birds, seabirds, and passerine birds (such as warblers, flycatchers, swallows, etc.).
Executive Order 13186 for conservation of migratory birds (January 11, 2001) requires that any project with federal involvement address impacts of federal actions on migratory birds. The order is designed to assist federal agencies in their efforts to comply with the MBTA and does not constitute any legal authorization to take migratory birds. The order also requires federal agencies to work with the USFWS to develop a memorandum of understanding (MOU).
Protocols developed under the MOU must promote the conservation of migratory bird populations through the following means:
avoid and minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions;
restore and enhance habitat of migratory birds, as practicable; and prevent or abate the pollution or detrimental alteration of the environment for the benefit of migratory birds, as practicable.
7.2.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
All raptors (birds of prey) and native song birds and wading birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The golden eagle, Swainson’s hawk and various other tree nesting raptors (birds of prey) could nest in trees immediately adjacent to the project site and may be disturbed by grading activities or other earth work associated with the road construction project.
The northern harrier is a ground-nesting raptor that could nest on the project site, though during past site surveys conducted during the nesting season this ground-nesting raptor was not observed nesting onsite; thus, the likelihood is low, especially due to the number of cattle grazing the site. In accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, as long as there is no direct mortality of species protected pursuant to this Act caused by development of the site, there should be no constraints to site development. To comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, all active nest sites would have to be avoided while such birds were nesting. Upon completion of nesting, the project could commence as otherwise planned. Please review specific requirements for avoidance of nest sites for potentially occurring species in the Impacts and Mitigations section below.
7.3 California Endangered Species Act
7.3.1 SECTION 2081 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT In 1984, the state legislated the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code §2050). The basic policy of CESA is to conserve and enhance endangered species and their habitats. State agencies will not approve private or public projects under their jurisdiction that would impact threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available. Because CESA does not have a provision for "harm" (see discussion of FESA, above), 2500
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
17 MONK & ASSOCIATES
CDFW considerations pursuant to CESA are limited to those actions that would result in the direct take of a listed species.
If CDFW determines that a proposed project could impact a State listed threatened or endangered species, CDFW will provide recommendations for "reasonable and prudent" project alternatives.
The CEQA lead agency can only approve a project if these alternatives are implemented, unless it finds that the project's benefits clearly outweigh the costs, reasonable mitigation measures are adopted, there has been no "irreversible or irretrievable" commitment of resources made in the interim, and the resulting project would not result in the extinction of the species. In addition, if there would be impacts to threatened or endangered species, the lead agency typically requires project applicants to demonstrate that they have acquired "incidental take" permits from CDFW and/or USFWS (if it is a Federal listed species) prior to allowing/permitting impacts to such species.
If proposed projects would result in impacts to a State listed species, an "incidental take" permit pursuant to §2081 of the Fish and Game Code would be necessary (versus a Federal incidental take permit for Federal listed species). CDFW will issue an incidental take permit only if:
1) The authorized take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; 2) the impacts of the authorized take are minimized and fully mitigated; 3) measures required to minimize and fully mitigate the impacts of the authorized take:
a) are roughly proportional in extent to the impact of the taking on the species; b) maintain the project applicant’s objectives to the greatest extent possible; and, c) capable of successful implementation; and,
4) adequate funding is provided to implement the required minimization and mitigation measures and to monitor compliance with, and the effectiveness of, the measures.
If an applicant is preparing a habitat conservation plan (HCP) as part of the federal 10(a) permit process, the HCP might be incorporated into the §2081 permit if it meets the substantive criteria of §2081(b). To ensure that an HCP meets the mitigation and monitoring standards in Section 2081(b), an applicant should involve CDFW staff in development of the HCP. If a final Biological Opinion (federal action) has been issued for the project pursuant to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act, it might also be incorporated into the §2081 permit if it meets the standards of §2081(b).
No §2081 permit may authorize the take of a species for which the Legislature has imposed strict prohibitions on all forms of “take.” These species are listed in several statutes that identify “fully protected” species and “specified birds.” See Fish and Game Code §§ 3505, 3511, 4700, 5050, 5515, and 5517. If a project is planned in an area where a “fully protected” species or a “specified bird” occurs, an applicant must design the project to avoid all take.
Fish and Game Code §2080.1 allows an applicant who has obtained a “non-jeopardy” federal Biological Opinion pursuant to Section 7 of the FESA, or who has received a federal 10(a) permit (federal incidental take permit) pursuant to the FESA, to submit the federal opinion or permit to CDFW for a determination as to whether the federal document is “consistent” with CESA. If after 30 days CDFW determines that the federal incidental take permit is consistent 2501
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
18 MONK & ASSOCIATES
with state law, and that all state listed species under consideration have been considered in the federal Biological Opinion, then no further permit or consultation is required under CESA for the project. However, if CDFW determines that the federal opinion or permit is not consistent with CESA, or that there are state listed species that were not considered in the federal Biological Opinion, then the applicant must apply for a state CESA permit under Section 2081(b). Section 2081(b) is of no use if an affected species is state-listed, but not federally listed.
State and federal incidental take permits are issued on a discretionary basis, and are typically only authorized if applicants are able to demonstrate that impacts to the listed species in question are unavoidable, and can be mitigated to an extent that the reviewing agency can conclude that the proposed impacts would not jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species under review. Typically, if there would be impacts to a listed species, mitigation that includes habitat avoidance, preservation, and creation of endangered species habitat is necessary to demonstrate that projects would not threaten the continued existence of a species. In addition, management endowment fees are usually collected as part of the agreement for the incidental take permit(s).
The endowment is used to manage any lands set-aside to protect listed species, and for biological mitigation monitoring of these lands over (typically) a five-year period.
7.3.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
M&A biologists have conducted numerous surveys on the project site including special-status plant surveys and a wetland delineation. During these multiple surveys, which spanned many months, no state listed plant or animal species were identified onsite. Thus, no impacts to state listed species protected pursuant to the CESA will occur from the proposed project (Tables 1 and 2, respectively).
7.4 California Fish and Game Code § 3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 California Fish and Game Code §3503, 3503.5, 3511, and 3513 prohibit the “take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs.” Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (killing or abandonment of eggs or young) is considered “take.” Such a take would also violate federal law protecting migratory birds (Migratory Bird Treaty Act).
All raptors (that is, hawks, eagles, owls) their nests, eggs, and young are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3503.5). Additionally, “fully protected” birds, such as the white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), are protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3511). “Fully protected” birds may not be taken or possessed (that is, kept in captivity) at any time.
7.4.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Raptors that could be impacted by the project include golden eagle, northern harrier, and Swainson’s hawk, among others. Preconstruction surveys would have to be conducted for these species to ensure that there is no direct take of these birds or any other birds (song birds, wading birds) including their eggs, or young. Any active nests that were found during preconstruction surveys would have to be avoided by the project. Suitable non-disturbance buffers would have to be established around nest sites until the nesting cycle is complete. More specifics on the size of buffers are provided below in the Impacts and Mitigations section. 2502
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
19 MONK & ASSOCIATES
7.5 City of American Canyon General Plan
The City of American Canyon General Plan was adopted on November 3, 1994. It sets forth the following goals, objectives, and policies relevant to biological resources on the project site:
Goal 8: Protect and preserve the significant habitats, plants and wildlife that exist in the City and its Planning Area.
Objective 8.1: Maintain data and information regarding areas of significant biological value within the Planning Area to facilitate resource conservation and the appropriate management of development.
Policy 8.1.1: Acquire and maintain the most current information available regarding the status and location of sensitive biological elements (species and natural communities) within the City and, as appropriate, within the Sphere of Influence and Urban Limit Line.
Policy 8.1.4: Regularly monitor and review developments proposed within the City's Planning Area to assess their impacts on local biological resources and to recommend appropriate mitigation measures that the developer and/or government agency can implement.
Objective 8.2: Balance the preservation of natural habitat areas, including coastal saltmarsh, mixed hardwood forest, oak savannah, and wetland and riparian habitats, with new development in the City.
Policy 8.2.1: Land use applications for developments located within sensitive habitats, including coastal saltmarsh, mixed hardwood forest, oak savannah, and riparian habitats (see Figure 8-1 in the General Plan), or with areas potentially occupied by vernal pools (see Figure 8-2 in the General Plan) shall be accompanied by sufficient technical background data to enable an adequate assessment of the potential for impacts on these resources, and possible measures to reduce any identifiable impacts. In addition to examining Figure 8-1 in the General Plan for information on these sensitive habitats, an on-site assessment shall be conducted by a City approved qualified biologist to determine if sensitive habitats exist on-site. In instances where the potential for significant impacts exists, the applicant must submit a Biological Assessment Report prepared by a qualified professional.
Objective 8.3: Protect natural drainages and riparian corridors within the American Canyon Planning Area.
Policy 8.3.1: Review proposed developments in wetlands and riparian habitats to evaluate their conformance with the following policies and standards:
a. The development plan shall fully consider the nature of existing biological resources and all reasonable measures shall be taken to avoid significant impacts, including retention of sufficient natural open space and undeveloped buffer zones. b. Development shall be designed and sited to preserve watercourses, riparian habitat, vernal pools, and wetlands in their natural condition, unless these actions result in an unfeasible project, in which case habitat shall be replaced in accord with subsection "g" (below).
2503
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
20 MONK & ASSOCIATES
c. Where riparian corridors are retained, they shall be protected by an adequate buffer with a minimum 100-foot protection zone from the edge of the tree, shrub, or herb canopy (see policy 8.3.2).
d. Development shall incorporate habitat linkages (wildlife corridors) to adjacent open spaces, where appropriate and feasible.
e. Development shall incorporate fences, walls, vegetative cover, or other measures to adequately buffer habitat areas, linkages or corridors from built environment. f. Roads and utilities shall be located and designed such that conflicts with biological resources, habitat areas, linkages or corridors are avoided where feasible. g. Future development shall utilize appropriate open space or conservation easements in order to protect sensitive species or their habitats.
h. Future development shall mitigate unavoidable adverse impacts to waters of the United States, wetlands and riparian habitats (pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act and the California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 et seq.) by replacement on an in-kind basis. Furthermore, replacement shall be based on a ratio determined by the California Department of Fish and Game and/or Army Corps of Engineers in order to account for the potentially diminished habitat values of replacement habitat. Such replacement should occur on the original development site, whenever possible.
Alternatively, replacement can be effected, subject to state and federal regulatory approval, by creation or restoration of replacement habitats elsewhere (offsite but preferably within the City's Planning Area), protected in perpetuity by provision for an appropriate conservation easement or dedication.
Policy 8.3.6: Preserve and integrate the City's natural drainages in new development, as opposed to their channelization or undergrounding, emphasizing opportunities for the development of pedestrian paths and greenbelts along their lengths throughout the City.
Objective 8.4: Protect local vernal pools as well as the habitats of endangered species living within American Canyon's Planning Area.
Policy 8.4.1: Require that development plans incorporate all reasonable mitigation measures to avoid significantly impacting vernal pools for projects located within American Canyon's Planning Area.
Policy 8.4.3: Encourage activities that improve the biological value and integrity of the City's natural resources through vegetation restoration, control of alien plants and animals, and landscape buffering.
7.5.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Consistent with General Plan Policies 8.1.1 and 8.1.4, this report represents a detailed assessment of the biological resources present on the project site and proposed impacts to these resources associated with development of the site. Proposed mitigation measures are detailed below in the project Impacts and Mitigation Measures section.
2504
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
21 MONK & ASSOCIATES
Consistent with General Plan Policy 8.2.1, the project site has been extensively evaluated for presence of sensitive biological resources including protocol level surveys for fairy shrimp and special-status plants. This report represents the Biological Assessment Report documenting findings from M&A’s biological studies, and presents the current habitats and species present on the project site.
Consistent with Policies 8.3.1.a, 8.3.1.h, and 8.4.3, the applicant is proposing to mitigate the project’s proposed impacts to seasonal wetlands by creating wetlands and preserving these wetlands offsite at a nearby wetlands preserve. Mitigation would be at a 2:1 replacement to impacts ratio, or two times as much wetland would be created as impacted to compensate for wetland impacts. If offsite mitigation turns out to be infeasible, mitigation at the 2:1 replacement to impacts ratio may be met by purchasing wetland mitigation credits from a Corps and RWQCB approved conservation bank. Any imposed conditions from regulatory permits issued that allow impacts to wetlands from the RWQCB or the Corps would also become conditions that must be met by the project to comply with the CEQA. If these regulatory agencies allow lower mitigation ratios through purchase of mitigation credits, the Corps/RWQCB approved ratios shall become the CEQA required mitigation ratios.
7.6 City of American Canyon Municipal Code Pertaining to Trees Section 18.40.110 of the City of American Canyon’s Municipal Code pertains to trees and is reiterated below.
Trees:
A. Existing trees shall be preserved on the site unless otherwise approved by the city council as a part of the site development plans.
B. Unless specifically approved by the city council, any tree removed shall be replaced on the site. Replacement trees shall be a minimum size of a twenty-four-inch box of the same species unless specifically approved by the city council. (Ord. 98-10 § 1 (part), 1998)
7.6.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
There are no trees on the project site. Thus, no impacts to protected trees are anticipated.
2505
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
22 MONK & ASSOCIATES
8. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO WATERS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND STATE
This section presents an overview of the criteria used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, and CDFW to determine those areas within a project area that would be subject to their regulation.
8.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction and General Permitting
8.1.1 SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” (33 U.S.C. §1251(a)). Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the disposal of dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States" (33 CFR Parts 328 through 330). This requires project applicants to obtain authorization from the Corps prior to discharging dredged or fill materials into any water of the United States.
In the Federal Register "waters of the United States" are defined as, “...all interstate waters including interstate wetlands...intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), wetlands, [and] natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce...” (33 CFR Section 328.3).
Limits of Corps’ jurisdiction:
(a) Territorial Seas. The limit of jurisdiction in the territorial seas is measured from the baseline in a seaward direction a distance of three nautical miles. (See 33 CFR 329.12) (b) Tidal Waters of the United States. The landward limits of jurisdiction in tidal waters:
(1) Extends to the mean high tide line, or
(2) When adjacent non-tidal waters of the United States are present, the jurisdiction extends to the limits identified in paragraph (c) of this section. (c) Non-Tidal Waters of the United States. The limits of jurisdiction in non-tidal waters:
(1) In the absence of adjacent wetlands, the jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark, or
(2) When adjacent wetlands are present, the jurisdiction extends beyond the ordinary high water mark to the limit of the adjacent wetlands. (3) When the water of the United States consists only of wetlands the jurisdiction extends to the limit of the wetland.
Section 404 jurisdiction in "other waters" such as lakes, ponds, and streams, extends to the upward limit of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) or the upward extent of any adjacent wetland. The OHWM on a non-tidal water is:
2506
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
23 MONK & ASSOCIATES
the "line on 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 or debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas" (33 CFR Section 328.3[e]).
Wetlands are defined as: “...those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration to support a prevalence of vegetation adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR Section 328.8 [b]). Wetlands usually must possess hydrophytic vegetation (i.e., plants adapted to inundated or saturated conditions), wetland hydrology (e.g., topographic low areas, exposed water tables, stream channels), and hydric soils (i.e., soils that are periodically or permanently saturated, inundated or flooded) to be regulated by the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
8.1.1.1 Significant Nexus of Tributaries
On December 2, 2008, the Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued joint guidance on implementing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v.
United States and Carabell v. United States (herein referred to simply as “Rapanos”) which address the jurisdiction over waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act. In this joint guidance these agencies provide guidance on where they will assert jurisdiction over waters of the U.S.
The EPA and Corps will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:
Traditional navigable waters
Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters
Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (for example, typically three months).
Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries.
The agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow); and
Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water.
The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows:
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters; and
Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors. 2507
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
24 MONK & ASSOCIATES
8.1.1.2 Isolated Areas Excluded from Section 404 Jurisdiction In addition to areas that may be exempt from Section 404 jurisdiction, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of Corps jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (531 U.S. 159 [2001]). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to, and are not adjacent to a navigable “Waters of the U.S.,” and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection.
8.1.1.3 Permitting Corps Jurisdictional Areas
To remain in compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, project proponents and property owners (applicants) are required to be permitted by the Corps prior to discharging or otherwise impacting waters of the United States. In many cases, the Corps must visit a proposed project area (to conduct a “jurisdictional determination”) to confirm the extent of area falling under their jurisdiction prior to authorizing any permit for that project area. Typically, at the time the jurisdictional determination is conducted, applicants (or their representative) will discuss the appropriate permit application that would be filed with the Corps for permitting the proposed impact(s) to “waters of the United States.”
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps normally provides two alternatives for permitting impacts to the type of “waters of the United States” found in the project area. The first alternative would be to use Nationwide Permit(s) (NWP). The second alternative is to apply to the Corps for an Individual Permit (33 CFR Section 235.5(2)(b)). The application process for Individual Permits is extensive and includes public interest review procedures (i.e., public notice and receipt of public comments) and must contain an “alternatives analysis” that is prepared pursuant to Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344(b)). The alternatives analysis is also typically reviewed by the federal EPA and thus brings another resource agency into the permitting framework. Both the Corps and EPA take the initial viewpoint that there are practical alternatives to the proposed project if there would be impacts to waters of the U.S., and the proposed permitted action is not a water dependent project (e.g. a pier or a dredging project).
Alternative analyses therefore must provide convincing reasons that the proposed permitted impacts are unavoidable. Individual Permits may be available for use in the event that discharges into regulated waters fail to meet conditions of NWP(s).
NWPs are a type of general permit administered by the Corps and issued on a nationwide basis that authorize minor activities that affect Corps regulated waters. Under NWP, if certain conditions are met, the specified activities can take place without the need for an individual or regional permit from the Corps (33 CFR, Section 235.5[c][2]). In order to use NWP(s), a project must meet 27 general nationwide permit conditions, and all specific conditions pertaining to the NWP being used (as presented at 33 CFR Section 330, Appendices A and C). It is also important to note that pursuant to 33 CFR Section 330.4(e), there may be special regional conditions or modifications to NWPs that could have relevance to individual proposed projects. Finally, pursuant to 33 CFR Section 330.6(a), Nationwide permittees may, and in some cases must, request from the Corps confirmation that an activity complies with the terms and conditions of the NWP intended for use (i.e., must receive “verification” from the Corps). 2508
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
25 MONK & ASSOCIATES
Prior to finalizing design plans, the applicant needs to be aware that the Corps maintains a policy of “no net loss” of wetlands (waters of the United States) from project area development.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon applicants that propose to impact Corps regulated areas to submit a mitigation plan that demonstrates that impacted regulated areas would be recreated (i.e., impacts would be mitigated). Typically, the Corps requires mitigation to be “in-kind” (i.e., if a stream channel would be filled, mitigation would include replacing it with a new stream channel), and at a minimum of a 1:1 replacement ratio (i.e., one acre or fraction there of recreated for each acre or fraction thereof lost). Often a 2:1 replacement ratio is required. Usually the 2:1 ratio is met by recreation or enhancement of an equivalent amount of wetland as is impacted, in addition to a requirement to preserve an equivalent amount of wetland as is impacted by the project. In some cases, the Corps allows “out-of-kind” mitigation if the compensation site has greater value than the impacted site. For example, if project designs call for filling an intermittent drainage, mitigation should include recreating the same approximate jurisdictional area (same drainage widths) at an offsite location or on a set-aside portion of the project area. Finally, there are many Corps approved wetland mitigation banks where wetland mitigation credits can be purchased by applicants to meet mitigation compensation requirements.
Mitigation banks have defined service areas and the Corps may only allow their use when a project would have minimal impacts to wetlands.
8.1.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
M&A completed an Aquatic Resources Delineation for the entire Giovannoni Property through which the Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension extends. On October 25, 2016, the Corps confirmed their jurisdiction over 11.93 acres of waters of the United States (wetlands and other waters onsite) on the Giovannoni Property. The Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension project is routed through the Giovannoni property. As proposed, the project site supports 0.21-acre of wetlands that would be impacted by the project. Prior to impacting Corps jurisdictional waters of the U.S. on the project site, the application must apply for authorization from the Corps. Impacts to waters of the U.S. must be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio or as otherwise determined by the Corps at the time a permit issued for the proposed project.
8.2 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) / California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
8.2.1 SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT
The SWRCB and RWQCB regulate activities in "waters of the State" (which includes wetlands) through Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. While the Corps administers a permitting program that authorizes impacts to waters of the United States, including wetlands and other waters, any Corps permit authorized for a proposed project would be inoperative unless it is a NWP that has been certified for use in California by the SWRCB, or if the RWQCB has issued a project specific certification of water quality. Certification of NWPs requires a finding by the SWRCB that the activities permitted by the NWP will not violate water quality standards individually or cumulatively over the term of the permit (the term is typically for five years). Certification must be consistent with the requirements of the federal Clean Water Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Endangered Species Act, and the SWRCB’s mandate to protect beneficial uses of waters of the State. Any denied (i.e., not certified) NWPs, and all Individual Corps permits, would require a project specific RWQCB certification of water quality. 2509
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
26 MONK & ASSOCIATES
8.2.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Any Section 404 permit authorized by the Corps for the project would be inoperative without also obtaining authorization from the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (i.e., without obtaining a certification of water quality). Since the RWQCB does not have a formal method for technically defining what constitutes waters of the state, M&A expect that the RWQCB should remain consistent with the Corps’ determination.
Any impacts to waters of the State would have to be mitigated to the satisfaction of the RWQCB prior to the time this resource agency would issue a permit for impacts to such features. The RWQCB requirements for issuance of a “401 Permit” typically parallel the Corps requirements for permitting impacts to Corps regulated areas pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Please refer to the Corps Applicability Section above for likely mitigation requirements for impacts to RWQCB regulated wetlands. Also, please refer to the applicability section of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act below for other applicable actions that may be imposed on the project by the RWQCB prior to the time any certification of water quality is authorized for the project. Please note that any isolated wetlands or other waters that are determined to be on the project site that are not regulated by the Corps pursuant to the SWANCC decision, would still be regulated by the RWQCB pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and impacts to such features would also be required to be mitigated per RWQCB policies (see below). Impacts to waters of the State must be mitigated at a minimum 1:1 ratio or as otherwise determined by the RWQCB at the time a permit issued for the proposed project.
8.2.3 PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Water Code § 13260, requires that “any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, that could affect the waters of the State to file a report of discharge” with the RWQCB through an application for waste discharge (Water Code Section 13260(a)(1). The term “waters of the State” is defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State (Water Code § 13050(e)). It should be noted that pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB also regulates “isolated wetlands,” or those wetlands considered to be outside of the Corps’ jurisdiction pursuant to the SWANCC decision (see Corps Section above).
The RWQCB generally considers filling in waters of the State to constitute “pollution.” Pollution is defined as an alteration of the quality of the waters of the state by waste that unreasonably affects its beneficial uses (Water Code §13050(1)). The RWQCB litmus test for determining if a project should be regulated pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is if the action could result in any “threat” to water quality.
The RWQCB requires complete pre- and post-development Best Management Practices Plan (BMPs) of any portion of the project site that is developed. This means that a water quality treatment plan for the pre- and post-developed project site must be prepared and implemented.
Preconstruction requirements must be consistent with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). That is, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be developed prior to the time that a site is graded (see NPDES section below). In addition, a post construction BMPs plan, or a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) must be developed and incorporated into any site development plan. 2510
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
27 MONK & ASSOCIATES
8.2.4 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
There is 0.84-acre of “isolated wetlands” shown on the Corps confirmed map for the Giovannoni Property, but no isolated wetlands occur within the project site. The RWQCB would have jurisdiction over isolated wetlands pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
Since any “threat” to water quality could conceivably be regulated pursuant to the PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act, care will be required when constructing the proposed project to be sure that adequate pre-and post-construction Best Management Practices Plan (BMPs) are incorporated into the project implementation plans. Please note that any isolated wetlands defined by the Corps but that are not regulated by the Corps pursuant to the SWANCC decision would still be regulated by the RWQCB pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Again, these isolated areas are all outside of the project site boundaries.
It should also be noted that prior to issuance of any permit from the RWQCB this agency will require submittal of a Notice of Determination from the City of American Canyon indicating that the proposed project has completed a review conducted pursuant to CEQA. The pertinent sections of the CEQA document (typically the biology section) are often submitted to the RWQCB for review prior to the time this agency will issue a permit for a proposed project.
8.2.5 NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) In 1972 the Clean Water Act was amended to state that the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source is unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act added Section 402(p) which establishes a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges under the NPDES Program.
While federal regulations allow two permitting options for stormwater discharges (individual permits and General Permits), the SWRCB has elected to adopt only one statewide Construction General Permit at this time that will apply to all stormwater discharges associated with construction activity, except from those on Tribal Lands, in the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit, and those performed by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans).
The Construction General Permit requires all dischargers where construction activity disturbs greater than one acre of land or those sites less than one acre that are part of a common plan of development or sale that disturbs more than one acre of land surface to:
1. Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off site into receiving waters.
2. Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters of the nation. Achieve quantitatively-defined (i.e., numeric) pollutant-specific discharge standards, and conduct much more rigorous monitoring based on the project’s projected risk level.
2511
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
28 MONK & ASSOCIATES
3. Perform inspections of all BMPs.
This Construction General Permit is implemented and enforced by the nine California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). It is also enforceable through citizens’ suits and represents a dramatic shift in the State Water Board’s approach to regulating new and redevelopment sites, imposing new affirmative duties and fixed standards on builders and developers.
Types of Construction Activity Covered by the Construction General Permit clearing,
grading,
disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation that results in soil disturbances of at least one acre or more of total land area.
Construction activity that results in soil disturbances to a smaller area would still be subject to this General Permit if the construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development that encompasses greater than one acre of soil disturbance, or if there is significant water quality impairment resulting from the activity.
Construction activity does not include:
routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade, hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of the facility, nor does it include emergency construction activities required to protect public health and safety.
Project proponents (landowners) should confirm with the local RWQCB whether or not a particular routine maintenance activity is subject to this General Permit.
The State Water Board’s new quantitative standards (Order 2009-0009-DWQ) take a two-tiered approach, depending on the risk level associated with the site in question. Exceedance of a benchmark Numeric Action Level (“NAL”) measured in terms of pH and turbidity (a measure related to both the amount of sediment in and the velocity of site runoff) triggers an additional obligation to implement additional BMPs and corrective action to improve SWPPP performance.
New minimum BMPs include Active Treatment Systems, which may be necessary where traditional erosion and sediment controls do not effectively control accelerated erosion; where site constraints inhibit the ability to construct a correctly-sized sediment basin; where clay and/or highly erosive soils are present; or where the site has very steep or long slope lengths.
In addition, the Construction General Permit includes several “post-construction” requirements.
These requirements entail that site designs provide no net increase in overall site runoff and match pre-project hydrology by maintaining runoff volume and drainage concentrations. To achieve the required results where impervious surfaces such as roofs and paved surfaces are being increased, developers must implement non-structural off-setting BMPs, such as landform grading, site design BMPs, and distributed structural BMPs (bioretention cells, rain gardens, and rain cisterns). This “runoff reduction” approach is essentially a State Water Board-imposed 2512
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
29 MONK & ASSOCIATES
regulatory requirement to implement Low Impact Development (“LID”) design features.
Volume that cannot be addressed using non-structural BMPs must be captured in structural BMPs that are approved by the RWQCB.
Improving the quality of site runoff is necessary to improve water quality in impaired and threatened streams, rivers, and lakes (that is, water bodies on the EPA’s 303(d) list). The RWQCB prioritizes the water bodies on the 303(d) list according to potential impacts to beneficial uses. Beneficial uses can include a wide range of uses, such as nautical navigation; wildlife habitat; fish spawning and migration; commercial fishing, including shellfish harvesting; recreation, including swimming, surfing, fishing, boating, beachcombing, and more; water supply for domestic consumption or industrial processes; and groundwater recharge, among other uses. The State is required to develop action plans and establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to improve water quality within these impaired water bodies. The TMDL is the quantity of a pollutant that can be safely assimilated by a water body without violating the applicable water quality standards.
The uncontrolled discharge of pollutants into impaired water bodies is considered particularly detrimental. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), sediment is one of the most widespread pollutants contaminating U.S. rivers and streams. Sediment runoff from construction sites is 10 to 20 times greater than from agricultural lands and 1,000 to 2,000 times greater than from forest lands (EPA 2005). Consequently, the discharge of stormwater from large construction sites is regulated by the RWQCB under the federal CWA and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Pursuant to the CWA, the RWQCB regulates construction discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The project sponsor of construction or other activities that disturb more than 1 acre of land must obtain coverage under NPDES Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, administered by the RWQCB1
.
8.2.6 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of American Canyon (the applicant) is an MS-4 permittee under the NPDES (see next section of this report). Accordingly, water quality compliance typically would fall to the City for implementation and compliance. However, as this project will likely require a Clean Water Act Section 401 permit, the RWQCB when considering issuance of the 401 permit, will require submittal of a Storm Water Management Plan that demonstrates that the constructed project will treat and hydromodify stormwater falling on impervious surfaces.
The project will impact greater than one acre and thus, it must obtain coverage under the General Storm Water Permit. To obtain coverage, the applicant must electronically file a number of permit-related compliance documents (Permit Registration Documents (PRDs)), including a Notice of Intent (NOI), a risk assessment, site map, signed certification, Stormwater Pollution
1 CGP Order 2009-0009-DWQ remains in effect, but has been amended by CGP Order 2009-0014-DWQ, effective February 14, 2011, and CGP Order 2009-0016-DWQ, effective July 17, 2012. The first amendment merely provided additional clarification to Order 2009-0009-DWQ, while Order 2009-0016-DWQ eliminated numeric effluent limits on pH and turbidity (except in the case of active treatment systems), in response to a legal challenge to the original order.
2513
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
30 MONK & ASSOCIATES
Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Notice of Termination (NOT), NAL exceedance reports, and other site-specific PRDs that may be required. The PRDs must be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) or Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and filed by a Legally Responsible Person (LRP) on the RWQCB’s Stormwater Multi-Application Report Tracking System (SMARTS). (QSDs are typically civil engineers, professional hydrologists, engineering geologists, or landscape architects.) Once filed, these documents become immediately available to the public for review and comment. At a minimum the SWPPP shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) for implementation during project construction that are in accordance with the applicable guidance and procedures contained in the California Stormwater Quality Association’s California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook (2015).
Construction stormwater BMPs are intended to minimize the migration of sediments offsite.
They can include:
covering soil stockpiles,
sweeping soil from streets or other paved areas,
performing site-disturbing activities in dry periods, planting vegetation or landscaping quickly after disturbance to stabilize soils.
Other typical stormwater BMPs include erosion reduction controls such as:
hay bales, water bars, covers, sediment fences, sensitive area access restrictions, vehicle mats in wet areas, geotextile blankets, fiber rolls, temporary slope drains, mulching of exposed areas, vehicle mats in wet areas, and other erosion-reducing features, and retention/settlement ponds.
Excavation and other soil-disturbing activities associated with the project could potentially affect water quality as a result of erosion of sediment. In addition, leaks from construction equipment; accidental spills of fuel, oil, or hazardous liquids used for equipment maintenance; and accidental spills of construction materials are all potential sources of pollutants that could degrade water quality.
8.3 RWQCB Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program
The Municipal Storm Water Permitting Program regulates storm water discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). MS4 permits were issued in two phases.
Under Phase I, which started in 1990, the RWQCBs have adopted NPDES storm water permits for medium (serving between 100,000 and 250,000 people) and large (serving 250,000 people) municipalities. Most of these permits are issued to a group of co-permittees encompassing an entire metropolitan area. These permits are reissued as the permits expire.
As part of Phase II, the SWRCB adopted a General Permit for the Discharge of Storm Water from Small MS4s (WQ Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ) to provide permit coverage for smaller municipalities, including non-traditional Small MS4s, which are governmental facilities such as military bases, public campuses, and prison and hospital complexes.
The MS4 permits require the discharger to develop and implement a Storm Water Management Plan/Program (SWMP) with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum 2514
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
31 MONK & ASSOCIATES
extent practicable (MEP). MEP is the performance standard specified in Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act. The management programs specify what best management practices (BMPs) will be used to address certain program areas. The program areas include public education and outreach; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction and post-construction; and good housekeeping for municipal operations. In general, medium and large municipalities are required to conduct chemical monitoring, though small municipalities are not.
8.3.1 RWQCB PHASE II PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) provides that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for MS4 must require municipalities to reduce pollutants in their storm water discharges to the “maximum extent practicable” (CWA §402(p)(3)(B).) MS4 permits "shall require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including management practices, control techniques and system, design and engineering methods.” Under the Phase II Requirements implemented by the RWQCB, permittees that operate an MS4 that serves 50,000 people or more, or that serve an area of high growth (which is defined as more than 25% over 10 years), must comply with the Supplemental Provisions contained in Attachment 4 of the Small MS4 General Permit.
The General Permit for the Discharge of Storm Water from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems WQO No. 2003-0005-DWQ (Small MS4 General Permit) requires that dischargers develop and implement a Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) that describes the best management practices (BMPs), measurable goals, and time schedules of implementation as well as assigns responsibility of each task. Also, as required by the Small MS4 General Permit, the SWMP must be available for public review and must be approved by the appropriate RWQCB, or its Executive Officer (EO), prior to permit coverage commencing.
This information is provided to facilitate the process of an MS4 obtaining Small MS4 General Permit coverage.
The Small MS4 General Permit requires all Permittees to develop and implement a SWMP designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants through their MS4s to the maximum extent practicable. This General Permit requires the SWMP to be fully implemented by the end of the permit term (or five years after designation for those designated subsequent to General Permit adoption).
Permittees must have a Post Construction SWMP for new developments and redevelopment projects. The maximum extent practicable standard involves applying BMPs that are effective in reducing the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff. In discussing the maximum extent practicable standard, the State Board has said the following: "There must be a serious attempt to comply, and practical solutions may not be lightly rejected. If, from the list of BMPs, a permittee chooses only a few of the least expensive methods, it is likely that the maximum extent practicable has not been met. On the other hand, if a permittee employs all applicable BMPs, except those that are demonstrated to be not technically feasible in the locality, or whose cost would exceed any benefit to be derived, it would have met the standard.
The MS4 municipality is required to develop and implement a program that provides local oversight of construction projects within the municipality to ensure that pollutants being 2515
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
32 MONK & ASSOCIATES
discharged from construction sites into the MS4 are reduced. The program must include adopting an ordinance requiring storm water quality controls at construction sites, reviewing site plans, receiving comments from the public regarding the discharge of pollutants from construction sites, inspecting construction sites to ensure that pollutants are not being discharged in storm water runoff, and taking enforcement when necessary. In contrast, the General Construction Permit requires projects to have a site specific SWPPP and to implement BMPs specific to activities at the construction site. The General Construction Permit directly regulates landowners engaged in construction involving land disturbance of 10,000 square feet or more.
8.3.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of American Canyon is an MS4 permittee and thus is required to enforce development of a project-specific SWMP that incorporates pre- and post-construction BMPs. Regardless, since this project will likely be regulated by the RWQCB pursuant to the Clean Water Act (401 permit) and/or the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (WDRs), the RWQCB is likely to directly enforce pre- and post-construction BMPs. As a Phase II implementing City, the City of American Canyon should prepared a SWMP containing pre- and post-construction BMPs.
8.4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Protections
8.4.1 SECTION 1602 OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code: “An entity may not substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake, unless all of the following occur:
(1) CDFW receives written notification regarding the activity in the manner prescribed by CDFW. The notification shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:
(A)A detailed description of the project’s location and a map. (B) The name, if any, of the river, stream, or lake affected. (C) A detailed project description, including, but not limited to, construction plans and drawings, if applicable.
(D)A copy of any document prepared pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(E) A copy of any other applicable local, state, or federal permit or agreement already issued.
(F) Any other information required by CDFW” (Fish & Game Code 2014).
Please see Section 1602 of the current California Fish and Game Code for further details.
Please also note that while not stated in the regulations above, CDFW typically considers its jurisdiction to include riparian vegetation (that is, the trees and bushes growing along the stream).
Thus, any proposed activity in a natural stream channel that would substantially adversely affect an existing fish and/or wildlife resource, including its riparian vegetation, would require entering into a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SBAA) with CDFW prior to commencing with work in the 2516
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
33 MONK & ASSOCIATES
stream. However, prior to authorizing such permits, CDFW typically reviews an analysis of the expected biological impacts, any proposed mitigation plans that would be implemented to offset biological impacts and engineering and erosion control plans.
8.4.2 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
There are no drainages, tributaries or any other areas within the project site that support a bed, bank, or channel and that would be regulated by the CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code.
9. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REGULATIONS A CEQA lead agency must determine if a proposed activity constitutes a project requiring further review pursuant to the CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA, a lead agency would have to determine if there could be significant adverse impacts to the environment from a proposed project.
Typically, if within the city limits, the city would be the CEQA lead agency. If a discretionary permit (i.e., conditional use permit) would be required for a project (e.g. an occupancy permit must be issued), the lead agency typically must determine if there could be significant environmental impacts. This is usually accomplished by an “Initial Study.” If there could be significant environmental impacts, the lead agency must determine an appropriate level of environmental review prior to approving and/or otherwise permitting the impacts. In some cases, there are “Categorical Exemptions” that apply to the proposed activity; thus the activity is exempt from CEQA. The Categorical Exemptions are provided in CEQA. There are also Statutory Exemptions in CEQA that must be investigated for any proposed project. If the project is not exempt from CEQA, the lowest level of review typically reserved for projects with no significant effects on the environment would be for the lead agency to prepare a “Negative Declaration.” If a proposed project would have only minimal impacts that can be mitigated to a level of no significance pursuant to the CEQA, then a “Mitigated Negative Declaration” is typically prepared by the lead agency. Finally those projects that may have significant effects on the environment, or that have impacts that can’t be mitigated to a level considered less than significant pursuant to the CEQA, typically must be reviewed via an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). All CEQA review documents are subject to public circulation, and comment periods.
Section 15380 of CEQA defines “endangered” species as those whose survival and reproduction in the wild are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, overexploitation, predation, competition, disease, or other factors. “Rare” species are defined by CEQA as those who are in such low numbers that they could become endangered if their environment worsens; or the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened” as that term is used in FESA. The CEQA Guidelines also state that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will “substantially affect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species.” The significance of impacts to a species under CEQA, therefore, must be based on analyzing actual rarity and threat of extinction to that species despite its legal status or lack thereof.
2517
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
34 MONK & ASSOCIATES
9.1.1 APPLICABILITY TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
This report has been prepared as a Biology Section that is suitable for incorporation into the biology section of a CEQA review document such as a Mitigated Negative Declaration. This document addresses potential impacts to species that would be defined as endangered or rare pursuant to Section 15380 of the CEQA. This report has been prepared as a Biology Section that is suitable for incorporation by the CEQA lead agency (in this case City of American Canyon) into an Initial Study or higher levels of CEQA review including incorporation into the biology section of an Environmental Impact Report.
10. IMPACTS ANALYSIS
Below the criteria used in assessing impacts to Biological Resources is presented.
10.1 Significance Criteria
A significant impact is determined using CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA §21068, a significant effect on the environment means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guideline §15382, a significant effect on the environment is further defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance. Other Federal, State, and local agencies’ considerations and regulations are also used in the evaluation of significance of proposed actions.
Direct and indirect adverse impacts to biological resources are classified as “significant,” “potentially significant,” or “less than significant.” Biological resources are broken down into four categories: vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and regulated “waters of the United States” and/or stream channels.
10.1.1 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
10.1.1.1 Plants, Wildlife, Waters
In accordance with Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) of the CEQA Guidelines, implementing the project would have a significant biological impact if it would:
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected “wetlands” as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. 2518
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
35 MONK & ASSOCIATES
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
10.1.1.2 Waters of the United States and State.
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, which includes wetlands, as discussed in the bulleted item above, and also includes “other waters” (stream channels, rivers) (33 CFR Parts 328 through 330). Substantial impacts to Corps regulated areas on a project site would be considered a significant adverse impact. Similarly, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB regulates impacts to waters of the state. Thus, substantial impacts to RWQCB regulated areas on a project site would also be considered a significant adverse impact.
10.1.1.3 Stream Channels
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulates activities that divert, obstruct, or alter stream flow, or substantially modify the bed, channel, or bank of a stream which CDFW typically considers to include riparian vegetation. Any proposed activity that would result in substantial modifications to a natural stream channel would be considered a significant adverse impact.
11. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED MITIGATION
In this section, we discuss potential impacts to sensitive biological resources including waters of the United States and/or State and nesting birds, including raptors such as the golden eagle. We follow each impact with a mitigation prescription that when implemented would reduce impacts to the greatest extent possible. This impact analysis is based on engineering exhibits received from GHD, Inc. on April 18, 2017.
11.1 Ground Nesting Raptors
11.1.1 IMPACT BIO-1: THE PROJECT MAY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON GROUND NESTING RAPTORS.
Raptor (birds of prey) nests are protected pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513) and the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Suitable nesting habitat for the northern harrier occurs on the project site. In addition to being protected pursuant to the above regulations, the northern harrier is also classified by the CDFW as a “species of special concern.” Species of special concern meet the definition of “rare” under the CEQA Guidelines. Potential impacts to this species from the proposed project include disturbance to nesting birds, and 2519
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
36 MONK & ASSOCIATES
possibly death of adults and/or young. The project would take place in a non-native grassland community which provides suitable nesting habitat for northern harriers. No nesting raptors have been identified on the project site; however, no specific surveys for nesting raptors have been conducted. Additionally, raptors are highly mobile species and their nest locations may change from year to year. In the absence of preconstruction nesting surveys, the proposed project may have a potentially significant impact on the northern harrier or other ground nesting raptors.
This impact could be mitigated to a less than significant level.
11.1.2 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-1: GROUND-NESTING RAPTORS Prior to ground disturbance a nesting survey shall be conducted for ground nesting raptors (i.e., the northern harrier) during the nesting season, February 1 through September 1. Typically, the northern harrier builds a grass-lined nest on the ground in grassland habitat. In order to determine if this raptor nests onsite, qualified raptor biologists would have to conduct walking transects through the project site’s grassland habitat searching for nests. If a northern harrier nest was identified during the walking transect surveys, a nesting buffer would have to be established to protect the nest. To form a protective buffer a 300-foot radius around the nest should be fenced with orange construction fencing. If the nest is located outside of the project site, then the buffer should be demarcated as per above where the buffer intersects the project site. The size of the buffer may be altered if a qualified raptor biologist conducts behavioral observations and determines the nesting raptors are well acclimated to disturbance. If this occurs, the raptor biologist should prescribe a modified buffer that allows sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/harassment to the nesting raptors. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones, or the nesting cycle is otherwise determined to be complete. This typically occurs by July 15th. This date may be earlier or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist. If a qualified biologist is not hired to monitor the nesting raptors, then the buffers should be maintained in place through the end of August. The buffer can be removed on September 1st and project construction may otherwise commence without further regard for the nest site.
This mitigation measure would reduce the project’s impact to ground nesting raptors to a less than significant level pursuant to CEQA.
11.2 Nesting Passerine Birds
11.2.1 IMPACT BIO-2: THE PROJECT MAY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON NESTING PASSERINE BIRDS.
Nesting passerine birds (that is, perching birds) could be impacted by the proposed project. Birds and their nests are protected under California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The non-native grassland vegetation present on the project site provides suitable nesting habitat for ground nesting passerine birds. Passerine birds are highly mobile species and their nest locations may change from year to year. In the absence of preconstruction nesting surveys, the proposed project may have a potentially significant impact on ground nesting passerine birds. This impact could be mitigated to a less than significant level.
2520
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
37 MONK & ASSOCIATES
11.2.2 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-2: NESTING PASSERINE BIRDS A nesting survey shall be conducted 15 days prior to earth moving or the commencement of construction work if this work would occur between February 1 and September 1. If any birds are found nesting on the project site or within a zone of influence of the project site a 75-foot nest protection buffer shall be established around the nest(s). The buffer shall be staked with orange construction fencing. If special-status birds, such as tricolored blackbird are found nesting or within a zone of influence of the project site a 300-foot protection buffer shall be established around the nesting site(s). In addition, if this buffer cannot be maintained until the nesting birds complete their nesting cycle, consultation with the CDFW shall be required to determine if the project would require acquisition of a 2081 Management Authorization from the CDFW. Any conditions set forth in any issued 2081 Management Authorization from the CDFW shall become conditions of the project enforceable by the City. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within any nest protection buffer until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nesting cycle is complete and any young that fledge have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid being impacted by the proposed project. For passerines this typically occurs by July 31st. This date may be earlier or later and would have to be determined by a qualified ornithologist.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the project’s impact to ground nesting raptors to a level regarded as less than significant pursuant to CEQA.
11.3 Waters of the United States/ State
11.3.1 IMPACT BIO-3: THE PROJECT MAY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES/ STATE.
The proposed project has been designed to reduce the total impacts to Corps and RWQCB jurisdictional waters to the maximum extent practicable. For example, the construction staging area has been relocated to the road rights-of-way to avoid impacting, even temporarily, another natural area that may support waters of the United States/State. Yet under the proposed design there would still be minor impacts to waters of the United States/State. Construction of the proposed project would result in impacts to approximately 0.21-acre of waters of the U.S./State on the project site. This impact or any minor impacts to waters of the U.S./State could be mitigated to a less than significant level pursuant to CEQA.
11.3.2 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-3: WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES/STATE The applicant must obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in advance of impacts to waters of the United States. Similarly, the applicant must obtain a Clean Water Act Section 401 permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board in advance of any impacts to waters of the State. The applicant is proposing to mitigate impacts to
0.21-acre of Corps and RWQCB jurisdictional seasonal wetlands via creation and preservation of
0.42-acre of seasonal wetlands within a suitable offsite habitat preserve. Typically, the Corps and RWQCB require that impacted seasonal wetlands be replaced at a 2:1 replacement to impacts ratio, but this ratio can be dependent upon Mitigation Ratio Guidance provided by the Corps or RWQCB at the time of permit issuance. If there are no suitable offsite areas to create and preserve waters of the United State/States, the purchase of mitigation credits from a 2521
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
38 MONK & ASSOCIATES
Corps/RWQCB approved mitigation bank would also fully compensate for the project’s impacts to waters of the U.S./State. Any wetland compensation mitigation that is different than prescribed herein that is required by the Corps and/or RWQCB shall also become conditions of project approval enforceable by the City.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to waters of the U.S./State to a level regarded as less than significant pursuant to CEQA.
11.4 Nesting Swainson’s Hawk
11.4.1 IMPACT BIO-4: THE PROJECT MAY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON NESTING SWAINSON’S HAWKS The Swainson’s hawk is a state listed threatened species. While the Swainson’s hawk has no special federal status it is protected from direct take under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711). Swainson’s hawks, their nests, eggs, and young are also protected under California Fish and Game Code (§3503, §3503.5, §3513, and §3800). The closest known Swainson’s hawk record to the project site is approximately 2.1 miles north (CNDDB Occurrence No. 1718). There is no nesting habitat on or near this linear project site, however, the eucalyptus trees that are located approximately 0.5-mile west of the project site provide potential nesting habitat and preconstruction surveys would be necessary. If Swainson’s hawks were nesting near the project site, implementation of the proposed project could be viewed by the CDFW as a project that could impact nesting Swainson’s hawks. Nest site disturbance which results in: (1) nest abandonment; (2) loss of young; (3) reduced health and vigor of eggs and/or nestlings (resulting in reduced survival rates); and (4) may ultimately result in the take (killing) of nestling or fledgling Swainson’s hawks incidental to otherwise lawful activities, would be considered a “take” by the CDFW. The taking of Swainson’s hawks in this manner can be viewed by the CDFW as a violation of the Section 2080 of the Fish and Game Code. This interpretation of take has been judicially affirmed by the landmark appellate court decision pertaining to CESA (Department v. ACID, 8 CA App. 4, 41554) (CDFW 1994).
Typically, the CDFW requires that any impact to a Swainson’s hawk nest be permitted through a Fish and Game Section 2081 management authorization. If an active nest is found on or adjacent to the project site within the area of influence of the project site (which is generally considered to be within 1,000 feet of the project site) “to avoid potential violation of Fish and Game Code 2080 (i.e., killing of listed species), project-related disturbance at active Swainson’s hawk nesting sites should be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (March 1- September 15 annually)” (CDFW 2000). If disturbance would occur, a Fish and Game Section 2081 management authorization would be required. Thus, preconstruction nesting surveys are warranted to ensure that the proposed project will not impact this hawk species. This impact could be mitigated to a less than significant level pursuant to CEQA.
11.4.2 MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-4: SWAINSON’S HAWK
The CDFW has prepared guidelines for conducting surveys for Swainson’s hawk entitled:
Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley (CDFW 2000). These survey recommendations were developed by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to maximize the potential for locating 2522
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
39 MONK & ASSOCIATES
nesting Swainson’s hawks, and thus reduce the potential for nest failures as a result of project activities and/or disturbances. To meet the CDFW’s recommendations for mitigation and protection of Swainson’s hawks, surveys shall be conducted for a half-mile radius around all project activities and shall be completed for at least two survey periods immediately prior to a project’s initiation. The guidelines provide specific recommendations regarding the number of surveys based on when the project is scheduled to begin and the time of year the surveys are conducted.
If Swainson’s hawks are found to be nesting within 1,000 feet of the project site, the necessity of acquiring a Fish and Game Section 2081 management authorization shall be determined via consultation with the CDFW. Impacts to the nesting Swainson’s hawks shall not be allowed.
Accordingly, nest protection buffers shall be established that are a minimum of 300 feet from the nest site. The nest site buffer shall be established in consultation with the CDFW or as required in any Fish and Game Section 2081 management authorization issued to the project by the CDFW. The nest protection buffer shall be maintained until the Swainson’s hawk nesting attempt is completed as determined by a qualified raptor biologist. Once the nesting cycle is complete no further action is warranted for this raptor species unless CDFW issues a Fish and Game Section 2081 management authorization that requires additional mitigation. Any mitigation required by a 2081 management authorization shall also become a condition of project approval.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawks to a level regarded as less than significant pursuant to the CEQA.
11.5 Nesting Golden Eagle
11.5.1 IMPACT BIO-5: THE PROJECT MAY HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON NESTING GOLDEN EAGLES The golden eagle is “fully protected” under the Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c).
It is also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (50 CFR 10.13) and its nest, eggs, and young are protected under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3800, and 3513. There is no nesting habitat on the project site; however, suitable nesting habitat for the golden eagle occurs in the eucalyptus trees located approximately 0.5-mile west of the project site.
While the distance of 0.5-mile between the project site and suitable nesting habitat would be a large enough buffer to protect most nesting raptors, the golden eagle is highly susceptible to noise and disturbance during its nesting period. Thus, surveys would need to be conducted to ensure that if these birds are nesting nearby that suitable nesting buffers are in place prior to earth-work or construction. Any substantial project-related impacts to nesting golden eagles would be considered a significant adverse impact. Potential impacts to these species from the proposed project include disturbance to nesting birds, and possibly death of adults and/or young. As such, impacts to nesting golden eagles are regarded as potentially significant. This impact could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant.
11.5.2 MITIGATION MEASURE 5. FOR IMPACTS TO NESTING GOLDEN EAGLES Golden eagle nesting surveys shall be conducted 30 days prior to commencing with any earthmoving activity if this work would commence between February 1st and September 1st. The 2523
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
40 MONK & ASSOCIATES
nesting surveys shall include examination of the eucalyptus trees located within 0.50-mile and any other trees in the same vicinity, if possible.
If during the surveys golden eagles are identified nesting in the eucalyptus trees or any other trees within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, a qualified raptor biologist shall determine if the nesting attempt could be affected by the proposed project. The qualified raptor biologist will also establish a protection buffer that is adequate to ensure that noise or activity from the project would not bring harm to the nest including adult abandonment or inattentiveness that results in nesting failure. Buffers may be variable in size as some golden eagles are more acclimated to disturbance. The size of any established nesting buffer may be altered if a qualified raptor biologist determines the nesting eagles are well acclimated to disturbance or conversely are more sensitive to disturbance. Any modified buffer shall allow sufficient room to prevent undue disturbance/harassment to the nesting eagles. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established buffer until it is determined by a qualified raptor biologist that the young have fledged (that is, left the nest) and have attained sufficient flight skills to avoid project construction zones, or the nesting cycle is otherwise complete. This typically occurs by August
1. This date may be earlier than August 1, or later, and would have to be determined by a qualified raptor biologist. Once the nesting cycle is complete no further action is warranted for this raptor species.
Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to nesting golden eagles to a level regarded as less than significant pursuant to the CEQA.
2524
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
41 MONK & ASSOCIATES
12. LITERATURE CITED
Baldwin D.H, Goldman D.H., Keil D.J., Patterson R, Rosatti T.J., Wilken D.H. (ed.). 2012. The Jepson Manual Vascular Plants of California: Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1568 pps.
Beier, P. and S. Loe. 1992. "In my experience.." a checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin Vol. 20(4): 6.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1994. Staff report regarding mitigation for impacts to Swainson’s hawks (Buteo swainsonii) in the central valley of California. 14 pps. November 1, 1994.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. May 31, 2000. 4 pages.
CDFW. 2014. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California. Published September 2008; February 2011 (updated).
CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Data Base). 2016. RareFind 3.1. Computer printout for special-status species within a 5-mile radius of the project site. California Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2001. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California (sixth edition). Rare plant scientific advisory committee, David P. Tibor, convening editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. x+338 pps.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Eriksen, C.H., and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California's puddles, pools, and playas, Mad River Press, Eureka, CA.
Estep, J.A. 1989. Biology, Movements, and Habitat Relationships of the Swainson’s Hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-87. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section. 52 pp.
Holland, V.L. & D.J. Keil. 1995. California vegetation. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
James, P.C. 1992. Urban-nesting of Swainson's hawks in Saskatchewan. Condor. 94: 773-774.
Kochert, Michael N. 1986. Raptors. In: Cooperrider, Allan Y.; Boyd, Raymond J.; Stuart, Hanson R., eds. Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. Denver, CO: U.S. 2525
Biological Resources Analysis
Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project
City of American Canyon, California
42 MONK & ASSOCIATES
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver Service Center: 313- 349.
NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service), United States Department of Agriculture. Web Soil Survey. Available URL: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/app/ Schlorff, Ronald W. and Peter H. Bloom. 1984. Importance of riparian systems to nesting Swainson's hawks in the Central Valley of California. In: Warner, Richard E.; Hendrix, Kathleen M., eds. California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management: Proceedings of a conference; 1981 September 17-19; Davis, CA. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press: 612-618.
Schmutz, Josef K.; Fyfe, Richard W.; Moore, David A.; Smith, Alan R. 1984. Artificial nests for ferruginous and Swainson's hawks. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48:1009-1013.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1994. Final Rule. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for the Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp; and threatened status for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Federal Register. September 19, 1994.
USFWS (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants:
Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red-Legged Frog; Final Rule.
Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17 March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51) Page 12815- 12864
USFWS (U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service). 2015. Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods. 24 pps. May 31, 2015.
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
Table 1
Plant Species Observed on the Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project Site monk & associates
Angiosperms - Dicots
Apiaceae
Eryngium aristulatum var. aristulatum California coyote-thistle *Foeniculum vulgare Sweet fennel
Perideridia kelloggii Kellogg's yampah
Asteraceae
Agoseris grandiflora giant mountain dandelion
*Anthemis cotula Mayweed
*Calendula arvensis Field-marigold
*Carduus pycnocephalus subsp. pycnocephalus Italian thistle *Centaurea calcitrapa Purple starthistle
*Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle
*Cichorium intybus Chicory
*Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle
*Cotula coronopifolia Brass-buttons
Deinandra corymbosa Coast tarweed
*Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue
Hemizonia congesta subsp. luzulifolia White hayfield tarweed *Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce
Lasthenia glaberrima Smooth goldfields
*Leontodon saxatilis subsp. longirostris Long-beaked hawkbit Microseris douglasii subsp. douglasii Douglas' silverpuffs *Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum Everlasting cudweed
Psilocarphus brevissimus var. brevissimus Dwarf woolly-heads *Senecio vulgaris Common groundsel
*Sonchus asper subsp. asper Prickly sow-thistle
*Sonchus oleraceus Common sow-thistle
*Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion
Boraginaceae
Plagiobothrys stipitatus var. micranthus Great Valley popcornflower Plagiobothrys undulatus Wavy-stemmed popcornflower
Brassicaceae
*Brassica rapa Field mustard
Cardamine californica Milk maids
*Lepidium latifolium Broadleaf pepperweed
*Nasturtium officinale Water cress
*Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed charlock
*Raphanus sativus Wild radish
*Sisymbrium altissimum Tumble mustard
Campanulaceae
Downingia concolor var. concolor Downingia
Caryophyllaceae
Cerastium arvense subsp. strictum Meadow chickweed
*Silene gallica Windmill-pink
* Indicates a non-native species Page 1 of 4
2532
Table 1
Plant Species Observed on the Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project Site monk & associates
Convolvulaceae
*Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed
Cuscuta sp. Dodder
Crassulaceae
Crassula aquatica Water pygmy-weed
Fabaceae
*Lotus corniculatus Birdfoot trefoil
Lupinus bicolor Bicolored lupine
*Medicago polymorpha California burclover
Trifolium ciliolatum Foothill clover
*Trifolium dubium Little hop clover
*Trifolium fragiferum Strawberry clover
*Trifolium hirtum Rose clover
*Trifolium incarnatum Crimson clover
*Trifolium repens White clover
*Trifolium subterraneum Subterranean clover
Trifolium variegatum White-tip clover
*Vicia sativa Common vetch
Gentianaceae
Zeltnera muehlenbergii June centaury
Geraniaceae
*Erodium botrys Broad-leaf filaree
*Erodium cicutarium Red-stem filaree
*Erodium moschatum White-stem filaree
*Geranium dissectum Cut-leaf geranium
Lamiaceae
Stachys albens White-stem hedge-nettle
Linaceae
*Linum bienne Flax
Lythraceae
*Lythrum hyssopifolia Hyssop loosestrife
Malvaceae
*Malva parviflora Cheeseweed
Montiaceae
Claytonia perfoliata Miner's lettuce
Myrsinaceae
*Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel
Onagraceae
Epilobium ciliatum Hairy willow-herb
Taraxia ovata Sun cup
Orobanchaceae
*Bellardia trixago Mediterranean linseed
* Indicates a non-native species Page 2 of 4
2533
Table 1
Plant Species Observed on the Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project Site monk & associates
Castilleja attenuata Valley tassels
Castilleja exserta subsp. exserta Purple owl's-clover
*Parentucellia viscosa Yellow glandweed
Triphysaria versicolor subsp. faucibarbata Yellow owl's-clover Plantaginaceae
Callitriche marginata Winged water-starwort
*Plantago lanceolata English plantain
*Veronica anagallis-aquatica Water speedwell
Veronica peregrina subsp. xalapensis Purslane speedwell Polygonaceae
*Polygonum aviculare Common knotweed
*Rumex acetosella Sheep sorrel
*Rumex crispus Curly dock
*Rumex pulcher Fiddle dock
Ranunculaceae
*Ranunculus muricatus Spiny-fruit buttercup
Ranunculus pusillus Low buttercup
Rosaceae
*Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
Rubiaceae
Galium aparine Goose grass
Angiosperms -Monocots
Alismataceae
*Alisma lanceolatum Lance-leaf water-plantain
Cyperaceae
Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge
Eleocharis macrostachya Creeping spikerush
Schoenoplectus acutus var. occidentalis Common tule
Iridaceae
Sisyrinchium bellum Western blue-eyed grass
Juncaceae
Juncus balticus subsp. ater Baltic rush
Juncus bufonius var. bufonius Toad rush
Juncus mexicanus Mexican rush
Juncus phaeocephalus Brown-headed rush
Juncus xiphioides Iris-leaved rush
Juncaginaceae
Triglochin scilloides Flowering quillwort
Poaceae
*Avena barbata Slender wild oat
*Briza minor Small quaking grass
*Bromus diandrus Ripgut grass
* Indicates a non-native species Page 3 of 4
2534
Table 1
Plant Species Observed on the Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project Site monk & associates
*Bromus hordeaceus Soft chess
*Elymus caput-medusae Medusahead
Elymus multisetus Big squirreltail
*Festuca bromoides Brome fescue
*Festuca perennis Italian ryegrass
Hordeum brachyantherum Meadow barley
*Hordeum marinum subsp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley *Hordeum murinum subsp. leporinum Hare barley
*Phalaris aquatica Harding grass
*Phalaris paradoxa Paradox canary-grass
Pleuropogon californicus var. californicus Annual semaphore grass *Poa annua Annual bluegrass
*Polypogon interruptus Ditch beard grass
Themidaceae
Dichelostemma capitatum subsp. capitatum Blue dicks
Triteleia laxa Ithuriel's spear
Typhaceae
Typha latifolia Broad-leaved cattail
* Indicates a non-native species Page 4 of 4
2535
Table 2
Wildlife Species Observed on the Devlin Road/Vine Trail Extension Project Site Monk & Associates
Reptiles
Western fence lizard Sceloporus occidentalis
Birds
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura
Canada goose Branta canadensis
American wigeon Anas americana
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus
Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa
Western sandpiper Calidris mauri
Wilson's snipe Gallinago delicata
Rock pigeon Columba livia
Western scrub jay Aphelocoma californica
Common raven Corvus corax
Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta
Brewer's blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus
Mammals
California meadow vole Microtus californicus