American Canyon City Council
November 7, 2023

Public Scoping Meeting: The City will hold a virtual scoping meeting to provide an opportunity for agency staff and interested members of the public to submit written and oral comments on the scope of the environmental issues to be addressed in the Program EIR. The scoping meeting will be held on September 21, 2022 at 2:00 p.m.

To attend the scoping meeting, go to https://zoom.us/join.

Webinar ID: 878 5777 9430
Passcode: 437335
Dial: (408) 638 0968
The scoping presentation will be available to view on: https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/cityhall/city-clerk/meetings-agendas.

Project Background: The City must complete a comprehensive environmental review consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as part of the Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) application to annex approximately 83 acres of the Sphere of Influence (SOI) into City limits. A map of the project’s regional location is included as Figure 1.

Project Location: The proposed annexation site is surrounded by City limits to the east, west, and south.

East: Future Watson Ranch and existing agricultural uses east of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR).

West: Paoli Loop Road and State Route (SR) 29. Industrial uses are located west of SR 29.

South: Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way and vacant mixed residential/commercial uses.

North: Former vineyard property in unincorporated Napa County.

The project location and surrounding jurisdictional boundaries are shown in Figure 2.

Proposed Project: The project contemplates amending the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinance prior to submitting the Napa County LAFCO annexation application.

General Plan Land Use Designations and Pre-Zoning
Several parcels are anticipated to be redesignated by the General Plan to an urban land use as part of this project.

The list below identifies each proposed specific land use designation. ▪ Approximately 47 acres currently designated Agriculture would be changed to Industrial and Residential Estate (RE).
▪ The City previously designated and pre-zoned 5.5 acres east of the UPRR in the northeast section as Town Center (TC). The TC designation and pre-zoning accommodates a variety of residential and commercial uses.

This project does not propose to change the current TC General Plan designation and pre-zoning. This property is also anticipated to accommodate an extension of Newell Drive as described further in the NOP. ▪ Approximately 28 acres designated RE would be pre-zoned as such, which would accommodate residences with a minimum lot size of one acre. These parcels are located off Watson Lane with existing residential uses.

The RE pre-zoning is consistent with Napa County’s current policy to not induce additional residential development beyond existing conditions because the area is located within Zone “D” of the Napa County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
▪ The approximately 34 acres designated as Industrial would be pre-zoned as Paoli Light Industrial (PLI), which would be a new zoning designation that accommodates existing and new light manufacturing uses, research and development, offices, or similar uses. The Industrial land west of the North Slough would be further pre638

Land Use
Additional Development
(Square Feet)
Residential N/A
Commercial 494,942
Industrial 696,888
Visitor-Serving/Hotel 189,698
Newell Drive Alignment
The City would extend Newell Drive approximately one mile from SR 29 southeast along the northern boundary of the annexation area to its planned terminus at the northern limits of Watson Ranch. The Newell Drive extension would cross the UPRR tracks via an overcrossing. The Newell Drive extension would provide a parallel roadway east of SR 29 to relieve chronic peak-period traffic congestion and additional roadway capacity in the event of an emergency that blocks SR-29. The Newell Drive extension is shown in relation to the annexation area in Figure 6.

Pre-Annexation Agreement
In June 2019, the American Canyon City Council adopted Resolution 2019-44 to execute a First Amended PreAnnexation Agreement for the annexation area. The resolution notes that the annexation area includes continuous parcels to avoid creating an “island” of unincorporated territory surrounded by the City. The islands being referred to include the UPRR right-of-way in the southeastern section of the annexation area and the area to the east of the UPRR. The resolution includes a clause that mentions dedication of a public right-of-way to extend Newell Drive, as discussed above.

Napa County LAFCO Approval
In accordance with State Law, Napa County LAFCO has approval authority over the City’s annexation application.

Napa County LAFCO requires preparation of CEQA documentation prior to annexation and identifies five additional issue areas of local interest to address in the CEQA documentation. These include cumulative and regional impacts, impacts to public services, conversion of prime agricultural lands, consistency with general and specific plans, and availability of affordable housing.

Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
zoned with a PLI Commercial Overlay District. The Overlay District would accommodate industrial uses plus commercial and commercially-related uses that capitalize on vehicle access and visibility from SR 29. ▪ Immediately west of the annexation area, four acres between SR 29 and Paoli Loop Road currently zoned as Light Industrial (LI) would be rezoned as PLI with a Paoli Commercial Overlay District.

Figure 3 shows the existing land use designations. Figure 4 shows the proposed land use designations. The proposed pre-zoning is shown in Figure 5. The parcels designated as Industrial would be subdivided.

Project Buildout
The annexation area would ultimately be developed for commercial, industrial, and visitorserving/hotel use. For the purposes of analysis in this EIR, it is conservatively assumed that 80 percent of parcels pre-zoned for PLI, PLI with Paoli Commercial Overlay, and TC would be developed for commercial, industrial, and visitor-serving/hotel uses. The remaining 20 percent accounts for front setbacks, right-of-way for construction of the proposed Newell Drive extension, including an overcrossing at the railroad, and a biological resources buffer around North Slough. Parcels pre-zoned for RE were assumed to be developed at a density of one dwelling unit per acre, pursuant to City of American Canyon Municipal Code Chapter 19.10. Estimated buildout is summarized below:

Estimated Maximum Buildout
639
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation

Project Alternatives: The Program EIR will evaluate a reasonable range of project alternatives that, consistent with CEQA, meet most of the project objectives and reduce or avoid potential environmental effects, including a required No Project Alternative.

Potential Environmental Effect Areas: The Program EIR will describe the reasonably foreseeable and potentially significant adverse effects of the project (both direct and indirect). The Program EIR also will evaluate the cumulative impacts of the project when considered in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The City preliminarily anticipates that the project could result in potentially significant environmental impacts in the following topic areas, which will be further evaluated in the Program EIR.
▪ Aesthetics ▪ Land Use and Planning
▪ Agriculture and Forestry Resources ▪ Noise
▪ Air Quality ▪ Population and Housing
▪ Biological Resources ▪ Public Services and Recreation ▪ Cultural Resources ▪ Transportation
▪ Energy ▪ Tribal Cultural Resources
▪ Geology and Soils ▪ Utilities and Service Systems
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ▪ Wildfire
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ▪ Cumulative Effects
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality ▪ Growth Inducing Effects When the Draft Program EIR is completed, it will be available for review at the City’s offices located at 4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201, American Canyon, California 94503 and online at:
https://www.cityofamericancanyon.org/government/community-development/development-projects.

The City will issue a Notice of Availability of a Draft Program EIR at that time to inform the public and interested agencies, groups, and individuals of how to access the Draft Program EIR and provide comments. If you have questions regarding this NOP or the scoping meeting, please contact Sean Kennings, LAK Associates, at (415) 533- 2111 or via email at [email protected].
_________________________________________ September 7, 2022 Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director Date 640
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation

Figure 1 Regional Location
641
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation

Figure 2 Project Location
642
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation

Figure 3 Existing City of American Canyon Land Use Designations 643
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation

Figure 4 Proposed General Plan Land Use Designations
644
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation

Figure 5 Proposed Pre-Zoning
645
Notice of Preparation
City of American Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation

Figure 6 Proposed Newell Drive Alignment
646
647
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Bay Delta Region
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 428-2002
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
October 4, 2022
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
Post Office Box 7043
Corte Madera, CA 94976
[email protected]
Subject: Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project, Notice of Preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2022090097, City of American Canyon, Napa County
Dear Mr. Kennings:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Canyon Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project (Project).

CDFW is providing the City of American Canyon (City), as the Lead Agency, with specific detail about the scope and content of the environmental information related to CDFW’s area of statutory responsibility that must be included in the EIR (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15082, subd. (b)).

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is a Trustee Agency with responsibility under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for commenting on projects that could impact fish, plant, and wildlife resources (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15386).

CDFW is also considered a Responsible Agency if a project would require discretionary approval, such as a permit pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), the Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Program, and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to the State’s fish and wildlife trust resources. Pursuant to our authority, CDFW has the following concerns, comments, and recommendations regarding the Project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION
The Project will annex 83 acres within the City’s Sphere of Influence off of Paoli Loop and Watson Land into American Canyon city limits. This would result in rezoning of several parcels to an urban land use, including 47 acres currently designated as Agricultural land to be changed to Industrial and Residential Estate land. The Project would also extend Newell Drive approximately one mile from State Route 29, southeast along the northern boundary of the annexation area, to its planned terminus at the northern limits of Watson Ranch.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 702FF42B-E7A8-4323-B3F1-6A51347CB891 Letter 2
648
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
October 4, 2022

The CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) require that the EIR incorporate a full project description, including reasonably foreseeable future phases of the Project, that contains sufficient information to evaluate and review the Project’s environmental impact (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15124 & 15378). Please include a complete description of the following Project components in the Project description:
 Land use changes resulting from, for example, rezoning certain areas.  Footprints of permanent Project features and temporarily impacted areas, such as staging areas and access routes.
 Area and plans for any proposed buildings/structures, ground disturbing activities, fencing, paving, stationary machinery, landscaping, and stormwater systems.  Operational features of the Project, including level of anticipated human presence (describe seasonal or daily peaks in activity, if relevant), artificial lighting/light reflection, noise, traffic generation, and other features.  Construction schedule, activities, equipment, and crew sizes.

The NOP identifies that the EIR will be a Program EIR. While Program EIRs have a necessarily broad scope, CDFW recommends providing as much information related to anticipated future activities as possible. CDFW recognizes that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15152, subdivision (c), if a Lead Agency is using the tiering process in connection with an EIR or large-scale planning approval, the development of detailed, site-specific information may not be feasible and can be deferred, in many instances, until such time as the Lead Agency prepares a future environmental document. This future environmental document would cover a project of a more limited geographical scale and is appropriate if the deferred information does not prevent adequate identification of significant effects of the planning approval at hand. The CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(4) states, “Where the later activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR.” Based on CEQA Guidelines section 15183.3 and associated Appendix N Checklist, and consistent with other program EIRs, CDFW recommends creating a procedure or checklist for evaluating subsequent project impacts on biological resources to determine if they are within the scope of the Program EIR or if an additional environmental document is warranted. This checklist should be included as an attachment to the EIR.

Future analysis should include all special-status species and sensitive habitat including but not limited to species considered rare, threatened, or endangered species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15380.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 702FF42B-E7A8-4323-B3F1-6A51347CB891 649
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
October 4, 2022

When used appropriately, the checklist should be accompanied by enough relevant information and reasonable inferences to support a “within the scope” of the EIR conclusion. For subsequent Project activities that may affect sensitive biological resources, a site-specific analysis should be prepared by a qualified biologist to provide the necessary supporting information. In addition, the checklist should cite the specific portions of the EIR, including page and section references, containing the analysis of the subsequent Project activities’ significant effects and indicate whether it incorporates all applicable mitigation measures from the EIR.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
California Endangered Species Act and Native Plant Protection Act Please be advised that a CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA or NPPA, either during construction or over the life of the Project. Issuance of a CESA ITP is subject to CEQA documentation; the CEQA document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the Project will impact CESA listed species, such as those identified in Attachment 1, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA ITP.

CEQA requires a Mandatory Finding of Significance if a project is likely to substantially restrict the range or reduce the population of a threatened or endangered species (Pub.

Resources Code, §§ 21001, subd. (c) & 21083; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15380, 15064, and 15065). Impacts must be avoided or mitigated to less-than-significant levels unless the CEQA Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC). The CEQA Lead Agency’s FOC does not eliminate the Project proponent’s obligation to comply with CESA.

Nesting Birds
CDFW also has authority over actions that may disturb or destroy active nest sites or take birds. Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 protect birds, their eggs, and nests. Migratory birds are also protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Fully Protected Species
Fully Protected species, including any listed in Attachment 1, may not be taken or possessed at any time except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research, relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock, or if they are a covered species whose conservation and management is provided for in a Natural Community Conservation Plan (Fish & G. Code, §§ 3511, 4700, 5050, & 5515).

DocuSign Envelope ID: 702FF42B-E7A8-4323-B3F1-6A51347CB891 650
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
October 4, 2022

Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
CDFW will require an LSA Notification, pursuant to Fish and Game Code sections 1600 et. seq. for Project activities affecting lakes or streams and associated riparian habitat.

Notification is required for any activity that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank including associated riparian or wetland resources; or deposit or dispose of material where it may pass into a river, lake or stream. Work within ephemeral streams, washes, watercourses with a subsurface flow, and floodplains are subject to notification requirements. CDFW, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, will consider the CEQA document for the Project.

CDFW may not execute the final LSA Agreement until it has complied with CEQA as a Responsible Agency.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The EIR should provide sufficient information regarding the environmental setting (“baseline”) to understand the Project’s, and its alternative’s (if applicable), potentially significant impacts on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15125 & 15360).

CDFW recommends that the CEQA document prepared for the Project provide baseline habitat assessments for special-status plant, fish and wildlife species located and potentially located within the Project area and surrounding lands, including but not limited to all rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). The EIR should describe aquatic habitats, such as wetlands or waters of the U.S. or State, and any sensitive natural communities or riparian habitat occurring on or adjacent to the Project site (for sensitive natural communities
see:https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/NaturalCommunities#sensitive%20natural%20 communities), and any stream or wetland set back distances the City may require. Fully protected, threatened or endangered, candidate, and other special-status species and sensitive natural communities that are known to occur, or have the potential to occur in or near the Project site, include but are not limited to those listed in Attachment 1.

Habitat descriptions and the potential for species occurrence should include information from multiple sources: aerial imagery, historical and recent survey data, field reconnaissance, scientific literature and reports, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information, Planning, and Consultation System, and findings from “positive occurrence” databases such as California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Based on the data and information from the habitat assessment, the EIR should adequately assess which special-status species are likely to occur on or near the Project site, and whether they could be impacted by the Project.

CDFW recommends that prior to Project implementation, surveys be conducted for special-status species with potential to occur, following recommended survey protocols DocuSign Envelope ID: 702FF42B-E7A8-4323-B3F1-6A51347CB891 651
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
October 4, 2022

if available. Survey and monitoring protocols and guidelines are available at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocol.

Botanical surveys for special-status plant species, including those with a California Rare Plant Rank (http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/), must be conducted during the blooming period within the Project area and adjacent habitats that may be indirectly impacted by, for example, changes to hydrological conditions, and require the identification of reference populations. More than one year of surveys may be necessary based on environmental conditions. Please refer to CDFW protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status plants available at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants.

IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The EIR should discuss all direct and indirect impacts (temporary and permanent) that may occur with implementation of the Project (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2). This includes evaluating and describing impacts such as:
 Land use changes that would reduce open space or agricultural land uses and increase residential or other land use involving increased development;  Encroachments into riparian habitats, wetlands or other sensitive areas;  Potential for impacts to special-status species;
 Loss or modification of breeding, nesting, dispersal and foraging habitat, including vegetation removal, alternation of soils and hydrology, and removal of habitat structural features (e.g., snags, roosts, vegetation overhanging banks);  Permanent and temporary habitat disturbances associated with ground disturbance, noise, lighting, reflection, air pollution, traffic or human presence; and  Obstruction of movement corridors, fish passage, or access to water sources and other core habitat features.

The CEQA document should also identify reasonably foreseeable future projects in the Project vicinity, disclose any cumulative impacts associated with these projects, determine the significance of each cumulative impact, and assess the significance of the Project’s contribution to the impact (CEQA Guidelines, §15355). Although a project’s impacts may be insignificant individually, its contributions to a cumulative impact may be considerable; a contribution to a significant cumulative impact – e.g., reduction of available habitat for a special-status species – should be considered cumulatively considerable without mitigation to minimize or avoid the impact.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 702FF42B-E7A8-4323-B3F1-6A51347CB891 652
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
October 4, 2022

Based on the comprehensive analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the Project, the CEQA Guidelines direct the lead agency to consider and describe all feasible mitigation measures to avoid potentially significant impacts in the EIR, and/or mitigate significant impacts of the Project on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15021, 15063, 15071, 15126.2, 15126.4 & 15370). This includes a discussion of impact avoidance and minimization measures for special-status species, which are recommended to be developed in early consultation with CDFW, USFWS, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. These measures can then be incorporated as enforceable Project conditions to reduce potential impacts to biological resources to less-than-significant levels.

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in EIRs and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e)). Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to CNDDB. The CNNDB online field survey form and other methods for submitting data can be found at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB /Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plantsand-Animals.

FILING FEES
CDFW anticipates that the Project will have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of filing fees is necessary (Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089). Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW.

If you have any questions, please contact Alicia Bird, Environmental Scientist, at (707) 980-5154 or [email protected]; or Melanie Day, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at (707) 210-4415 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Erin Chappell
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region
Attachment 1: Special-Status Species
ec: State Clearinghouse # 2022090097
Darcy Kremin, Rincon Consultants, Inc., [email protected] DocuSign Envelope ID: 702FF42B-E7A8-4323-B3F1-6A51347CB891 653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project Public Scoping Meeting Meeting Time: 09-21-22 14:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project
Public Scoping Meeting
09-21-22
14:00
10 2 2 0 0
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment
Letter 5
662
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project Public Scoping Meeting 09-21-22 14:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS 2 2 0 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for SCHEDULE AND NEXT STEPS
Overall Sentiment
Charles Lemmon
Location:

Submitted At: 8:34pm 09-20-22
Thank you for inviting the public to observe the scoping meeting. I look forward to reviewing the documents that describe the project scope and the Draft EIR when they are published. I look forward to working with the EIR preparation contractor and the City staff to fully understand the envisioned Land Use and Zoning. For example, the meeting agenda speaks of a potential Hotel site, I assume that would not be located on Watson Lane. I can't confirm that from the provided agenda package as it does not provide that level of detail. I look forward to learning what is the envisioned zoning for the various parcels.

With the completion of the Devlin Road extension, Connecting Newel to Paoli Loop will encourage motorists to bypass downtown highway 29 congestion by shortcutting to Newel and then points south. I expect significantly more traffic on Paoli Loop from 3-6 PM every night as well as 6-9 in the morning if there is an accident on 29. I do understand the need to annex the neighborhood for the greater good of the community, but here will be an impact on the existing residents of the neighborhood.

Charles Lemmon, Property Owner, 193 Watson Lane
663
John Dutra
Location:

Submitted At: 1:48pm 09-19-22
While I support the annexation, I live on Watson Lane and do not want my site zoned for public use, preferring housing which is needed so badly. Please respond as to how certain areas will be zoned prior to annexation and how we can impact the decision.
664
From: Ladeena Ford
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Watson Lane
Date: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 2:01:05 PM
Attachments: image0.jpeg
image1.jpeg
image2.jpeg
Untitled attachment 00349.txt
>>>
>>> Hi Sean,
>>>
>>> I am providing comments on behalf of my parents Les and Earlene Lawson, Watson Lane residents. >>>
>>> They watched the meeting via zoom and reviewed the proposed zoning. >
>>> They are concerned because the recent proposal is not the same as the 2019 proposal. >>>
>>> The 2019 proposal has their one acre parcel with their home zoned as residential, and their property behind their home zoned as light industrial. The recent proposal has it all zoned as residential. >
>>> Please note that the 2019 proposal reflects residential use restrictions due to the property’s location in zone D of the airport which restricts residential use. That is why it made sense that the property behind their home was proposed to be zoned as light industrial.
>>>
>>> The changes in the most recent proposal when compared to the 2019 proposal impacts 2 property owners, my parents and the property owned by the Dunlops.
>>>
>>> Can you please let us know the purpose of changing the zoning from the 2019 proposal? Please note that this new proposal limits the use of my parents property and the Dunlap’s property. They can’t develop residential due to airport restrictions and they can’t develop light industrial. >>>
>>> To be clear, my parents want the property behind their home zoned as light industrial same as the adjacent Paoli property, as reflected in the 2019 proposal.
>
> Also, can you please let us know if sewer will be brought down Watson Lane when it is annexed into the City.

See below for a picture of the most recent proposal, the 2019 proposal, and the letter regarding submittal of comments.

Although the letter states we can provide comments within 30 days, October 7 is not 30 days from the zoom meeting. My parents are concerned impacted Watson Lane residents may not have a sufficient amount of time to provide comments to this revised proposal.

Letter 6
665
Appendix B
Biological Resources Assessment
666
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
Biological Resources Assessment
prepared for
City of American Canyon
Jason B. Holley, City Manager
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, California 94503
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
October 2022
667
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
Biological Resources Assessment
prepared for
City of American Canyon
Jason B. Holley, City Manager
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, California 94503
prepared by
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
October 2022
668
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content. 669
Table of Contents
Biological Resources Assessment i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................1 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................2

1.1 Project Location ..................................................................................................................2

1.2 Project Description..............................................................................................................2

1.3 Regulatory Summary...........................................................................................................2

1.3.1 Definition of Special Status Species....................................................................2

1.3.2 Environmental Statutes......................................................................................5

1.3.3 Guidelines for Determining CEQA Significance ..................................................5 2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................7

2.1 Biological Study Area ..........................................................................................................7

2.2 Literature Review................................................................................................................7

2.3 Field Reconnaissance Survey ..............................................................................................8

2.4 Impact Evaluation ...............................................................................................................8 3 Existing Conditions..........................................................................................................................9

3.1 Physical Characteristics.......................................................................................................9

3.1.1 Topography and Geography ...............................................................................9

3.1.2 Watershed and Drainages..................................................................................9

3.1.3 Soils.....................................................................................................................9

3.2 Vegetation and Other Land Cover ....................................................................................11

3.3 General Wildlife ................................................................................................................12 4 Sensitive Biological Resources......................................................................................................14

4.1 Special Status Species.......................................................................................................14

4.1.1 Special Status Plant Species..............................................................................14

4.1.2 Special Status Wildlife Species..........................................................................15

4.1.3 Other Protected Species...................................................................................16

4.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat.........................................................16

4.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands .................................................................................17

4.4 Wildlife Movement...........................................................................................................17

4.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances....................................................18

4.6 Habitat Conservation Plans...............................................................................................18 5 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures....................................................................................19

5.1 Special-Status Species.......................................................................................................19

5.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat.........................................................21

5.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands .................................................................................21

5.4 Wildlife Movement...........................................................................................................23

5.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and Ordinances....................................................24 670
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
ii

5.6 Habitat Conservation Plans...............................................................................................24 6 Limitations, Assumptions, and Use Reliance ................................................................................26 7 References....................................................................................................................................27 8 List of Preparers............................................................................................................................29 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location Map .......................................................................................................3 Figure 2 Project Location Map..........................................................................................................4 Figure 3 Soils Map Units within the Proposed Annexation ............................................................10 Figure 4 Vegetation and Land Cover...............................................................................................13 Attachments
Attachment A Regulatory Settings
Attachment B Site Photographs
Attachment C Floral and Faunal Compendium
Attachment D Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
671
Executive Summary
Biological Resources Assessment 1
Executive Summary
Rincon Consultants, Inc. has prepared this Biological Resources Assessment to document existing conditions and provide a basis for evaluation of potential impacts to special status biological resources during development and implementation of the Watson Lane Annexation (proposed annexation). The proposed annexation is located north of American Canyon in southern Napa County and seeks to annex approximately 83 acres in unincorporated Napa County within the City of American Canyon (City). The proposed annexation is bordered by highway 29 on the west and agriculture to the north, and railroad and agriculture to the east, along with railroad and undeveloped grassland to the south. The annexation includes low density residential, light industrial, railroad right of way, town center, and light industrial zoned properties. This study has been completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Based on the habitats found on site, three special status species have the potential to be encountered within the proposed annexation area. The western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), the fully protected white tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and the state threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) have the potential to occur within the proposed annexation. No sensitive land cover types were observed within the proposed annexation area; however, North Slough and other potential jurisdictional features cross the northern portion of the proposed annexation. Direct and indirect impacts to special status species and drainages would be minimized and/or avoided to the greatest extent feasible with the implementation of measures described in Section 5, Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures. Vegetation within and adjacent to the project site offers potential nesting habitat for bird species that are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. Direct and indirect impacts to these species and water features, would be minimized with implementation of the proposed avoidance and minimization measures, as a result, the project would not be likely to adversely affect special status species or wetlands.
672
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
2 1 Introduction
Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) has prepared this Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) to document existing conditions, summarize previous biological resource reports and studies, and provide a basis for evaluation of potential impacts to special status and sensitive biological resources from the implementation of the Watson Lane Annexation Project (project) located in Napa County, California (Figure 1). This BRA has been prepared in support of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review of the project. The lead agency for the project is the City of American Canton.

1.1 Project Location
The project site is located north of American Canyon in southern Napa County (Figure 1 and Figure 2), within the Northern California Coast Ecoregion. The proposed annexation is bordered by highway 29 on the west and agriculture to the north, and railroad and agriculture to the east, along with railroad and undeveloped grassland to the south. The annexation will annex low density residential, light industrial, railroad right of way, town center, and light industrial zoned properties.

1.2 Project Description
The project would involve the annexation of approximately 83 acres in unincorporated Napa County within the City of American Canyon (City). The annexation would provide additional area for industrial, commercial, and town center/hotel uses while also providing City services, including water, sewer, and fire protection, to existing and future uses. Furthermore, the project aims to create a public right-of-way for the extension of Newell Drive which would serve as an alternative for north-south travel parallel to SR 29.

1.3 Regulatory Summary
Regulated or sensitive resources studied and analyzed herein include special status plant and wildlife species, nesting birds and raptors, sensitive plant communities, jurisdictional waters and wetlands, wildlife movement, regionally protected resources (e.g., from county-wide Habitat Conservation Plans [HCPs] and Natural Community Conservation Plans [NCCPs]), and locally protected resources, such as protected trees. Regulatory authority over biological resources is shared by Federal, State, and local authorities. Primary authority for regulation of general biological resources lies within the land use control and planning authority of local jurisdictions (in this instance, the City of American Canyon).

1.3.1 Definition of Special Status Species
For the purposes of this report, special status species include:
▪ Species listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA); including proposed and candidate species
673
Introduction
Biological Resources Assessment 3
Figure 1 Regional Location Map
674
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
4 Figure 2 Project Location Map
675
Introduction
Biological Resources Assessment 5
▪ Species listed as candidate, threatened, or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
▪ Species designated as Fully Protected by the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC), and Species of Special Concern or Watch List by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) ▪ Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) – State Rare (SR)
▪ California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Ranks (CRPR) 1A, 1B, 2A and 2B ▪ Species designated as sensitive by the U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management, if the project would affect lands administered by these agencies ▪ Species designated as locally important by the Local Agency and/or otherwise protected through ordinance, local policy, or HCPs/NCCPs

1.3.2 Environmental Statutes
For the purpose of this report, potential impacts to biological resources were analyzed based on the following statutes (Attachment A):
▪ California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
▪ Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)
▪ California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
▪ Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
▪ California Fish and Game Code (CFGC)
▪ Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
▪ The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
▪ Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
▪ American Canyon General Plan

1.3.3 Guidelines for Determining CEQA Significance
The following threshold criteria, as defined by the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist, were used to evaluate potential environmental effects. Based on these criteria, the project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) Have substantial adverse effects, 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. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
d) 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.
676
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
6 e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 677
Methodology
Biological Resources Assessment 7
2 Methodology

2.1 Biological Study Area
The Biological Study Area (BSA) evaluated for this analysis includes the proposed annexation area plus a 500-foot buffer to encompass potential impacts to biological resources (Figure 2).

2.2 Literature Review
Rincon conducted a literature review to characterize the nature and extent of biological resources on and adjacent to the BSA. The literature review included an evaluation of current and historical aerial photographs of the site (Google Earth), regional and site‐specific topographic maps, and climatic data.

Queries of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation system (IPaC; UFWS 2022a); CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; 2022a); and California Native Plant Society (CNPS) online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2022) were conducted to obtain comprehensive information regarding State and federally listed species and other special status species considered to have potential to occur within the Cordelia and Cuttings Wharf, California USGS 7.5‐minute topographic quadrangle and the surrounding ten quadrangles (Napa, Mt. George, Fairfield North, Fairfield South, Vine Hill, Benicia, Mare Island, Petaluma Point, Sears Point, and Sonoma). The results of database-queries and lists of special status species were reviewed by Rincon’s regional biological experts for accuracy and completeness. The final list of special status biological resources (species and sensitive natural communities) was evaluated based on documented occurrences within the twelve-quadrangle search area and biologists’ expert opinions on species known to occur in the region. The evaluation results and justification were compiled into a table (Attachment D).

The following resources were reviewed for additional information on existing conditions relating to biological resources within the BSA:
▪ United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (2022)
▪ USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (2022b)
▪ CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (CDFW 2022b) ▪ CDFW Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (2022c) ▪ CDFW Special Animals List (2022)
The vegetation community characterizations for this analysis were based on the classification systems presented in the CDFW California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) classification scheme (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). The potential for wildlife movement corridors was evaluated based on the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project commissioned by the California Department of Transportation and CDFW (Spencer et al. 2010). 678
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
8 2.3 Field Reconnaissance Survey
The reconnaissance-level field surveys were conducted by Rincon Biologists Beth Wilson and Cristy Rice on August 16, 2022. The surveys consisted of pedestrian surveys of the northern parcels and visual surveys of all other parcels where access was not available, to document and field-verify vegetation communities and site conditions. During surveys, the biologists field-verified, refined and mapped the boundaries of vegetation communities and other land-cover types, documented the approximate limits of aquatic features including North Slough and other potentially jurisdictional features, mapped occurrences of incidental observation of special status species (including state and federal listed species), and developed a list of observed plants and wildlife. Definitive surveys to confirm the presence or absence of special status species were not performed and are not included with this analysis. Definitive surveys for special status plant and wildlife species generally require specific survey protocols, extensive field survey time, and are conducted only at specific time periods of the year.

2.4 Impact Evaluation
Existing conditions of the project site were assessed based on a review of background literature, aerial imagery, and the results of the reconnaissance survey. This information was compiled into maps and written descriptions of vegetation communities that form the foundation of the analysis for special status species potential to occur. Based on the types and condition of vegetation communities present within the BSA, Rincon conducted a habitat assessment for special status species and determined the potential for special status species to occur within the proposed annexation area. The impact analysis to address the CEQA Appendix G checklist items outlined under Section 1.3.3 is based on the presence of or potential for occurrence of special status biological resources in the context of the project site. 679
Existing Conditions
Biological Resources Assessment 9
3 Existing Conditions

3.1 Physical Characteristics

3.1.1 Topography and Geography
Elevations in the BSA range from approximately 64 to 133 feet (16.2 to 40.5 meters) above mean sea level. The climate in this region is warm and temperate with an average temperature of 59 degrees Fahrenheit, and an annual total precipitation average of 23.4 inches (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2022). Urban development and agricultural land uses surround the proposed annexation.

3.1.2 Watershed and Drainages
A query of the USFWS’s National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (US Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] 2022c) was conducted. Aerial imagery and the U.S. Geological Service’s National Hydrology Dataset (2022) was also reviewed to determine if aquatic resources potentially falling under the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or CDFW (i.e., jurisdictional waters), such as federally and State protected wetlands, occur in the proposed annexation. The North Slough drainage crosses the proposed annexation (U.S.

Geologic Survey 2022; USFWS 2022c). North Slough is part of the Napa River watershed and drains runoff from the lands surrounding the proposed annexation. In addition, there are some areas that drain to North Slough to the east of North Slough. It is not currently known whether these areas are jurisdictional features and an evaluation as to whether these features are jurisdictional will be conducted in the future (see Section 5.3 below).

3.1.3 Soils
The U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) Web Soil Survey delineates two soil map units within the proposed annexation: Haire loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes and Clear Lake clay, drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes (USDA NRCS 2022a). Site-specific soil observations are consistent with those mapped by the USDA NRCS. Soil distribution within proposed annexation is depicted in Figure 3. Each soil map unit is described below. None of the mapped soils are included on the National Hydric Soils List, which lists soils that are permanently or seasonally saturated (USDA NRCS 2022b).

Clear Lake Clay, Drained, 0 to 2 Percent Slopes
The Clear Lake series of soils consists of poorly drained soils in old alluvial fans and in basins. These soils formed in alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. The plant cover is primarily grasses, forbs, and scattered oaks. This soil is mainly used for pasture.

Haire Loam, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes
The Haire series consists of moderately well drained soils on old terraces and alluvial fans. Haire soils formed from alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. The vegetative cover is primarily grasses and forbs. These soils are primarily used for pasture however, some areas are being used for orchards.
680
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
10 Figure 3 Soils Map Units within the Proposed Annexation 681
Existing Conditions
Biological Resources Assessment 11
Haire Clay Loam, 2 to 9 Percent Slopes
The Haire series consists of moderately well drained soils on old terraces and alluvial fans. Haire soils formed from alluvium derived from sedimentary rock. The vegetative cover is primarily grasses and forbs. These soils are primarily used for pasture however, some areas are being used for orchards.

3.2 Vegetation and Other Land Cover
The natural community/ landcover descriptions listed below are based on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Wildlife Habitat Relationships classification scheme (CWHR) (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). Figure 4 shows the natural communities and land covers in the project site. The list below includes descriptions of vegetation communities and landcovers in and adjacent to the project site.

Non-Native Annual Grassland
Annual grasslands are herbaceous communities composed primarily of annual grass and forb species. This vegetation community exists throughout the proposed annexation, where introduced annual grasses are the dominant plant species. The dominant species observed included slender wild oats (Avena barbata), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), false barley (Hordeum murinum), yellow-star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), black mustard (Brassica nigra), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare).

The slough and its surrounding area are also encompassed by annual grassland primarily dominated by non-native annual grasses with some coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) in the uplands. The channel is mainly devoid of vegetation, though scattered patches of facultative hydrophytic species such as curly dock (Rumex crispus) were observed and concrete lining is present near the bridge.

The slopes of the channel banks of other potentially jurisdictional features are primarily covered with non-native annual grasses including scattered patches of Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) and curly dock interspersed with the grasses.

The potential jurisdictional features have been historically diverted from their natural topographic drainages (i.e., the typical gradient being downhill and flowing north to south or east to west). The potential jurisdictional features originate on properties with vineyards to the east and are diverted through a system of culverts and ditches onto and through the project site, flowing into North Slough. The northern potential jurisdictional feature drains properties with vineyards to the east and is piped approximately 0.25 mile under vineyards and Watson Lane, where it outfalls along the east side of the railroad tracks and flows through a culvert underneath the railroad tracks through the project site toward North Slough. The southern potential jurisdictional feature is more substantially and circuitously modified, originating as a natural topographic drainage on the property with vineyards to the southeast where it is diverted into a French drain and culvert system departing from its natural topographic drainage, running diagonally to the northwest under approximately 0.25 mile of vineyards. It outfalls out of a culvert into a ditch along the east side of Watson Lane where it flows south to north along Watson Lane, under Watson Lane through an eastwest culvert system, continuing to the west in a linear ditch, then changing direction running south to north along the east side of the railroad tracks before it changes direction once more, flowing under the railroad tracks in an east-west facing culvert through the project site toward North Slough.
682
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
12 Urban
This land cover type is completely anthropogenic and is composed of residential, commercial, and industrial developed areas. Plant species within urban areas are typically comprised of ornamental plants and non-native invasive plant species, with large, developed areas lacking vegetation.

3.3 General Wildlife
The grassland habitat within and adjacent to the proposed annexation provides habitat for a variety of nesting birds, small mammals, and reptiles. Species which were detected during the reconnaissance survey included red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), coyote (Canis latrans), and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis). For a complete list of wildlife observed see Attachment D.
683
Existing Conditions
Biological Resources Assessment 13
Figure 4 Vegetation and Land Cover
684
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
14 4 Sensitive Biological Resources
This section discusses special status species and sensitive biological resources observed on the project site and evaluates the potential for the project site to support additional sensitive biological resources. Assessments for the potential occurrence of special status species are based upon known ranges, habitat preferences for the species, species occurrence records from the CNDDB and other sources, species occurrence records from other sites in the vicinity of the survey area, previous reports for the project site, and the results of surveys of the project site. The potential for each special status species to occur in the BSA was evaluated according to the following criteria:
▪ No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime), and species would have been identifiable on the site if present (e.g., oak trees). Protocol surveys (if conducted) did not detect species. ▪ Low Potential. Few of the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site. Protocol surveys (if conducted) did not detect species.
▪ Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site. ▪ High Potential. All the habitat components (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime) meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site.
▪ Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (e.g., CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently (within the last 10 years).

4.1 Special Status Species
For this report, special status species are defined as those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by the USFWS or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the federal Endangered Species Act; those listed or candidates for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act; and animals designated as “Species of Special Concern” by CDFW or “Fully Protected” under the California Fish and Game Code. Additionally, rookery sites for species that nest colonially, such as bat maternity roosts, are also treated as special status.

4.1.1 Special Status Plant Species
Based on the database and literature review of records from the Cordelia and Cuttings Wharf, California USGS 7.5‐minute topographic quadrangle and the surrounding ten quadrangles (Napa, Mt. George, Fairfield North, Fairfield South, Vine Hill, Benicia, Mare Island, Petaluma Point, Sears Point, and Sonoma), as well as the USFWS IPaC list of federally listed species, 73 special status plant 685
Sensitive Biological Resources
Biological Resources Assessment 15
species are known to occur or have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the proposed annexation (Attachment B). However, due to grazing, mowing, and tilling, no special status plant species are expected to occur within the proposed annexation.

4.1.2 Special Status Wildlife Species
Of the 54 special-status wildlife species evaluated (Attachment B), three species, western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), have a moderate potential to occur and are discussed further below. One species has a low potential to occur within the proposed annexation (American badger (Taxidea taxus)). This species was determined to have a low potential to occur because the surrounding land is active agriculture and the railroad tracks along with roads surrounding the annexation create a barrier to individuals dispersing into the annexation area. For the purposes of CEQA analysis, special-status species with low potential to occur will not be addressed further because these species have a low likelihood of being present within the vicinity of the project site. The remaining 50 special-status species evaluated are not expected to occur in the proposed annexation due to a lack of speciesspecific habitat requirements, the overall lack of suitable habitat such as natural vegetation communities or natural wetland habitats (e.g., marshes or seeps), and/or because the range of the species does not overlap with the proposed annexation. No federal or state-listed or other specialstatus wildlife species were observed during the field survey. CFGC Section 3503 and the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protect native bird species and their nests.

Western burrowing owl
Western burrowing owl is a CDFW Species of Special Concern that occupies open, treeless areas within grassland, low-density scrub, and desert biomes. This species generally inhabits gently sloping areas, characterized by low, sparse vegetation, and is often associated with high densities of burrowing mammals (Poulin et al. 2011). Western burrowing owl often uses relatively disturbed areas such as agricultural fields, golf courses, cemeteries, and vacant urban lots in addition to natural breeding habitats. Nests are most often in fossorial animal burrows, such as California ground squirrel or American badger, but atypical nests such as culverts or rubble piles may also be used. Nest sites are typically selected in an area with a high density of burrows.

There are nine occurrences within five miles of the study area, with the closest occurrence approximately 1.95 miles to the south. Suitable habitat is present throughout the proposed annexation within the nonnative annual grassland. Suitable burrows were observed throughout the annexation area. This species is known to occur throughout the region and is determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the study area.

Swainson’s hawk
The Swainson’s hawk is listed as a state threatened species. The historical breeding range of Swainson’s hawk in California included the Great Basin, Sacramento and San Joaquin Basins, the coast from Marin County to San Diego County, and scattered sites in the Mojave and Colorado Deserts (England et al., 1997). The species continues to breed across its entire historical range, but in significantly lower numbers than historically. This species is often found nesting in trees associated with scattered rural residences, particularly in relation to grasslands or dry-land grain fields. Throughout its range the species nest almost exclusively in trees, typically on the edges of woodland adjacent to grass or shrubland habitat (England et al. 1997). 686
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
16 There are several records of Swainson’s hawks nesting within five miles of the study area, last recorded in 2013. No Swainson’s hawks were observed during the reconnaissance survey. There is suitable nesting and foraging habitat within the proposed annexation. The nesting habitat is limited to eucalyptus trees and ornamental trees within the low-density housing. Therefore, Swainson’s hawk has a moderate potential to forage and nest within the proposed annexation.

White-tailed kite
White-tailed kite is a CDFW fully protected species. A yearlong resident in coastal and valley lowlands, the species inhabits a wide range of habitats, mostly in cismontane California. The species prefers trees with dense canopies for cover. Their diet consists mostly of voles and other small, diurnal mammals, but the species occasionally feeds on birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians.

Typical foraging habitat is undisturbed, open grasslands, meadows, farmlands, and emergent wetlands. Nesting is typically near top of dense oak, willow, or other tree stands, located near foraging areas. Preferentially selects herbaceous lowlands with a range of woodland structure, and high density of voles (Zeiner et al. 1990), and substantial groves of dense, broad-leafed deciduous trees for nesting and roosting (Zeiner et. al. 1990).

The CNDDB contains no occurrence records for white-tailed kite within five miles of the proposed annexation. The grassland areas within the proposed annexation provide foraging habitat, and suitable nesting habitat is present in the proposed annexation area. Furthermore, birding records on eBird (eBird 2022) contain multiple records for white-tailed kite within 5 miles of the project site.

4.1.3 Other Protected Species
Nesting Birds
Non-game migratory birds protected under CFGC Section 3503 have the potential to breed throughout the proposed annexation. Native avian species common in grasslands, landscaping, developed and ruderal areas have the potential to breed and forage throughout the proposed annexation. Species of birds common to the area that typically occur in the region, such as California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and other common California native bird species are likely to utilize the proposed annexation for nesting. Nesting by a variety of common birds protected by CFGC Section 3503 could occur in virtually any location throughout the project site.

4.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat
Sensitive Natural Communities
Plant communities are considered sensitive biological resources if they have limited distributions, have high wildlife value, include sensitive species, or are particularly susceptible to disturbance.

CDFW ranks sensitive communities as “threatened” or “very threatened” and keeps records of their occurrences in CNDDB. Sensitive natural communities included in the CNDDB follow the original methodology according to “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California” (Holland 1986). The methodology for determining sensitivity continues to be revised and is now based on MCV2 (Sawyer et al. 2009). Communities considered sensitive by CDFW are published in the California Sensitive Natural Communities List (CDFW 2021). 687
Sensitive Biological Resources
Biological Resources Assessment 17
Five sensitive natural communities are known to occur within the twelve-quadrangle search area; coastal brackish marsh, northern claypan vernal pool, northern coastal salt marsh, northern vernal pool, and serpentine bunchgrass, none of which were observed in the project site during the field reconnaissance survey.

Critical Habitat
Critical habitat for green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia conjugens), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus), Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), and soft birds-beak (Chloropyron molle ssp. molle) occurs within the twelvequadrangle search area. However, the proposed annexation does not occur within federally designated critical habitat for any of these species (USFWS 2022b).

4.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
As noted in Section 3.1.2, Watershed and Drainages, and Section 3.2, Vegetation and Other Land Cover, North Slough and potentially jurisdictional features occur within the proposed annexation.

The above-described features are potentially subject to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW oversight. Even though North Slough and other potentially jurisdictional features were not wetted at the time of the site survey, they have a direct hydrologic connection to the Pacific Ocean (a traditional navigable water as defined by USACE). The USACE is expected to assert jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) over stream, lake, and wetland features to the ordinary high-water mark, and to the edge of those wetlands with all three criteria that define federal wetlands: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. The RWQCB also has jurisdiction over waters of the U.S. under Section 401 of the CWA. The RWQCB may also assert jurisdiction over waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

The CDFW has jurisdiction over lakes, streams, and associated riparian areas under the CGFC Section 1600 et seq. The CDFW has traditionally regulated activities within the bed and bank of lakes and streams, extending to the top of bank or edge of the riparian dripline, under its Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. The CDFW may also regulate activities conducted adjacent to but outside these areas, if the activity results in a substantial alteration of the stream or lakebed downslope of the activity, such as through placement of materials that wash into a water body.

4.4 Wildlife Movement
Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as providing a linkage between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return.

Others may be important as dispersal corridors for young animals. A group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network.

The habitats within the link do not necessarily need to be the same as the habitats that are being linked. Rather, the link merely needs to contain sufficient cover and forage to allow temporary 688
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
18 inhabitation by ground-dwelling species. Typically, habitat linkages are contiguous strips of natural areas, though dense plantings of landscape vegetation can be used by certain disturbance-tolerant species. Depending upon the species using a corridor, specific physical resources (such as rock outcroppings, vernal pools, or oak trees) may need to be located within the habitat link at certain intervals to allow slower-moving species to traverse the link. For highly mobile or aerial species, habitat linkages may be discontinuous patches of suitable resources spaced sufficiently close together to permit travel along a route in a short period of time.

Wildlife movement corridors can be both large and small scale. One essential connectivity area (ECA) is mapped by the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project along the eastern border of the proposed annexation area (Spencer et.al 2010). The corridor connects natural landscape blocks east of American Canyon along the Howell Mountain range. From the hills north of the cities of Vallejo and Benicia it extends northwest, parallel with Napa Valley to the Lake County border. This ECA may serve as a movement corridor for the state provisionally protected Southern California/Central Coast ESU of mountain lion. CDFW characterizes the value of ECAs based on permeability to wildlife movements. As mapped in BIOS, the edges of the nearest connectivity area become increasingly less permeable as they extend toward American Canyon.

4.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and
Ordinances
The American Canyon General Plan (1994) includes a Natural and Historic & Cultural Resources Element for the long-term preservation of open space and natural resources. Goal 8, objectives 8.1 through 8.9 and the associated policies address the conservation of listed species, critical habitats, and the avoidance of significant impacts to biological resources. These goals and objectives protect and preserve the significant habitats, plants and wildlife that exist within the City of American Canyon and its planning area.

4.6 Habitat Conservation Plans
The proposed annexation is not located within an area with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan.
689
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Biological Resources Assessment 19
5 Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
This impact analysis is based on a review of existing biological conditions within the proposed annexation area. Identification of sensitive resources at this early stage can support avoidance and/or minimization of potential impacts to sensitive biological resources by providing baseline information. Potential impacts to special status species due to development within the proposed annexation area and any adjacent staging/mobilization areas will be determined during project development. Impacts to sensitive biological resources are analyzed accordingly and are not considered as permanent or temporary impacts to the entire annexation area. Potential for the project to result in significant impacts to special status biological resources is addressed below.

5.1 Special-Status Species
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
a) 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.

A total of 54 animal and 73 special status plant species are known to occur within the 12 quad search area. Of these species three have a moderate or greater potential to occur within the proposed annexation. The three species that may occur include western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, and white-tailed kite. Nesting migratory birds may occur within the proposed annexation as well. Migratory birds will nest within a variety of habitats such as gravel, grasses and bushes or trees. Direct impacts to all these species from projects facilitated by the proposed annexation could include injury or mortality from construction activity, or nest abandonment from noise, dust, and other project activities. The increased density may also increase the amount of disturbance and remove potential breeding habitat. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO3, and BIO-4, impacts from the project on special status species, nesting birds, and associated habitats would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Site-Specific Biological Resources Assessment
The City shall implement the following measures during environmental review of future development within the project site. On a project-by-project basis, a preliminary biological resource screening shall be performed to determine whether a specific project has the potential to impact biological resources. If it is determined that the project has no potential to impact biological resources, no further action is required. If the project would have the potential to impact biological resources, prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a biological resources assessment (BRA) or similar type of study to document the existing biological resources within the project footprint plus an appropriate buffer determined by a qualified biologist and to determine the potential impacts to those resources. The BRA shall evaluate the potential for impacts to all sensitive biological resources including, but not limited to special-status species, nesting birds, wildlife movement, sensitive plant communities/critical habitat and other resources judged to be sensitive by local, state, and/or federal agencies. Pending the results of the BRA, design alterations, 690
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
20 further technical studies (i.e., protocol surveys) and/or consultations with the USFWS, CDFW and/or other local, state, and federal agencies may be necessary. The City shall review and approve the BRA prior to project approval.

BIO-2 Pre-construction Surveys for Swainson’s Hawk, Other Raptors and Nesting Birds
Ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities shall be restricted to the non-breeding season (September 16 to January 31), when feasible. If construction activities occur during the nesting bird season (February 1 to September 15), the following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk, protected raptor species, and other nesting birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC.

A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for Swainson’s hawk between January 1 and March 20. A preconstruction survey for other raptors and nesting birds shall be conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal. The survey shall be conducted within the project site and include a 150-foot buffer for passerines, 500-foot buffer for other raptors, and 0.5 mile buffer for active Swainson’s hawk nests. The surveys shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the region. It is recommended that surveys follow the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’s Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. If a Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite nest is found, the biologist shall set up appropriate buffers in consultation with CDFW.

If the nesting bird survey results are negative, no further action is required. If nests are found, the biologist shall determine and demarcate an appropriate avoidance buffer with high visibility material. For Swainson’s hawk nests, the biologist shall establish an avoidance buffer of up to 0.5 mile based on the nest location in relation to the construction activity, the line-of-sight from the nest to the construction activity, and observed hawk behavior at the nest.

The qualified biologist shall notify all construction personnel of the buffer zones and to avoid entering buffer zones during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within the buffer until the biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is complete, and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the biologist.

Results of the preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be submitted to the City in a brief letter report no more than 30 days after completion of the survey.

BIO-3 Pre-construction Surveys for Western Burrowing Owl Prior to ground disturbance activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction clearance surveys within suitable natural habitats and ruderal areas throughout the project site, to confirm the presence/absence of active western burrowing owl burrows. The surveys shall be consistent with the recommended survey methodology provided by CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Clearance surveys shall be conducted within 30 days prior to construction and ground disturbance activities. If no western burrowing owls are observed, no further actions are required. If western burrowing owls are detected during the pre-construction clearance surveys, the following measures shall apply:
▪ Avoidance buffers during the breeding and non-breeding season shall be implemented in accordance with the CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation minimization mitigation measures.
691
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Biological Resources Assessment 21
▪ If avoidance of western burrowing owls is not feasible, then additional measures such as passive relocation during the nonbreeding season and construction buffers of 200 feet during the breeding season shall be implemented, in consultation with CDFW. In addition, a Western Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed by a qualified biologist in accordance with the CDFW (2012) and Burrowing Owl Consortium (1993).

Project applicants shall submit evidence of clearance surveys, avoidance buffers or additional measures to the City as required.

BIO-4 Worker Environmental Awareness Program
Prior to initiation of construction activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project construction shall attend Worker Environmental Awareness Program training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing special status resources that may occur in the project site. The program shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction. All employees shall sign a form documenting attendance at the Worker Environmental Awareness Program and that they understand the information presented to them.

The form shall be submitted to the City to document compliance.

5.2 Sensitive Natural Communities and Critical Habitat
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
b) Have a substantial adverse impact 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.

The northern portion of the proposed annexation is bisected by North Slough, flowing north to south. The slough and the rest of the project site do not contain riparian or other sensitive natural communities even though they are potentially jurisdictional and subject to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW oversight. Development within the proposed annexation would not have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

5.3 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

The northern portion of the project site includes the North Slough, which is characterized as unvegetated waters and are potentially state and federally jurisdictional. In addition, the area east of the project site includes areas that drain to North Slough and may be potentially jurisdictional.

The potential jurisdictional features have been historically diverted from their natural topographic 692
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
22 drainages (i.e., the typical gradient being downhill and flowing north to south or east to west) and redirected through a system of culverts and ditches onto and through the project site, flowing into North Slough. There are several components of the project that cross these potentially jurisdictional waters, including the following:
▪ A portion of the Newell Drive Extension and areas with new pre-zoning (Residential Estate, Paoli Light Industrial, Paoli Light Industrial: Commercial Overlay) would cross the North Slough. ▪ A portion of the Newell Drive Extension along the northern portion of the annexation area would cross an area that drains to North Slough.
▪ A portion of the Newell Drive Extension along the northern portion of the annexation area would cross an area that drains to North Slough.

No development is being proposed in the areas pre-zoned as Residential Estate. As such, there would be no impact to the portion of North Slough in the Residential Estate pre-zoning. Future development could occur in the proposed Paoli Light Industrial and Paoli Light Industrial:

Commercial Overlay pre-zoning. Construction of future development, including upgrades to utilities and stormwater drainage, may require work within the North Slough and the area that drains to North Slough, including dredge or fill within potential jurisdictional waters. The southern potential jurisdictional feature has been substantially diverted from its natural topographic course (i.e., the typical gradient being downhill and flowing north to south or east to west) and redirected through a system of culverts and ditches, and ultimately through the project site toward North Slough.

Because the project could impact these potentially jurisdictional features, impacts would be potentially significanty.

In addition, the City has identified that the Newell Drive Extension would align with the northern boundary of the project site. The Newell Drive Extension would cross the North Slough with a clear span overcrossing. There would be no impact to the North Slough due to the Newell Drive Extension. A section of the northern potential jurisdictional feature would be directly impacted due to the road alignment. The northern potential jurisdictional feature also contains concentrated runoff that is diverted through the project site. Because the northern potential jurisdictional feature is a potentially jurisdictional water, impacts would be potentially significant.

For development that would occur in these areas, permitting pursuant to Section 404/401 of the CWA Section, and Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC would be required. Actual jurisdictional areas are determined by the State and federal authorities at the time that permits are requested, and the agencies are responsible for describing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, if required. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would require that future applicants prepare an aquatic resources delineation and preliminary jurisdictional determination report, either to ensure avoidance of potentially jurisdictional waters or for submittal to the agencies for verification of their jurisdictions. Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would require setbacks around the North Slough to avoid impacts to that feature. Nonetheless, even with these measures, there is still the potential that the project could result in the permanent loss of a jurisdictional feature. As such, Mitigation Measure BIO-7 would require mitigation to compensate for the loss of jurisdictional water features.

This impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 693
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Biological Resources Assessment 23
Mitigation Measures
BIO-5 Aquatic Resources Delineation
A qualified biologist shall complete an aquatic resources delineation survey that establishes the extent of the waters of the U.S. and State and identify the potential jurisdictional limits of USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. The delineation shall be conducted in accordance with the requirement set forth by each agency and the results presented in a report that shall be submitted to the City, USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as appropriate, for review and approval. If the USACE asserts its authority, then a permit pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA would be required. If jurisdictional areas are expected to be impacted, then the RWQCB would require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirement permit (depending upon whether the feature falls under federal jurisdiction or not). If CDFW asserts its jurisdictional authority, then a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC would also be required prior to construction within the areas of CDFW jurisdiction.

BIO-6 General Avoidance and Minimization
Development shall be designed to avoid potentially jurisdictional features identified in aquatic resources delineation reports (Mitigation Measure BIO-4), to the extent feasible. No development shall occur within 50 feet of the top of bank for North Slough. Projects with potentially jurisdictional features shall provide the City with a report detailing how all identified aquatic features will be avoided, including groundwater draw down, prior to project approval.

BIO-7 Restoration for Impacts to Waters and Wetlands
If the project cannot be designed to avoid impacts to waters and wetlands (as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-6), then impacts shall be fully mitigated at an appropriate ratio, as determined by a qualified biologist and in accordance with regulatory agency requirements.

Mitigation can be achieved through the setting aside or acquisition and in-perpetuity management of similar habitat on-site (this can include restoration of jurisdictional features within the project site) or as close to the impact habitat as possible. Mitigation lands must be placed into a conservation easement or other covenant restricting future development. A mitigation and monitoring plan consistent with regulatory agency requirements shall be developed by a qualified biologist and submittal to the regulatory agency overseeing the project for approval. Alternatively, mitigation shall be accomplished through purchase of credits from an approved mitigation bank.

Mitigation lands or in lieu funding sufficient to acquire lands should provide habitat at a minimum 1:1 ratio for impacted lands, comparable to habitat to be impacted by individual project activity. The City shall review and approve the plan before submittal to the agencies.

5.4 Wildlife Movement
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites.

The project site is not within a designated ECA and does not function as a significant regional or local wildlife movement corridor. North Slough, which bisects the northern portion of the project 694
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
24 site may provide a natural movement corridor for wildlife through the project site. As such impacts on the North Slough would result in potentially significant impacts on wildlife movement.

Nonetheless, impacts on North Slough would be avoided by implementing Mitigation Measure BIO6. The Newell Drive Extension over North Slough is unlikely to impact the movement of wildlife through North Slough because it would be an overcrossing. Wildlife movement is likely to be concentrated along North Slough; therefore, the project would be unlikely to impact the movement of wildlife across the landscape as the overcrossing would provide wildlife with an unobstructed natural movement corridor.

Filling of areas that drain to North Slough would be unlikely to impact the movement of wildlife beyond the project area. This is because the existing Union Pacific Railroad tracks bisect the area that drains to North Slough. This area, therefore, does not serve as a significant movement corridor for wildlife. As such, the impacts on wildlife movement from filling the area that drains to North Slough would be less than significant.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6, impacts to wildlife movement would be minimized through the protection of North Slough, which can be used by wildlife for movement.

This impact would be less than significant after mitigation.

5.5 Resources Protected by Local Policies and
Ordinances
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance
The project, when annexed would fall under the jurisdiction of the City of American Canyon, which provides protection for biological resources through the implementation of its General Plan and Zoning Code. The American Canyon General Plan includes policies to guide decisions on future growth, development, and conservation of resources. This includes the Natural and Historic/Cultural Resources Element, which aim to preserve the natural and scenic resources (American Canyon 1994).

The Natural and Historic/Cultural Resources Element includes an objective to protect natural drainages (Objective 8.3) and a policy to review proposed developments in wetlands, require preservation of watercourses as feasible, and require mitigation for impacts on waters (Policy 8.3.1).

As described in Impact BIO-3, there would be a potentially significant impact on waters (i.e., potentially jurisdictional features); however, these impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5, BIO-6, and BIO-7. The project could potentially result in a conflict with a policy protecting biological resources; however, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-5, BIO-6, and BIO-7 would ensure that the project is consistent with the policy and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

5.6 Habitat Conservation Plans
The proposed project would have a significant effect on biological resources if it would:
695
Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures
Biological Resources Assessment 25
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans adopted in the proposed annexation area. Therefore, the proposed annexation and future specific development projects would not conflict with any such plans. No impact would occur. 696
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
26 6 Limitations, Assumptions, and Use
Reliance
This Biological Resources Assessment has been performed in accordance with professionally accepted biological investigation practices conducted at this time and in this geographic area. The biological investigation is limited by the scope of work performed. Reconnaissance biological surveys for certain taxa may have been conducted as part of this assessment but were not performed during a particular blooming period, nesting period, or particular portion of the season when positive identification would be expected if present, and therefore, cannot be considered definitive. The biological surveys are limited also by the environmental conditions present at the time of the surveys. In addition, general biological (or protocol) surveys do not guarantee that the organisms are not present and will not be discovered in the future within the site. In particular, mobile wildlife species could occupy the site on a transient basis, or re-establish populations in the future. Our field studies were based on current industry practices, which change over time and may not be applicable in the future. No other guarantees or warranties, expressed or implied, are provided. The findings and opinions conveyed in this report are based on findings derived from site reconnaissance, jurisdictional areas, review of CNDDB RareFind5, and specified historical and literature sources. Standard data sources relied upon during the completion of this report, such as the CNDDB, may vary with regard to accuracy and completeness. In particular, the CNDDB is compiled from research and observations reported to CDFW that may or may not have been the result of comprehensive or site-specific field surveys. Although Rincon believes the data sources are reasonably reliable, Rincon cannot and does not guarantee the authenticity or reliability of the data sources it has used. Additionally, pursuant to our contract, the data sources reviewed included only those that are practically reviewable without the need for extraordinary research and analysis. 697
References
Biological Resources Assessment 27
7 References
American Canyon, City of. 1994. City of American Canyon General Plan. November 1994. https://lf.cityofamericancanyon.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=46453&dbid=1&repo=Ameri canCanyon (accessed August 2022).

American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 2010. Check-list of North American Birds. Retrieved from:
http://www.americanornithology.org/content/checklist-north-and-middle-american-birds Baldwin, B.G. (Ed.), D.H. Goldman (Ed.), D. J. Keil (Ed.), R. Patterson (Ed.), T. J. Rosatti (Ed.), D. H.

Wilken (Ed.). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition, Thoroughly Revised and Expanded. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Bowers, N., R. Bowers, & K. Kaufman. 2004. Mammals of North America.

Burt, W.H., and R.P. Grossenheider. 1980. A Field Guide to the Mammals of North American North of Mexico. The Peterson Field Guide Series.

Calflora. 2022. Information on wild California plants for conservation, education, and appreciation.

Berkeley, CA. Updated online and accessed via: www.calflora.org.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind V. Accessed August 2022.
_____. 2022. Special Animals List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database.

August 2022.
_____. 2022a. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Retrieved August, 2022 from www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS
_____. 2022b. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database. August 2022.

California Native Plant Society. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. V.7-08c-Interim 8- 22-02. Updated online and accessed via: www.rareplants.cnps.org. eBird. 2022. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance. eBird, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Updated online and accessed via: http://www.ebird.org.

Accessed: September, 2022.

England, A.S., M.J. Bechard, and C.S. Houston. 1997. Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In: A.

Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The Birds of North America, No. 265. The Academy of Natural Sci., Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Holland, Robert F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Heritage Program. 156 pgs.

Poulin, R. G., L. D. Todd, E. A. Haug, B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 2011. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. 698
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
28 Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley.

United States Department of Agricultural, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2022a. Web Soil Survey. Accessed September 3, 2022. Soil Survey Area: Napa County, California. Soil Survey Data: August 1978. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm _____. 2022b. Lists of Hydric Soils. National Cooperative Soil Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Accessed via: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1973. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.).
_____. 2000. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants. January 2000.
_____. 2022a. Critical Habitat Portal. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/criticalhabitat.html _____. 2022b. Information for Planning and Consultation online project planning tool. Available at:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Climate of California. Available at:
www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/narrative_ca.php.

Zeiner, D., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and K.E. Mayer (May 1988). California’s Wildlife. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship System, Volumes I, II, & III. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F.Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990. California’s Wildlife. Vol. IIII. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx
699
List of Preparers
Biological Resources Assessment 29
8 List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Primary Author
▪ Christian Knowlton, Biologist
Technical Review
▪ Kristin Asmus, Senior Biologist
Graphics
▪ Chris Jackson-Jordan, GIS Analyst
▪ Gina Gerlich, GIS Analyst
Publishing
▪ Yaritza Ramirez, Publishing Specialist
Field Reconnaissance Survey
▪ Elizabeth Wilson, Biologist
▪ Cristy Rice, Biologist
700
Attachment A
Regulatory Setting
701
Regulatory Setting
Biological Resources Assessment A-1
Regulatory Setting
The following is a brief summary of the regulatory context under which biological resources are managed at the federal, state, and local levels. A number of federal and state statutes provide a regulatory structure that guides the protection of biological resources. Agencies with the responsibility for protection of biological resources within the project site include the following:
▪ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (wetlands and other waters of the United States) ▪ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (federally listed species and migratory birds) ▪ National Marine Fisheries Service (marine wildlife and anadromous fishes) ▪ San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (waters of the State) ▪ California Department Fish and Wildlife (riparian areas, streambeds, and lakes; state-listed species; nesting birds, marine resources)
▪ California Coastal Commission
▪ City of American Canyon General Plan (1994)
United States Army Corps of Engineers
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for administering several federal programs related to ensuring the quality and navigability of the nation’s waters.

Clean Water Act Section 404
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the USACE, to issue permits regulating the discharge of dredged or fill materials into the "navigable waters at specified disposal sites." Section 502 of the CWA further defines "navigable waters" as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” “Waters of the United States” are broadly defined at 33 CFR Part 328.3 to include navigable waters, perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, as well as wetlands, marshes, and wet meadows. In recent years, the USACE and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have undertaken several efforts to modernize their regulations defining “waters of the United States” (e.g., the 2015 Clean Water Rule and 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule), but these efforts have been frustrated by legal challenges which have invalidated the updated regulations. Thus, the agencies’ longstanding definition of “waters of the United States,” which dates from 1986, remains in effect albeit with supplemental guidance interpreting applicable court decisions as described below.

Waters of the U.S.

In summary, USACE and USEPA regulations define “waters of the United States” as follows:

1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
702
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
A-2

2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;

3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
iii. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce;

4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States;

5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this section;

6. The territorial sea;

7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in items 1-6 above.

Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with the USEPA.

Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA are not waters of the United States.

The lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters is defined by the "ordinary high-water mark" (OHWM) unless adjacent wetlands are present. The OHWM is a line on the shore or edge of a channel established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed upon the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of vegetation, or the presence of debris (33 CFR 328.3(e)). As such, waters are recognized in the field by the presence of a defined watercourse with appropriate physical and topographic features. If wetlands occur within, or adjacent to, waters of the United States, the lateral limits of USACE jurisdiction extend beyond the OHWM to the outer edge of the wetlands (33 CFR 328.4 (c)). The upstream limit of jurisdiction in the absence of adjacent wetlands is the point beyond which the OHWM is no longer perceptible (33 CFR 328.4; see also 51 FR 41217).

Wetlands
The USACE defines wetlands as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3). The USACE’s delineation procedures identify wetlands in the field based on indicators of three wetland parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The following is a discussion of each of these parameters.

Hydrophytic Vegetation
Hydrophytic vegetation dominates areas where frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation exerts a controlling influence on the plant species present. Plant species are assigned 703
Regulatory Setting
Biological Resources Assessment A-3
wetland indicator status according to the probability of their occurring in wetlands. More than fifty percent of the dominant plant species must have a wetland indicator status to meet the hydrophytic vegetation criterion. The USACE published the National Wetland Plant List (USACE 2018), which separates vascular plants into the following four basic categories based on plant species frequency of occurrence in wetlands:
▪ Obligate Wetland (OBL). Almost always occur in wetlands ▪ Facultative Wetland (FACW). Usually occur in wetlands, but occasionally found in non-wetlands ▪ Facultative (FAC). Occur in wetlands or non-wetlands
▪ Facultative Upland (FACU). Usually occur in non-wetlands, but may occur in wetlands ▪ Obligate Upland (UPL). Almost never occur in wetlands The USACE considers OBL, FACW and FAC species to be indicators of wetlands. An area is considered to have hydrophytic vegetation when greater than 50 percent of the dominant species in each vegetative stratum (tree, shrub, and herb) fall within these categories. Any species not appearing on the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s list is assumed to be an upland species, almost never occurring in wetlands. In addition, an area needs to contain at least 5% vegetative cover to be considered as a vegetated wetland.

Hydric Soils
Hydric soils are saturated or inundated for a sufficient duration during the growing season to develop anaerobic or reducing conditions that favor the growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation. Field indicators of wetland soils include observations of ponding, inundation, saturation, dark (low chroma) soil colors, bright mottles (concentrations of oxidized minerals such as iron), gleying (indicates reducing conditions by a blue-grey color), or accumulation of organic material.

Additional supporting information includes documentation of soil as hydric or reference to wet conditions in the local soils survey, both of which must be verified in the field.

Wetland Hydrology
Wetland hydrology is inundation or soil saturation with a frequency and duration long enough to cause the development of hydric soils and plant communities dominated by hydrophytic vegetation.

If direct observation of wetland hydrology is not possible (as in seasonal wetlands), or records of wetland hydrology are not available (such as stream gauges), assessment of wetland hydrology is frequently supported by field indicators, such as water marks, drift lines, sediment deposits, or drainage patterns in wetlands.

Applicable Case Law and Agency Guidance
The USACE’s regulations defining “waters of the United States” have been subject to legal interpretation, and two influential Supreme Court decisions have narrowed the definition to exclude certain classes of waters that bear an insufficient connection to navigable waters. In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. Army Corps of Engineers (2001), the United States Supreme Court stated that the USACE’s CWA jurisdiction does not extend to ponds that “are not adjacent to open water.” In reaching its decision, the Court concluded that the “Migratory Bird Rule,” which served as the basis for the USACE’s asserted jurisdiction, was not supported by the CWA. The Migratory Bird Rule extended CWA jurisdiction to intrastate waters "which are or would be used as habitat by birds protected by Migratory Bird Treaties or which are or would be used as habitat by 704
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
A-4
other migratory birds which cross state lines…” The Court was concerned that application of the Migratory Bird Rule resulted in "reading the term 'navigable waters' out of the statute. Highlighting the language of the CWA to determine the statute's jurisdictional reach, the Court stated, “the term ‘navigable’ has at least the import of showing us what Congress had in mind as its authority for enacting the CWA: its traditional jurisdiction over waters that were or had been navigable in fact or which could reasonably be so made.” This decision stands for the proposition that non-navigable isolated, intrastate waters are not waters of the United States and thus are not jurisdictional under the CWA.

In 2006 the United States Supreme Court decided Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (collectively “Rapanos”), which were consolidated cases determining the extent of CWA jurisdiction over waters that carry only an infrequent surface flow. The court issued no majority opinion in Rapanos. Instead, the justices authored five separate opinions including the “plurality” opinion, authored by Justice Scalia (joined by three other justices), and a concurring opinion by Justice Kennedy. To guide implementation of the decision, the USACE and USEPA issued a joint guidance memorandum (“Rapanos Guidance Memorandum”) in 2008 stating that “regulatory jurisdiction under the CWA exists over a water body if either the plurality's or Justice Kennedy's standard is satisfied.”
According to the plurality opinion in Rapanos, “the waters of the United States include only relatively permanent, standing or flowing bodies of water” and do not include “ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.” In addition, while all wetlands that meet the USACE definition are considered adjacent wetlands, only those adjacent wetlands that have a continuous surface connection because they directly abut the tributary (e.g., they are not separated by uplands, a berm, dike, or similar feature) are considered jurisdictional under the plurality standard.

Under Justice Kennedy’s opinion, “the USACE’s jurisdiction over wetlands depends upon the existence of a significant nexus between the wetlands in question and navigable waters in the traditional sense. Wetlands possess the requisite nexus, and thus come within the statutory phrase ‘navigable waters,’ if the wetlands, either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’ When, in contrast, wetlands’ effects on water quality are speculative or insubstantial, they fall outside the zone fairly encompassed by the statutory term ‘navigable waters.’” Justice Kennedy identified "pollutant trapping, flood control, and runoff storage" as some of the critical functions wetlands can perform relative to other waters. He concluded that, given wetlands’ ecological role, ”mere adjacency” to a non-navigable tributary was insufficient to establish CWA jurisdiction, and that “a more specific inquiry, based on the significant nexus standard, is therefore necessary.”
Interpreting these decisions, and according to the Rapanos Guidance Memorandum, the USACE and USEPA 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 (e.g., typically three months); and,
▪ Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries.
705
Regulatory Setting
Biological Resources Assessment A-5
The USACE and USEPA will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water:
▪ Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; ▪ Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; and, ▪ Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary.

Where a significant nexus analysis is required, the USACE and USEPA 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.

The USACE and USEPA 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.

Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires authorization from the USACE for the construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United States. Structures or work outside the limits defined for navigable waters of the United States require a Section 10 permit if the structure or work affects the course, location, or condition of the water body. The law applies to any dredging or disposal of dredged materials, excavation, filling, re-channelization, or any other modification of a navigable water of the United States, and applies to all structures and work. It further includes, without limitation, any wharf, dolphin, weir, boom breakwater, jetty, groin, bank protection (e.g., riprap, revetment, bulkhead), mooring structures such as pilings, aerial or subaqueous power transmission lines, intake or outfall pipes, permanently moored floating vessel, tunnel, artificial canal, boat ramp, aids to navigation, and any other permanent, or semi-permanent obstacle or obstruction. It is important to note that Section 10 applies only to navigable waters, and thus does not apply to work in non-navigable wetlands or tributaries. In some cases, Section 10 authorization is issued by the USACE concurrently with CWA Section 404 authorization, such as when certain Nationwide Permits are used.

Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) have jurisdiction over “waters of the State,” which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state (California Water Code sec. 13050(e)). These agencies also have responsibilities for administering portions of the CWA. 706
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
A-6
Clean Water Act Section 401
Section 401 of the CWA requires an applicant requesting a federal license or permit for an activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters (such as a Section 404 Permit) to provide state certification that the proposed activity will not violate state and federal water quality standards. In California, CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Section 401 Certification) is issued by the RWQCBs and by the SWRCB for multi-region projects. The process begins when an applicant submits an application to the RWQCB and informs the USACE (or the applicable agency from which a license or permit was requested) that an application has been submitted. The USACE will then determine a “reasonable period of time” for the RWQCB to act on the application; this is typically 60 days for routine projects and longer for complex projects but may not exceed one year.

When the period has elapsed, if the RWQCB has not either issued or denied the application for Section 401 Certification, the USACE may determine that Certification has been waived and issue the requested permit. If a Section 401 Certification is issued it may include binding conditions, imposed either through the Certification itself or through the requested federal license or permit.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) is the principal law governing water quality regulation in California. It establishes a comprehensive program to protect water quality and the beneficial uses of water. The Porter-Cologne Act applies to surface waters, wetlands, and ground water and to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Pursuant to the PorterCologne Act (California Water Code section 13000 et seq.), the policy of the State is as follows:
▪ The quality of all the waters of the State shall be protected ▪ All activities and factors affecting the quality of water shall be regulated to attain the highest water quality within reason
▪ The State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of water in the State from degradation
The Porter-Cologne Act established nine RWQCBs (based on watershed boundaries) and the SWRCB, which are charged with implementing its provisions and which have primary responsibility for protecting water quality in California. The SWRCB provides program guidance and oversight, allocates funds, and reviews RWQCB decisions. In addition, the SWRCB allocates rights to the use of surface water. The RWQCBs have primary responsibility for individual permitting, inspection, and enforcement actions within each of nine hydrologic regions. The SWRCB and RWQCBs have numerous nonpoint source related responsibilities, including monitoring and assessment, planning, financial assistance, and management.

Section 13260 of the Porter-Cologne Act requires any person discharging or proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of waters of the State to file a Report of Waste Discharge with the appropriate RWQCB. The RWQCB may then authorize the discharge, subject to conditions, by issuing Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). While this requirement was historically applied primarily to outfalls and similar point source discharges, the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, effective May 2020, make it clear that the agency will apply the Porter-Cologne Act’s requirements to discharges of dredge and fill material as well. The Procedures state that they are to be used in issuing CWA Section 401 Certifications and WDRs, and largely mirror the existing review requirements for CWA 707
Regulatory Setting
Biological Resources Assessment A-7
Section 404 Permits and Section 401 Certifications, incorporating most elements of the USEPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Following issuance of the Procedures, the SWRCB produced a consolidated application form for dredge/fill discharges that can be used to obtain a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, WDRs, or both.

Non-Wetland Waters of the State
The SWRCB and RWQCBs have not established regulations for field determinations of waters of the state except for wetlands currently. In many cases the RWQCBs interpret the limits of waters of the State to be bounded by the OHWM unless isolated conditions or ephemeral waters are present.

However, in the absence of statewide guidance each RWQCB may interpret jurisdictional boundaries within their region and the SWRCB has encouraged applicants to confirm jurisdictional limits with their RWQCB before submitting applications. As determined by the RWQCB, waters of the State may include riparian areas or other locations outside the OHWM, leading to a larger jurisdictional area over a given water body compared to the USACE.

Wetland Waters of the State
Procedures for defining wetland waters of the State pursuant to the SWRCB’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State went into effect May 28, 2020. The SWRCB defines an area as wetland if, under normal circumstances:
(i) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both;
(ii) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and
(iii) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.

The SWRCB’s Implementation Guidance for the Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge and Fill Material to Waters of the State (2020), states that waters of the U.S. and waters of the State should be delineated using the standard USACE delineation procedures, taking into consideration that the methods shall be modified only to allow for the fact that a lack of vegetation does not preclude an area from meeting the definition of a wetland.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) implements several laws protecting the Nation’s fish and wildlife resources, including the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 United States Code [USC] Sections 153 et seq.), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC Sections 703-711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668).

Endangered Species Act
The USFWS and NMFS share responsibility for implementing the ESA. Generally, the USFWS implements the FESA for terrestrial and freshwater species, while the NMFS implements the FESA for marine and anadromous species. Projects that would result in “take” of any threatened or endangered wildlife species, or a threatened or endangered plant species if occurring on federal land, are required to obtain permits from the USFWS or NMFS through either Section 7 (interagency consultation with a federal nexus) or Section 10 (Habitat Conservation Plan) of the ESA, depending 708
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
A-8
on the involvement by the federal government in funding, authorizing, or carrying out the project.

The permitting process is used to determine if a project would jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and what measures would be required to avoid jeopardizing the species. “Take” under federal definition means to harass, harm (which includes habitat modification), pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Proposed or candidate species do not have the full protection of the ESA; however, the USFWS and NMFS advise project applicants that they could be elevated to listed status at any time.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA of 1918 implements four international conservation treaties that the U.S. entered into with Canada in 1916, Mexico in 1936, Japan in 1972, and Russia in 1976. It is intended to ensure the sustainability of populations of all protected migratory bird species. The law has been amended with the signing of each treaty, as well as when any of the treaties were amended, such as with Mexico in 1976 and Canada in 1995. The MBTA prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the USFWS.

The list of migratory bird species protected by the law, in regulations at 50 CFR Part 10.13, is primarily based on bird families and species included in the four international treaties. A migratory bird species is included on the list if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. It occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes and is currently, or was previously listed as, a species or part of a family protected by one of the four international treaties or their amendments.

2. Revised taxonomy results in it being newly split from a species that was previously on the list, and the new species occurs in the United States or U.S. territories as the result of natural biological or ecological processes.

3. New evidence exists for its natural occurrence in the United States or U.S. territories resulting from natural distributional changes and the species occurs in a protected family.

In 2004, the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act limited the scope of the MBTA by stating the MBTA applies only to migratory bird species that are native to the United States or U.S. territories, and that a native migratory bird species is one that is present as a result of natural biological or ecological processes. The MBTRA requires the USFWS to publish a list of all nonnative, humanintroduced bird species to which the MBTA does not apply, and an updated list was published in 2020. The 2020 update identifies species belonging to biological families referred to in treaties the MBTA implements but are not protected because their presence in the United States or U.S. territories is solely the result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introductions.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the USFWS, from "taking" bald or golden eagles, including their parts (including feathers), nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." 709
Regulatory Setting
Biological Resources Assessment A-9
"Disturb" means “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior."
In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from humaninduced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) derives its authority from the Fish and Game Code of California and administers several State laws protecting fish and wildlife resources and the habitats upon which they depend.

California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et. seq.) prohibits take of state listed threatened or endangered. Take under CESA is defined as “Hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” (Fish and Game Code sec. 86).

This definition does not prohibit indirect harm by way of habitat modification, except where such harm is the proximate cause of death of a listed species. Where incidental take would occur during construction or other lawful activities, CESA allows the CDFW to issue an Incidental Take Permit upon finding, among other requirements, that impacts to the species have been minimized and fully mitigated. Unlike the federal ESA, CESA’s protections extend to candidate species during the period (typically one year) while the California Fish and Game Commission decides whether the species warrants CESA listing.

Native Plant Protection Act
The CDFW also has authority to administer the Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.). The NPPA requires the CDFW to establish criteria for determining if a species, subspecies, or variety of native plant is endangered or rare, and prohibits the take of listed plant species. Effective in 2015, CDFW promulgated regulations (14 CCR 786.9) under the authority of the NPPA, establishing that the CESA’s permitting procedures would be applied to plants listed under the NPPA as "Rare." With this change, there is little practical difference for the regulated public between plants listed under CESA and those listed under the NPPA.

Fully Protected Species Laws
The CDFW enforces Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the Fish and Game Code, which prohibit take of species designated as Fully Protected. The CDFW is not allowed to issue an Incidental Take Permit for Fully Protected species; therefore, impacts to these species must be avoided. The exception is situations where a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) is in place that authorizes take of the fully protected species.
710
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
A-10
Avian Protection Laws
California Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 describe unlawful take, possession, or destruction of native birds, nests, and eggs. Section 3503.5 of the Code protects all birds-of-prey and their eggs and nests against take, possession, or destruction of nests or eggs. Section 3513 makes it a state-level offense to take any bird in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Protection of Lakes and Streambeds
California Fish and Game Code section 1602 states that it is unlawful for any person to "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" without first notifying the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) of that activity. Thereafter, if CDFW determines and informs the entity that the activity will not substantially adversely affect any existing fish or wildlife resources, the entity may commence the activity. If, however, CDFG determines that the activity may substantially adversely affect an existing fish or wildlife resource, the entity may be required to obtain from CDFW a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA), which will include reasonable measures necessary to protect the affected resource(s), before the entity may conduct the activity described in the notification. Upon receiving a complete Notification of Lake/Streambed Alteration, CDFW has 60 days to present the entity with a Draft SAA. Upon review of the Draft SAA by the applicant, any problematic terms are negotiated with CDFW and a final SAA is executed.

The CDFW has not defined the term “stream” for the purposes of implementing its regulatory program under Section 1602, and the agency has not promulgated regulations directing how jurisdictional streambeds may be identified, or how their limits should be delineated. However, four relevant sources of information offer insight as to the appropriate limits of CDFW jurisdiction as discussed below.
▪ The plain language of Section 1602 of CFGC establishes the following general concepts:
 References “river,” “stream,” and “lake”
 References “natural flow”
 References “bed,” “bank,” and “channel”
▪ Applicable court decisions, in particular Rutherford v. State of California (188 Cal App. 3d 1276 (1987), which interpreted Section 1602’s use of “stream” to be as defined in common law. The Court indicated that a “stream” is commonly understood to:
 Have a source and a terminus
 Have banks and a channel
 Convey flow at least periodically, but need not flow continuously and may at times appear outwardly dry
 Represent the depression between the banks worn by the regular and usual flow of the water
 Include the area between the opposing banks measured from the foot of the banks from the top of the water at its ordinary stage, including intervening sand bars  Include the land that is covered by the water in its ordinary low stage  Include lands below the OHWM
711
Regulatory Setting
Biological Resources Assessment A-11
▪ CDFW regulations defining “stream” for other purposes, including sport fishing (14 CCR 1.72) and streambed alterations associated with cannabis production (14 CCR 722(c)(21)), which indicate that a stream:
 Flows at least periodically or intermittently
 Flows through a bed or channel having banks
 Supports fish or aquatic life
 Can be dry for a period of time
 Includes watercourses where surface or subsurface flow supports or has supported riparian vegetation
▪ Guidance documents, including A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements (CDFG 1994) and Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility‐Scale Solar Power Plants (Brady and Vyverberg 2013), which suggest the following:
 A stream may flow perennially or episodically
 A stream is defined by the course in which water currently flows, or has flowed during the historic hydrologic course regime (approximately the last 200 years)  Width of a stream course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators  A stream may have one or more channels (single thread vs. compound form)  Features such as braided channels, low-flow channels, active channels, banks associated with secondary channels, floodplains, islands, and stream-associated vegetation, are interconnected parts of the watercourse
 Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife
 Biologic components of a stream may include aquatic and riparian vegetation, all aquatic wildlife including fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and terrestrial species which derive benefits from the stream system
 The lateral extent of a stream can be measured in different ways depending on the particular situation and the type of fish or wildlife resource at risk The tenets listed above, among others, are applied to establish the boundaries of streambeds in various environments. Importance of each factor may be weighted based on site-specific considerations and the applicability of the indicators to the streambed at hand.

Local Jurisdiction
American Canyon General Plan
Natural and Historic/Cultural Resources Element
The Natural and Historic/Cultural Resources Element of the American Canyon General Plan sets the guidelines to protect and preserve significant flora and fauna along with significant habitats that exist within the city of American Canyon and its planning area. The objectives of within the natural and historic/cultural resources element facilitates protection of sensitive habitats including vernal 712
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
A-12
pool, natural drainages and riparian habitats among other habitats. The policies contained within the general plan provide for resource conservation and the appropriate management of development.
713
714
Attachment B
Site Photographs
715
Site Photographs
Biological Resources Assessment B-1
Photograph 1. Annual grassland and nonnative eucalyptus trees within the proposed annexation area.

Photograph 2. Annual grassland and urban structure within the proposed annexation. 716
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
B-2
Photograph 3. Barn structure in northwest area of proposed annexation area .

Photograph 4. Bridge crossing North Slough.
717
Site Photographs
B-3
Photograph 5. Area that drains to North Slough (potential jurisdictional feature to be evaluated).

Photograph 6. Annual grassland within annexation area facing west. 718
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
B-4
Photograph 7. Ground squirrel burrows within the proposed annexation area .

Photograph 8. Disced annual grassland within the proposed annexation area. 719
Attachment C
Floral and Faunal Compendium
720
721
Floral and Faunal Compendium
Biological Resources Assessment C-1
Plant Species Observed Within the Biological Study Area on August 16, 2022 Scientific Name Common Name Native or Introduced
Shrubs
Eucalyptus globulus blue-gum eucalyptus introduced
Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven introduced
Quercus agrifolia coast live oak native
Pinus pinea Italian stone pine introduced
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry introduced
Ulmus sp. elm introduced
Washingtonia robusta Mexican palm introduced
Olea europaea olive introduced
Populus fremontii cottonwood native
Baccharis pilularis coyote brush native
Herbs
Centaurea solstitialis yellow star-thistle introduced
Malva parviflora cheeseweed introduced
Cirsium vulgare bull thistle introduced
Croton setigerus turkey mullein introduced
Rumex crispus curly dock introduced
Foeniculum vulgare fennel introduced
Plantago lanceolata ribwort plantain introduced
Raphanus sativus wild radish introduced
Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed introduced
Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle introduced
Brassica nigra black mustard introduced
Trifolium hirtum rose clover introduced
Elymus caput-medusae medusahead introduced
Lepidium latifolium pepperweed introduced
Erigeron canadensis horseweed native
Grasses
Hordeum murinum false barley introduced
Avena barbata slender wild oat introduced
Phalaris aquatica Harding grass introduced
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome introduced
Bromus hordeaceus soft brome introduced
722
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
C-2
Wildlife Species Observed Within the Biological Study Area on August 16, 2022 Scientific Name Common Name Native or Introduced
Birds
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk native
Picoides nuttallii Nuttall’s woodpecker native
Zenaida macroura mourning dove native
Columba livia rock pidgeon introduced
Falco sparverius American kestrel native
Hirundo rustica barn swallow native
Mammals
Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel native Lepus californicus black-tailed jackrabbit native
Canis latrans coyote native
Reptiles
Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard native
723
Attachment D
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
724
725
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
Biological Resources Assessment D-1
Special Status Plant Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Proposed Annexation Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Allium peninsulare var.
franciscanum
Franciscan onion
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland. Clay, Serpentinite (often), volcanic. Elevations: 170-1000ft. (52-305m.) Blooms
(Apr)May-Jun.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species
Amorpha californica var.
napensis
Napa false indigo
None/None
G4T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial deciduous shrub. Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland. Openings in forest
or woodland or in chaparral. 30-735 m. Elevations:
165-6560ft. (50-2000m.) Blooms Apr-Jul.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species
Astragalus tener var. tener
alkali milk-vetch
None/None
G2T1/S1
1B.2
Annual herb. Playas, valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools. Alkaline. Elevations: 5-195ft. (1-60m.)
Blooms Mar-Jun.

Not Expected Alkaline soil is not present.

Atriplex persistens
vernal pool smallscale
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Vernal pools. Alkaline vernal pools.

Elevations: 35-375ft. (10-115m.) Blooms Jun-Oct.

Not Expected Vernal pool habitat is not present.

Balsamorhiza macrolepis
big-scale balsamroot
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland. Serpentinite
(sometimes). Elevations: 150-5100ft. (45-1555m.)
Blooms Mar-Jun.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species
Blennosperma bakeri
Sonoma sunshine
FE/SCE
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools. Vernal pools and swales. Elevations: 35-360ft.
(10-110m.) Blooms Mar-May.

Not Expected Suitable habitat is present within the
project area; however, because of the
grazed and disturbed nature of the
project area the species is not expected.

Blepharizonia plumosa
big tarplant
None/None
G1G2/S1S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland. Clay
(usually). Elevations: 100-1655ft. (30-505m.) Blooms
Jul-Oct.

Not Expected Suitable habitat is present within the
project area ; however, because of the
grazed and disturbed nature of the
project area the species is not expected.

Brodiaea leptandra
narrow-anthered brodiaea
None/None
G3?/S3?
1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland.

Volcanic. Elevations: 360-3000ft. (110-915m.) Blooms
May-Jul.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species
726
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
D-2
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Calochortus pulchellus
Mt. Diablo fairy-lantern
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, riparian woodland, valley and foothill
grassland. On wooded and brushy slopes. Elevations:
100-2755ft. (30-840m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.

Not Expected Woodland habiat is not present within
the project area.

Carex lyngbyei
Lyngbye's sedge
None/None
G5/S3
2B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Marshes and swamps.

Elevations: 0-35ft. (0-10m.) Blooms Apr-Aug.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species. Suitable wetland
habitat is not present within the project
area.

Castilleja affinis var. neglecta
Tiburon paintbrush
FE/SCT
G4G5T1T2/S1S
2 1B.2
Perennial herb (hemiparasitic). Valley and foothill
grassland. Rocky serpentine sites. Elevations: 195-
1310ft. (60-400m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species
Ceanothus confusus
Rincon Ridge ceanothus
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, closed-cone coniferous forest. Serpentinite
(sometimes), volcanic (sometimes). Elevations: 245-
3495ft. (75-1065m.) Blooms Feb-Jun.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species
Ceanothus purpureus
holly-leaved ceanothus
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland. Rocky, volcanic. Elevations: 395-2100ft.
(120-640m.) Blooms Feb-Jun.

Not Expected Woodland and chaparral habitat is not
present within the project area.

Ceanothus sonomensis
Sonoma ceanothus
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial evergreen shrub. Chaparral. Sandy,
serpentine or volcanic soils. Elevations: 705-2625ft.
(215-800m.) Blooms Feb-Apr.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species
Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
Congdon's tarplant
None/None
G3T1T2/S1S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland. Alkaline
soils, sometimes described as heavy white clay.

Elevations: 0-755ft. (0-230m.) Blooms May-Oct(Nov).

Low Potential Due to the grazed and disturbed nature
of the project area the species is not
likely to be present.

Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi
pappose tarplant
None/None
G3T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, coastal prairie, marshes and
swamps, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill
grassland. Alkaline (often). Elevations: 0-1380ft. (0-
420m.) Blooms May-Nov.

Low Potential Due to the grazed and disturbed nature
of the project area the species is not
likely to be present.

Chloropyron molle ssp. molle
soft salty bird's-beak
FE/SCR
G2T1/S1
1B.2
Annual herb (hemiparasitic). Marshes and swamps. In
coastal salt marsh with Distichlis, Salicornia, Frankenia, etc. Elevations: 0-10ft. (0-3m.) Blooms Jun-Nov.

Not Expected Saltmarsh habitat is not present within
the project area.
727
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
Biological Resources Assessment D-3
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Cicuta maculata var. bolanderi
Bolander's water-hemlock
None/None
G5T4T5/S2?
2B.1
Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps. In fresh or
brackish water. Elevations: 0-655ft. (0-200m.) Blooms
Jul-Sep.

Not Expected Marsh or swamp habitat is not present
within the project area.

Cirsium hydrophilum var.
hydrophilum
Suisun thistle
FE/None
G2T1/S1
1B.1
Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps. Grows with
Scirpus, Distichlis near small watercourses within
saltmarsh. Elevations: 0-5ft. (0-1m.) Blooms Jun-Sep.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species, and marsh and
swamp habitat is not present.

Dirca occidentalis
western leatherwood
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial deciduous shrub. Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, cismontane woodland, closed-cone
coniferous forest, north coast coniferous forest,
riparian forest, riparian woodland. On brushy slopes,
mesic sites; mostly in mixed evergreen and foothill
woodland communities. Elevations: 80-1395ft. (25-
425m.) Blooms Jan-Mar(Apr).

Not Expected No woodland and forest habitat is
present within the project site. Would
have been observed if present.

Downingia pusilla
dwarf downingia
None/None
GU/S2
2B.2
Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools. Vernal lake and pool margins with a variety of
associates. In several types of vernal pools. Elevations:
5-1460ft. (1-445m.) Blooms Mar-May.

Not Expected Vernal pool habitat is not present.

Erigeron greenei
Greene's narrow-leaved daisy
None/None
G3/S3
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral. Serpentine and volcanic
substrates, generally in shrubby vegetation.

Elevations: 260-3295ft. (80-1005m.) Blooms May-Sep.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species, and serpentine
substrate is not present within the
project area.

Eriogonum truncatum
Mt. Diablo buckwheat
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland. Dry, exposed clay or sandy
substrates. Elevations: 10-1150ft. (3-350m.) Blooms
Apr-Sep(Nov-Dec).

Not Expected The project area is outside the known
range of the species.

Eryngium jepsonii
Jepson's coyote-thistle
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools. Clay. Elevations: 10-985ft. (3-300m.) Blooms
Apr-Aug.

Low Potential Grassland habitat is present however,
the history of grazing and disturbance
precludes this species from the project
area.

Extriplex joaquinana
San Joaquin spearscale
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps,
playas, valley and foothill grassland. In seasonal alkali wetlands or alkali sink scrub with Distichlis spicata,
Frankenia, etc. Elevations: 5-2740ft. (1-835m.) Blooms
Apr-Oct.

Not Expected Suitable wetland and alkali habitat is not present within the project area.
728
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
D-4
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Fritillaria liliacea
fragrant fritillary
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial bulbiferous herb. Cismontane woodland,
coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Often on serpentine; various soils reported
though usually on clay, in grassland. Elevations: 10-
1345ft. (3-410m.) Blooms Feb-Apr.

Low Potential Grassland habitat is present however,
the history of grazing and disturbance
precludes this species from the project
area.

Helianthella castanea
Diablo helianthella
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian
woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Azonal soils,
Partial shade (often), rocky (usually). Elevations: 195- 4265ft. (60-1300m.) Blooms Mar-Jun.

Low Potential Grassland habitat is present however,
the history of grazing and disturbance
reduces the likelihood of this species
being in the project area.

Hemizonia congesta ssp.
congesta
congested-headed hayfield
tarplant
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland. Grassy
valleys and hills, often in fallow fields; sometimes
along roadsides. Elevations: 65-1835ft. (20-560m.)
Blooms Apr-Nov.

Low Potential Suitable habitat is present. However, the most recent record within the project
search area is from 1931. Additionally,
the history of grazing and disturbance
reduces the likelihood of this species
being in the project area.

Hesperolinon bicarpellatum
two-carpellate western flax
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral. Serpentine barrens at edge of
chaparral. Elevations: 195-3295ft. (60-1005m.) Blooms
(Apr)May-Jul.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species, no chapparal or
serpentine barrens present within the
project area.

Hesperolinon breweri
Brewer's western flax
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley
and foothill grassland. Often in rocky serpentine soil in serpentine chaparral and serpentine grassland.

Elevations: 100-3100ft. (30-945m.) Blooms May-Jul.

Not Expected Serpentine soil is not present within the
project area.

Horkelia tenuiloba
thin-lobed horkelia
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral,
valley and foothill grassland. Sandy soils; mesic
openings. Elevations: 165-1640ft. (50-500m.) Blooms
May-Jul(Aug).

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species. Suitable forest, and
chaparral habitat is not present within
the project area.

Isocoma arguta
Carquinez goldenbush
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Perennial shrub. Valley and foothill grassland. Alkaline soils, flats, lower hills. On low benches near drainages and on tops and sides of mounds in swale habitat.

Elevations: 5-65ft. (1-20m.) Blooms Aug-Dec.

Not Expected Alkaline soils are not present within the
project area. Would have been observed
if present
Lasthenia conjugens
Contra Costa goldfields
FE/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Cismontane woodland, playas, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal pools. Vernal pools, swales, Low Potential Grassland habitat is present; however,
there are no vernal pools, swales or
appropriate depressional areas present.
729
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
Biological Resources Assessment D-5
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
low depressions, in open grassy areas. Elevations: 0-
1540ft. (0-470m.) Blooms Mar-Jun.

Lathyrus jepsonii var. jepsonii
Delta tule pea
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps. In freshwater
and brackish marshes. Often found with Typha, Aster
lentus, Rosa californica, Juncus spp., Scirpus, etc.

Usually on marsh and slough edges. Elevations: 0-15ft.
(0-5m.) Blooms May-Jul(Aug-Sep).

Not Expected Suitable wetland habitat is not present
within the project area, outside the .

Legenere limosa
legenere
None/None
G2/S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Vernal pools. In beds of vernal pools. 1-.

Elevations: 5-2885ft. (1-880m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.

Not Expected Suitable vernal pool habitat is not
present within the project area.

Leptosiphon jepsonii
Jepson's leptosiphon
None/None
G2G3/S2S3
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley
and foothill grassland. Open to partially shaded grassy slopes. On volcanics or the periphery of serpentine
substrates. Elevations: 330-1640ft. (100-500m.)
Blooms Mar-May.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species. Suitable volcanic or
serpentine substrate is not present
within the project area.

Lilaeopsis masonii
Mason's lilaeopsis
None/SCR
G2/S2
1B.1
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Marshes and swamps,
riparian scrub. Tidal zones, in muddy or silty soil
formed through river deposition or river bank erosion.

In brackish or freshwater. Elevations: 0-35ft. (0-10m.) Blooms Apr-Nov.

Not Expected Suitable wetland habitat is not present
within the project area.

Limosella australis
Delta mudwort
None/None
G4G5/S2
2B.1
Perennial stoloniferous herb. Marshes and swamps,
riparian scrub. Usually on mud banks of the Delta in
marshy or scrubby riparian associations; often with
Lilaeopsis masonii. Elevations: 0-10ft. (0-3m.) Blooms
May-Aug.

Not Expected Suitable wetland or riparian habitat is
not present within the project area.

Lomatium repostum
Napa lomatium
None/None
G2G3/S2S3
1B.2
Perennial herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland.

Rocky areas in volcanic and serpentine soils with
mixed chaparral and black oak woodland
communities. Elevations: 295-3380ft. (90-1030m.)
Blooms Mar-Jun.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species. No chaparral or
black oak woodland present within the
project area.

Lupinus sericatus
Cobb Mountain lupine
None/None
G2?/S2?
1B.2
Perennial herb. Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous
forest. In stands of knobcone pine-oak woodland, on
open wooded slopes in gravelly soils; sometimes on
Not Expected Suitable woodland habitat is not present
within the project area.
730
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
D-6
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
serpentine. Elevations: 900-5005ft. (275-1525m.)
Blooms Mar-Jun.

Navarretia leucocephala ssp.
bakeri
Baker's navarretia
None/None
G4T2/S2
1B.1
Annual herb. Cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal pools. Vernal pools and
swales; adobe or alkaline soils. Elevations: 15-5710ft. (5-1740m.) Blooms Apr-Jul.

Not Expected Suitable woodland or vernal pool habitat
is not present within the project area.

Puccinellia simplex
California alkali grass
None/None
G3/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps,
valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Alkaline,
vernally mesic. Sinks, flats, and lake margins.

Elevations: 5-3050ft. (2-930m.) Blooms Mar-May.

Not Expected Suitable wetland habitat is not present
within the project area.

Rhynchospora californica
California beaked-rush
None/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Bogs and fens, lower
montane coniferous forest, marshes and swamps,
meadows and seeps. Freshwater seeps and open
marshy areas. Elevations: 150-3315ft. (45-1010m.)
Blooms May-Jul.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species, suitable wetland
and forest habitat is not present within
the project area.

Senecio aphanactis
chaparral ragwort
None/None
G3/S2
2B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub. Drying alkaline flats. Elevations: 50-2625ft. (15- 800m.) Blooms Jan-Apr(May).

Not Expected Suitable chaparral or woodland habitat
is not present within the project area.

Sidalcea hickmanii ssp.
napensis
Napa checkerbloom
None/None
G3T1/S1
1B.1
Perennial herb. Chaparral. Rhyolitic substrates.

Elevations: 1360-2000ft. (415-610m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species, Chaparral habitat is
not present within the project area.

Spergularia macrotheca var.
longistyla
long-styled sand-spurrey
None/None
G5T2/S2
1B.2
Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps, meadows and
seeps. Alkaline. Elevations: 0-835ft. (0-255m.) Blooms
Feb-May.

Not Expected Suitable wetland habitat is not present
within the project area.

Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina
northern slender pondweed
None/None
G5T5/S2S3
2B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb (aquatic). Marshes and
swamps. Shallow, clear water of lakes and drainage
channels. Elevations: 985-7055ft. (300-2150m.)
Blooms May-Jul.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species. Suitable wetland
habitat is not present within the project
area.

Symphyotrichum lentum
Suisun Marsh aster
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Perennial rhizomatous herb. Marshes and swamps.

Most often seen along sloughs with Phragmites,
Scirpus, blackberry, Typha, etc. Elevations: 0-10ft. (0- 3m.) Blooms (Apr)May-Nov.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species. Suitable wetland
habitat is not present within the project
area.
731
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
Biological Resources Assessment D-7
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Trichostema ruygtii
Napa bluecurls
None/None
G1G2/S1S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools. Often in open, sunny areas.

Also has been found in vernal pools. Elevations: 100-
2230ft. (30-680m.) Blooms Jun-Oct.

Low Potential Grassland habitat is present however,
the history of grazing and disturbance
diminishes the likelihood of this species
being present in the project area.

Trifolium amoenum
two-fork clover
FE/None
G1/S1
1B.1
Annual herb. Coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Sometimes on serpentine soil, open sunny
sites, swales. Most recently cited on roadside and
eroding cliff face. Elevations: 15-1360ft. (5-415m.)
Blooms Apr-Jun.

Low Potential Grassland habitat is present however,
the history of grazing and disturbance
diminishes the likelihood of this species
being present in the project area.

Trifolium hydrophilum
saline clover
None/None
G2/S2
1B.2
Annual herb. Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools. Mesic, alkaline sites.

Elevations: 0-985ft. (0-300m.) Blooms Apr-Jun.

Low Potential Suitable wetland and alkaline habitat is
not present within the project area.

Viburnum ellipticum
oval-leaved viburnum
None/None
G4G5/S3?
2B.3
Perennial deciduous shrub. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, lower montane coniferous forest.

Elevations: 705-4595ft. (215-1400m.) Blooms MayJun.

Not Expected Project site is outside the elevation
range of the species. Suitable woodland
habitat is not present within the project
area.

Regional Vicinity refers to within a 12-quad search radius of site.

Status (Federal/State)
FE = Federal Endangered
FT = Federal Threatened
SE = State Endangered
ST = State Threatened
SCE = State Candidate Endangered
CRPR (CNPS California Rare Plant Rank)
1B = Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and elsewhere 2B= Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere CRPR Threat Code Extension
.1 = Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat) .3 = Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat) Other Statuses
G1 or S1 Critically Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G2 or S2 Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state)
G3 or S3 Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction Globally or Subnationally (state) G4/5 or S4/5 Apparently secure, common and abundant
Additional notations may be provided as follows
T – Intraspecific Taxon (subspecies, varieties, and other designations below the level of species) ? – Inexact numeric rank
732
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
D-8
Special Status Animal Species in the Regional Vicinity of the Proposed Annexation Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Invertebrates
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
FT/None
G3/S3
Endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley,
Central Coast mountains, and South Coast mountains,
in astatic rain-filled pools. Inhabit small, clear-water sandstone-depression pools and grassed swale, earth
slump, or basalt-flow depression pools.

Not Expected Vernal pool habitat is not present within
the project area.

Desmocerus californicus
dimorphus
valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
FT/None
G3T2T3/S3
Occurs only in the Central Valley of California, in
association with blue elderberry (Sambucus
mexicana). Prefers to lay eggs in elderberries 2-8
inches in diameter; some preference shown for
"stressed" elderberries.

Not Expected The host plant is not present within the
project area.

Speyeria callippe callippe
callippe silverspot butterfly
FE/None
G5T1/S1
Restricted to the northern coastal scrub of the San
Francisco peninsula. Hostplant is Viola pedunculata.

Most adults found on E-facing slopes; males
congregate on hilltops in search of females.

Not Expected The project area is outside the known
range of the species.

Syncaris pacifica
California freshwater shrimp
FE/SE
G2/S2
Endemic to Marin, Napa, and Sonoma counties. Found
in low elevation, low gradient streams where riparian
cover is moderate to heavy. Shallow pools away from
main streamflow. Winter: undercut banks with
exposed roots. Summer: leafy branches touching
water.

Not Expected Suitable aquatic habitat is not present
within the project area.

Fish
Acipenser medirostris pop. 1
green sturgeon - southern DPS
FT/None
G3T1/S1
Spawning site fidelity. Spawns in the Sacramento,
Feather and Yuba Rivers. Presence in upper Stanislaus
and San Joaquin Rivers may indicate spawning. Nonspawning adults occupy marine/estuarine waters.

Delta Estuary is important for rearing juveniles.

Spawning occurs primarily in cool (11-15 C) sections of mainstem rivers in deep pools (8-9 meters) with
substrate containing small to medium sized sand,
gravel, cobble, or boulder.

Not Expected Suitable aquatic habitat is not present
Hypomesus transpacificus
Delta smelt
FT/SE
G1/S1
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Seasonally in Suisun
Bay, Carquinez Strait and San Pablo Bay. Seldom found
at salinities > 10 ppt. Most often at salinities < 2ppt.

Not Expected Suitable aquatic habitat is not present
733
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
Biological Resources Assessment D-9
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
pop. 8
steelhead - central California
coast DPS
FT/None
G5T2T3Q/S2S
3 DPS includes all naturally spawned populations of
steelhead (and their progeny) in streams from the
Russian River to Aptos Creek, Santa Cruz County,
California (inclusive). Also includes the drainages of
San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. .

Not Expected Suitable aquatic habitat is not present
Pogonichthys macrolepidotus
Sacramento splittail
None/None
GNR/S3
SSC
Endemic to the lakes and rivers of the Central Valley,
but now confined to the Delta, Suisun Bay and
associated marshes. Slow moving river sections, dead
end sloughs. Requires flooded vegetation for
spawning and foraging for young.

Not Expected Suitable aquatic habitat is not present
Spirinchus thaleichthys
longfin smelt
FC/ST
G5/S1
Euryhaline, nektonic and anadromous. Found in open
waters of estuaries, mostly in middle or bottom of
water column. Prefer salinities of 15-30 ppt, but can
be found in completely freshwater to almost pure
seawater.

Not Expected Suitable aquatic habitat is not present
Amphibians
Dicamptodon ensatus
California giant salamander
None/None
G3/S2S3
SSC
Known from wet coastal forests near streams and
seeps from Mendocino County south to Monterey
County, and east to Napa County. Aquatic larvae
found in cold, clear streams, occasionally in lakes and ponds. Adults known from wet forests under rocks
and logs near streams and lakes.

Not Expected Suitable aquatic habitat is not present
Rana boylii
foothill yellow-legged frog
None/SE
G3/S3
SSC
Partly-shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats. Needs at least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-laying. Needs at least
15 weeks to attain metamorphosis.

Not Expected Suitable aquatic habitat is not present
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
FT/None
G2G3/S2S3
SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources
of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent
riparian vegetation. Requires 11-20 weeks of
permanent water for larval development. Must have
access to estivation habitat.

Not Expected Suitable permanent aquatic habitat is
not present
734
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
D-10
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Taricha rivularis
red-bellied newt
None/None
G2/S2
SSC
Coastal drainages from Humboldt County south to
Sonoma County, inland to Lake County. Isolated
population of uncertain origin in Santa Clara County.

Lives in terrestrial habitats, juveniles generally
underground, adults active at surface in moist
environments. Will migrate over 1 km to breed,
typically in streams with moderate flow and clean,
rocky substrate.

Not Expected Suitable aquatic habitat is not present
Reptiles
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
None/None
G3G4/S3
SSC
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers,
streams and irrigation ditches, usually with aquatic
vegetation, below 6000 ft elevation. Needs basking
sites and suitable (sandy banks or grassy open fields)
upland habitat up to 0.5 km from water for egg-laying.

Not Expected Suitable aquatic habitat is not present
Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus
Alameda whipsnake
FT/ST
G4T2/S2
Typically found in chaparral and scrub habitats but will also use adjacent grassland, oak savanna and
woodland habitats. Mostly south-facing slopes and
ravines, with rock outcrops, deep crevices or abundant
rodent burrows, where shrubs form a vegetative
mosaic with oak trees and grasses.

Not Expected Suitable chaparral habitat is not found
within the project site.

Birds
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper's hawk
None/None
G5/S4
WL
Woodland, chiefly of open, interrupted or marginal
type. Nest sites mainly in riparian growths of
deciduous trees, as in canyon bottoms on river floodplains; also, live oaks.

Not Expected Suitable woodland habitat is not present
within the project area.

Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird
None/ST
G1G2/S1S2
SSC
Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central
Valley and vicinity. Largely endemic to California.

Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and
foraging area with insect prey within a few km of the
colony.

Not Expected No open water habitat present within
the project area.

Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
None/None
G5/S3
FP
WL
Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats,
and desert. Cliff-walled canyons provide nesting
habitat in most parts of range; also, large trees in open areas.

Not Expected Suitable nesting habitat is not present
with in the project area. The high
disturbance of the project area
precludes this species from the project
area
735
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
Biological Resources Assessment D-11
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Asio flammeus
short-eared owl
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Found in swamp lands, both fresh and salt; lowland
meadows; irrigated alfalfa fields. Tule patches/tall
grass needed for nesting/daytime seclusion. Nests on
dry ground in depression concealed in vegetation.

Not Expected No swamp land habitat is present within
the project area.

Athene cunicularia
western burrowing owl
None/None
G4/S3
SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation.

Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing
mammals, most notably, the California ground
squirrel.

Moderate Potential Suitable grassland habitat is present.

Ground squirrel burrows were observed
within the project area.

Buteo regalis
ferruginous hawk
None/None
G4/S3S4
WL
Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low
foothills and fringes of pinyon and juniper habitats.

Eats mostly lagomorphs, ground squirrels, and mice.

Population trends may follow lagomorph population
cycles.

Not Expected Project site is outside the known nesting
range of the species.

Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
None/ST
G5/S3
Breeds in grasslands with scattered trees, juniper-sage flats, riparian areas, savannahs, and agricultural or
ranch lands with groves or lines of trees. Requires
adjacent suitable foraging areas such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain fields supporting rodent populations.

Moderate Potential Suitable nesting habitat is present within the project area.

Charadrius nivosus nivosus
western snowy plover
FT/None
G3T3/S2
SSC
Sandy beaches, salt pond levees and shores of large
alkali lakes. Needs sandy, gravelly or friable soils for nesting.

Not Expected Suitable nesting or foraging habitat is
not present within the project area.

Circus hudsonius
northern harrier
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Coastal salt and freshwater marsh. Nest and forage in
grasslands, from salt grass in desert sink to mountain
cienagas. Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation,
usually at marsh edge; nest built of a large mound of
sticks in wet areas.

Not Expected No suitable nesting habitat is present
within the project area.

Coturnicops noveboracensis
yellow rail
None/None
G4/S1S2
SSC
Summer resident in eastern Sierra Nevada in Mono
County. Freshwater marshlands.

Not Expected No suitable habitat is present within the
project area.

Cypseloides niger
black swift
None/None
G4/S2
SSC
Coastal belt of Santa Cruz and Monterey counties;
central and southern Sierra Nevada; San Bernardino
and San Jacinto mountains. Breeds in small colonies
on cliffs behind or adjacent to waterfalls in deep
canyons and sea-bluffs above the surf; forages widely.

Not Expected Suitable cliff habitat is not present
within the project area.
736
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
D-12
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
None/None
G5/S3S4
FP
Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous
woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes for
foraging close to isolated, dense-topped trees for
nesting and perching.

Moderate Potential Suitable nesting habitat is present within the project area.

Falco peregrinus anatum
American peregrine falcon
FD/SD
G4T4/S3S4
FP
Near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water; on cliffs, banks, dunes, mounds; also, human-made structures.

Nest consists of a scrape or a depression or ledge in an open site.

Not Expected Suitable nesting habitat is not present
with in the project area.

Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
saltmarsh common
yellowthroat
None/None
G5T3/S3
SSC
Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh and
salt water marshes. Requires thick, continuous cover
down to water surface for foraging; tall grasses, tule
patches, willows for nesting.

Not Expected Suitable habitat is not present within the project area.

Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black rail
None/ST
G3T1/S1
FP
Inhabits freshwater marshes, wet meadows and
shallow margins of saltwater marshes bordering larger
bays. Needs water depths of about 1 inch that do not
fluctuate during the year and dense vegetation for
nesting habitat.

Not Expected Suitable habitat is not present within the project area.

Melospiza melodia maxillaris
Suisun song sparrow
None/None
G5T3/S3
SSC
Resident of brackish-water marshes surrounding
Suisun Bay. Inhabits cattails, tules and other sedges,
and Salicornia; also known to frequent tangles
bordering sloughs.

Not Expected Suitable habitat is not present within the project area.

Melospiza melodia samuelis
San Pablo song sparrow
None/None
G5T2/S2
SSC
Resident of salt marshes along the north side of San
Francisco and San Pablo bays. Inhabits tidal sloughs in the Salicornia marshes; nests in Grindelia bordering
slough channels.

Not Expected Suitable habitat is not present within the project area.

Pandion haliaetus
osprey
None/None
G5/S4
WL
Ocean shore, bays, freshwater lakes, and larger
streams. Large nests built in tree-tops within 15 miles of a good fish-producing body of water.

Not Expected Suitable habitat is not present within the project area.

Rallus obsoletus obsoletus
California Ridgway's rail
FE/SE
G3T1/S1
FP
Salt water and brackish marshes traversed by tidal
sloughs in the vicinity of San Francisco Bay. Associated with abundant growths of pickleweed, but feeds away
from cover on invertebrates from mud-bottomed
sloughs.

Not Expected Suitable habitat is not present within the project area.
737
Special Status Species Evaluation Tables
Biological Resources Assessment D-13
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Riparia riparia
bank swallow
None/ST
G5/S2
Colonial nester; nests primarily in riparian and other
lowland habitats west of the desert. Requires vertical
banks/cliffs with fine-textured/sandy soils near
streams, rivers, lakes, ocean to dig nesting hole.

Not Expected Suitable habitat is not present within the project area.

Xanthocephalus
xanthocephalus
yellow-headed blackbird
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Nests in freshwater emergent wetlands with dense
vegetation and deep water. Often along borders of
lakes or ponds. Nests only where large insects such as
Odonata are abundant, nesting timed with maximum
emergence of aquatic insects.

Not Expected Suitable habitat is not present within the project area.

Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
None/None
G4/S3
SSC
Found in a variety of habitats including deserts,
grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most
common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for
roosting. Roosts in crevices of rock outcrops, caves,
mine tunnels, buildings, bridges, and hollows of live
and dead trees which must protect bats from high
temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of
roosting sites.

Not Expected Suitable foraging habitat is present
however, no roosting habitat is present
within the project area.

Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat
None/None
G4/S2
SSC
Occurs throughout California in a wide variety of
habitats. Most common in mesic sites, typically
coniferous or deciduous forests. Roosts in the open,
hanging from walls &amp; ceilings in caves, lava tubes, bridges, and buildings. This species is extremely
sensitive to human disturbance.

Not Expected Suitable roosting habitat is not present
within the project area.

Nyctinomops macrotis
big free-tailed bat
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Low-lying arid areas in Southern California. Need high
cliffs or rocky outcrops for roosting sites. Feeds
principally on large moths.

Not Expected Suitable roosting habitat is not present
within the project area.

Reithrodontomys raviventris
salt-marsh harvest mouse
FE/SE
G1G2/S1S2
FP
Only in the saline emergent wetlands of San Francisco
Bay and its tributaries. Pickleweed is primary habitat, but may occur in other marsh vegetation types and in
adjacent upland areas. Does not burrow; builds
loosely organized nests. Requires higher areas for
flood escape.

Not Expected Suitable habitat is not present within the project area.
738
City of American Canyon
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
D-14
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur
in Project Area
Habitat Suitability/
Observations
Sorex ornatus sinuosus
Suisun shrew
None/None
G5T1T2Q/S1S
2 SSC
Tidal marshes of the northern shores of San Pablo and
Suisun bays. Require dense low-lying cover and
driftweed and other litter above the mean hightide
line for nesting and foraging.

Not Expected Suitable habitat is not present within the project area.

Taxidea taxus
American badger
None/None
G5/S3
SSC
Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub,
forest, and herbaceous habitats, with friable soils.

Needs sufficient food, friable soils and open,
uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents. Digs
burrows.

Low Potential Suitable habitat is present within the
project area however, there are no
recent records within the search
perimiter.

Regional Vicinity refers to within a 12-quad search radius of site.

Status (Federal/State)
FE = Federal Endangered
FT = Federal Threatened
SE = State Endangered
ST = State Threatened
SCE = State Candidate Endangered
Other Statuses
G1 or S1 Critically Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state) G2 or S2 Imperiled Globally or Subnationally (state)
G3 or S3 Vulnerable to extirpation or extinction Globally or Subnationally (state) G4/5 or S4/5 Apparently secure, common and abundant
Additional notations may be provided as follows
T – Intraspecific Taxon (subspecies, varieties, and other designations below the level of species) 739
Appendix C
Supporting Noise Information
740
Roadway Location Facility Type Number of Lanes
Speed
Limit
Existing
2022 Count
E+P Adjusted
Forecast Facility Type
Number of
Lanes
Speed
Limit
Cumulative
Adjusted
Forecast
C+P
Adjusted
Forecast
Interstate 80 s/o SR 37 Nine-Lane Freeway 9 65 110,006 109,836 Nine-Lane Freeway 9 65 117,524 117,514 s/o American Canyon Road Nine-Lane Freeway 9 65 109,042 107,096 Nine-Lane Freeway 9 65 123,066 121,991 s/o Red Top Road Eight-Lane Freeway 8 65 112,650 109,791 Nine-Lane Freeway 8 65 130,058 128,806 s/o SR 12 Eight-Lane Freeway 8 65 97,782 95,830 Eight-Lane Freeway 8 65 114,818 113,977 n/o SR 12 Eight-Lane Freeway 8 65 136,706 136,566 Eight-Lane Freeway 8 65 155,782 155,682 State Route 29 s/o SR 37 Four-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 24,051 23,903 Four-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 26,193 26,059 n/o SR 37 Four-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 43,483 43,492 Six-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 40,578 40,444 s/o Mini Drive Four-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 37,492 37,915 Six-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 37,689 37,666 n/o Mini Drive Four-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 43,469 44,009 Six-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 43,570 43,575 n/o American Canyon Road Four-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 49,579 49,523 Six-Lane Arterial 4 50 to 55 50,923 51,132 s/o Napa Junction Road Six-Lane Arterial 6 50 to 55 40,762 42,107 Six-Lane Arterial 6 50 to 55 35,274 36,053 n/o Napa Junction Road Four-Lane Highway 4 50 to 55 59,044 62,507 Six-Lane Highway 4 50 to 55 59,796 60,310 n/o Green Island Road Four-Lane Highway 4 50 to 55 60,263 59,161 Four-Lane Highway 4 50 to 55 62,745 62,189 s/o SR 12 Six-Lane Highway 6 50 to 55 59,200 58,100 Six-Lane Highway 6 50 to 55 63,160 62,560 n/o SR 12 Six-Lane Highway 6 50 to 55 88,600 87,000 Six-Lane Highway 6 50 to 55 107,200 106,300 Airport Blvd. w/o SR 29 Four-Lane Collector 4 45 10,500 10,298 Four-Lane Collector 4 45 10,551 10,341 State Route 12 e/o N. Kelly Road Four-Lane Highway 3 55 35,033 35,922 Four-Lane Highway 3 55 35,717 36,038 w/o Red Top Road Two-Lane Highway 2 55 37,179 38,075 Four-Lane Highway 2 55 37,776 38,106 State Route 37 w/o SR 29 Four-Lane Freeway 4 50 to 55 39,980 39,788 Four-Lane Freeway 4 50 to 55 39,156 39,074 e/o SR 29 Four-Lane Freeway 4 50 to 55 62,495 62,352 Four-Lane Freeway 4 50 to 55 63,634 63,592 e/o Fairgrounds Road Four-Lane Freeway 4 50 to 55 69,800 69,800 Four-Lane Freeway 0 50 to 55 69,800 69,800 e/o I-80 Six-Lane Freeway 6 50 to 55 42,000 41,948 Six-Lane Freeway 6 50 to 55 47,826 47,776 American Cyn Rd. w/o SR 29 Four-Lane Arterial 4 45 15,330 14,396 Four-Lane Arterial 4 45 10,744 10,935 e/o Flosden Road Two-Lane Arterial 2 45 10,771 9,857 Two-Lane Arterial 2 45 14,419 14,194 w/o I-80 Two-Lane Arterial 2 45 4,076 3,151 Two-Lane Arterial 2 45 7,774 7,610 Hiddenbrook Pkwy e/o I-80 Two-Lane Collector 2 40 6,023 6,019 Two-Lane Collector 2 40 6,945 6,943 Flosden Road s/o American Canyon Road Four-Lane Arterial 4 45 21,510 21,450 Four-Lane Arterial 4 45 29,534 29,362 Newell Drive n/o American Canyon Road Four-Lane Arterial 4 35 9,685 9,129 Four-Lane Arterial 4 35 28,695 28,072 s/o Napa Junction Road - - - - - Four-Lane Arterial 4 35 19,537 21,790 South Kelly Road s/o SR 12 Two-Lane Collector 2 50 1,602 2,570 Two-Lane Collector 2 50 11,310 11,310 Devlin Road n/o Green Island Road Two-Lane Collector - - - 0 Two-Lane Collector 2 40 5,318 5,224 Scenario Abbreviations: E+P is Existing Plus Project, C+P is Cumulative Plus Project Notes:

1. Numbers shown in italic font are estimates

2. Neither Newell Dr. south of Napa Junction Rd. nor Devlin Rd. north of Green Island Rd. exist in 2022.

Existing and Forecast Volumes For Watson Lane EIR Scenarios (Updated January 2023) Existing Network Build-Out Network
741
Roadway Location Auto
Medium
Duty
Heavy
Duty
Existing
2022
Count Auto
Medium
Duty
Heavy
Duty
E+P
Adjusted
Forecast Auto
Medium
Duty
Heavy
Duty
Cumulat
Adjusted
Forecast Auto
Medium
Duty
Heavy
Duty
C+P
Adjusted
Forecast
Interstate 80 s/o SR 37 103,087 3,460 3,460 110,006 102,927 3,454 3,454 109,836 110,132 3,696 3,696 117,524 110,122 3,696 3,696 117,514 s/o American Canyon Road 102,881 3,080 3,080 109,042 101,045 3,025 3,025 107,096 116,113 3,477 3,477 123,066 115,099 3,446 3,446 121,991 s/o Red Top Road 106,037 3,306 3,306 112,650 103,346 3,222 3,222 109,791 122,424 3,817 3,817 130,058 121,245 3,780 3,780 128,806 s/o SR 12 92,042 2,870 2,870 97,782 90,205 2,813 2,813 95,830 108,078 3,370 3,370 114,818 107,287 3,345 3,345 113,977 n/o SR 12 125,441 5,632 5,632 136,706 125,313 5,627 5,627 136,566 142,946 6,418 6,418 155,782 142,854 6,414 6,414 155,682 State Route 29 s/o SR 37 23,544 254 254 24,051 23,399 252 252 23,903 25,640 276 276 26,193 25,509 275 275 26,059 n/o SR 37 41,357 1,063 1,063 43,483 41,365 1,063 1,063 43,492 38,594 992 992 40,578 38,466 989 989 40,444 s/o Mini Drive 35,689 902 902 37,492 36,091 912 912 37,915 35,876 906 906 37,689 35,854 906 906 37,666 n/o Mini Drive 41,448 1,011 1,011 43,469 41,963 1,023 1,023 44,009 41,544 1,013 1,013 43,570 41,549 1,013 1,013 43,575 n/o American Canyon Road 47,402 1,088 1,088 49,579 47,349 1,087 1,087 49,523 48,687 1,118 1,118 50,923 48,887 1,122 1,122 51,132 s/o Napa Junction Road 37,966 1,398 1,398 40,762 39,218 1,444 1,444 42,107 32,854 1,210 1,210 35,274 33,580 1,237 1,237 36,053 n/o Napa Junction Road 54,415 2,315 2,315 59,044 57,606 2,450 2,450 62,507 55,108 2,344 2,344 59,796 55,582 2,364 2,364 60,310 n/o Green Island Road 54,176 3,043 3,043 60,263 53,186 2,988 2,988 59,161 56,408 3,169 3,169 62,745 55,908 3,141 3,141 62,189 s/o SR 12 54,553 2,324 2,324 59,200 53,539 2,280 2,280 58,100 58,202 2,479 2,479 63,160 57,649 2,455 2,455 62,560 n/o SR 12 82,761 2,919 2,919 88,600 81,267 2,867 2,867 87,000 100,136 3,532 3,532 107,200 99,295 3,503 3,503 106,300 Airport Blvd. w/o SR 29 9,899 300 300 10,500 9,709 295 295 10,298 9,947 302 302 10,551 9,749 296 296 10,341 State Route 12 e/o N. Kelly Road 31,284 1,874 1,874 35,033 32,078 1,922 1,922 35,922 31,895 1,911 1,911 35,717 32,182 1,928 1,928 36,038 w/o Red Top Road 33,312 1,933 1,933 37,179 34,115 1,980 1,980 38,075 33,847 1,964 1,964 37,776 34,143 1,982 1,982 38,106 State Route 37 w/o SR 29 37,861 1,059 1,059 39,980 37,679 1,054 1,054 39,788 37,081 1,038 1,038 39,156 37,003 1,035 1,035 39,074 e/o SR 29 59,370 1,562 1,562 62,495 59,234 1,559 1,559 62,352 60,452 1,591 1,591 63,634 60,412 1,590 1,590 63,592 e/o Fairgrounds Road 66,108 1,846 1,846 69,800 66,108 1,846 1,846 69,800 66,108 1,846 1,846 69,800 66,108 1,846 1,846 69,800 e/o I-80 41,013 494 494 42,000 40,962 493 493 41,948 46,702 562 562 47,826 46,653 561 561 47,776 American Cyn Rd. w/o SR 29 14,930 200 200 15,330 14,020 188 188 14,396 10,464 140 140 10,744 10,650 143 143 10,935 e/o Flosden Road 10,684 44 44 10,771 9,777 40 40 9,857 14,302 58 58 14,419 14,079 57 57 14,194 w/o I-80 3,648 214 214 4,076 2,820 165 165 3,151 6,958 408 408 7,774 6,811 400 400 7,610 Hiddenbrook Pkwy e/o I-80 5,858 83 83 6,023 5,854 82 82 6,019 6,755 95 95 6,945 6,753 95 95 6,943 Flosden Road s/o American Canyon Road 20,884 313 313 21,510 20,826 312 312 21,450 28,675 430 430 29,534 28,508 427 427 29,362 Newell Drive n/o American Canyon Road 9,485 100 100 9,685 8,940 94 94 9,129 28,101 297 297 28,695 27,491 291 291 28,072 s/o Napa Junction Road - - - - - - - - 19,133 202 202 19,537 21,339 226 226 21,790 South Kelly Road s/o SR 12 1,586 8 8 1,602 2,544 13 13 2,570 11,197 57 57 11,310 11,197 57 57 11,310 Devlin Road n/o Green Island Road - - - - - - - 0 266 2,526 2,526 5,318 261 2,481 2,481 5,224 Scenario Abbreviations: E+P is Existing Plus Project, C+P is Cumulative Plus Project Notes:

1. Numbers shown in italic font are estimates

2. Neither Newell Dr. south of Napa Junction Rd. nor Devlin Rd. north of Green Island Rd. exist in 2022.

Vehicle Mix: Existing and Forecast Volumes For Watson Lane EIR Scenarios (Updated January 2023) Existing 2022 Existing + Project 2022 Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project 742
Roadway Location
7 a.m.-7
p.m.
7 p.m. - 10
p.m. 10p - 7a
Existing
2022
Count
7 a.m.-7
p.m.
7 p.m. - 10
p.m. 10p - 7a
E+P
Adjusted
Forecast
7 a.m.-7
p.m.
7 p.m. - 10
p.m. 10p - 7a
Cumulat
Adjusted
Forecast
7 a.m.-7
p.m.
7 p.m. - 10
p.m. 10p - 7a
C+P
Adjusted
Forecast
Interstate 80 s/o SR 37 85,166 14,686 10,154 110,006 85,034 14,663 10,139 109,836 90,986 15,689 10,848 117,524 90,979 15,688 10,847 117,514 s/o American Canyon Road 84,420 14,557 10,065 109,042 82,913 14,297 9,886 107,096 95,277 16,429 11,360 123,066 94,445 16,286 11,261 121,991 s/o Red Top Road 87,213 15,039 10,398 112,650 84,999 14,657 10,134 109,791 100,690 17,363 12,005 130,058 99,721 17,196 11,890 128,806 s/o SR 12 75,702 13,054 9,026 97,782 74,191 12,793 8,846 95,830 88,891 15,328 10,599 114,818 88,240 15,216 10,521 113,977 n/o SR 12 105,837 18,250 12,619 136,706 105,728 18,232 12,606 136,566 120,605 20,797 14,380 155,782 120,528 20,784 14,371 155,682 State Route 29 s/o SR 37 19,692 3,110 1,249 24,051 19,571 3,091 1,241 23,903 21,446 3,387 1,360 26,193 21,336 3,369 1,353 26,059 n/o SR 37 34,302 5,783 3,398 43,483 34,309 5,784 3,399 43,492 32,010 5,397 3,171 40,578 31,904 5,379 3,161 40,444 s/o Mini Drive 29,794 4,881 2,816 37,492 30,130 4,937 2,848 37,915 29,951 4,907 2,831 37,689 29,932 4,904 2,829 37,666 n/o Mini Drive 35,449 5,512 2,508 43,469 35,889 5,580 2,539 44,009 35,531 5,525 2,514 43,570 35,535 5,525 2,514 43,575 n/o American Canyon Road 40,432 6,287 2,861 49,579 40,386 6,280 2,857 49,523 41,528 6,457 2,938 50,923 41,698 6,484 2,950 51,132 s/o Napa Junction Road 33,241 5,169 2,352 40,762 34,338 5,339 2,430 42,107 28,766 4,473 2,035 35,274 29,401 4,572 2,080 36,053 n/o Napa Junction Road 48,150 7,487 3,407 59,044 50,974 7,926 3,607 62,507 48,764 7,582 3,450 59,796 49,183 7,647 3,480 60,310 n/o Green Island Road 49,144 7,641 3,477 60,263 48,246 7,502 3,414 59,161 51,169 7,956 3,620 62,745 50,715 7,886 3,588 62,189 s/o SR 12 48,278 7,507 3,416 59,200 47,381 7,367 3,352 58,100 51,507 8,009 3,644 63,160 51,018 7,933 3,610 62,560 n/o SR 12 72,253 11,234 5,112 88,600 70,949 11,032 5,020 87,000 87,422 13,593 6,185 107,200 86,688 13,479 6,134 106,300 Airport Blvd. w/o SR 29 8,831 462 1,207 10,500 8,661 453 1,184 10,298 8,874 464 1,213 10,551 8,697 455 1,189 10,341 State Route 12 e/o N. Kelly Road 25,912 2,831 6,291 35,033 26,569 2,902 6,450 35,922 26,418 2,886 6,413 35,717 26,655 2,912 6,471 36,038 w/o Red Top Road 27,499 3,004 6,676 37,179 28,162 3,076 6,837 38,075 27,941 3,052 6,783 37,776 28,185 3,079 6,842 38,106 State Route 37 w/o SR 29 31,180 5,397 3,402 39,980 31,031 5,371 3,386 39,788 30,538 5,286 3,332 39,156 30,474 5,275 3,325 39,074 e/o SR 29 48,740 8,437 5,318 62,495 48,628 8,418 5,306 62,352 49,628 8,591 5,415 63,634 49,595 8,585 5,412 63,592 e/o Fairgrounds Road 54,437 9,423 5,940 69,800 54,437 9,423 5,940 69,800 54,437 9,423 5,940 69,800 54,437 9,423 5,940 69,800 e/o I-80 32,756 5,670 3,574 42,000 32,715 5,663 3,570 41,948 37,299 6,457 4,070 47,826 37,261 6,450 4,066 47,776 American Cyn Rd. w/o SR 29 12,528 1,722 1,080 15,330 11,765 1,617 1,014 14,396 8,781 1,207 757 10,744 8,937 1,228 770 10,935 e/o Flosden Road 8,803 1,210 759 10,771 8,056 1,107 694 9,857 11,784 1,619 1,016 14,419 11,600 1,594 1,000 14,194 w/o I-80 3,331 458 287 4,076 2,575 354 222 3,151 6,353 873 548 7,774 6,219 855 536 7,610 Hiddenbrook Pkwy e/o I-80 4,757 771 495 6,023 4,754 770 495 6,019 5,486 889 571 6,945 5,484 888 571 6,943 Flosden Road s/o American Canyon Road 17,605 2,381 1,524 21,510 17,556 2,375 1,519 21,450 24,173 3,269 2,092 29,534 24,032 3,250 2,080 29,362 Newell Drive n/o American Canyon Road 8,220 1,045 420 9,685 7,748 985 396 9,129 24,354 3,096 1,245 28,695 23,825 3,029 1,218 28,072 s/o Napa Junction Road - - - - - - - - 16,581 2,108 848 19,537 18,494 2,351 945 21,790 South Kelly Road s/o SR 12 1,417 123 62 1,602 2,273 198 99 2,570 10,004 871 435 11,310 10,004 871 435 11,310 Devlin Road n/o Green Island Road - - - - - - - 0 5,225 0 93 5,318 5,133 0 91 5,224 Scenario Abbreviations: E+P is Existing Plus Project, C+P is Cumulative Plus Project Notes:

1. Numbers shown in italic font are estimates

2. Neither Newell Dr. south of Napa Junction Rd. nor Devlin Rd. north of Green Island Rd. exist in 2022.

Time of Day Distribution: Existing and Forecast Volumes For Watson Lane EIR Scenarios (Updated January 2023) Existing 2022 Existing + Project 2022 Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project 743
ID Leq-24hr Ldn CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment ADT Posted Speed Limit Grade % Autos % Med Trucks
% Heavy
Trucks
%
Daytime % Evening % Night Number of Lanes
Site
Condition
Distance to
Reciever
Ground
Absorption
Lane
Distance
6 70.8 72.4 73.2 82 176 378 State Route 29 s/o SR 37 24,051 55 0.0% 97.9% 1.1% 1.1% 81.9% 12.9% 5.2% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 7 74.1 76.4 77.1 148 319 688 State Route 29 n/o SR 37 43,483 55 0.0% 95.1% 2.4% 2.4% 78.9% 13.3% 7.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 8 73.4 75.7 76.3 132 285 614 State Route 29 s/o Mini Drive 37,492 55 0.0% 95.2% 2.4% 2.4% 79.5% 13.0% 7.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 9 74.0 75.8 76.6 137 295 636 State Route 29 n/o Mini Drive 43,469 55 0.0% 95.4% 2.3% 2.3% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 10 74.5 76.3 77.1 148 319 687 State Route 29 n/o American Canyon Road 49,579 55 0.0% 95.6% 2.2% 2.2% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 11 74.5 76.3 77.1 148 318 685 State Route 29 s/o Napa Junction Road 40,762 55 0.0% 93.1% 3.4% 3.4% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 12 76.1 77.9 78.6 188 405 874 State Route 29 n/o Napa Junction Road 59,044 55 0.0% 92.2% 3.9% 3.9% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 13 76.6 78.5 79.2 205 441 950 State Route 29 n/o Green Island Road 60,263 55 0.0% 89.9% 5.1% 5.1% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 14 76.4 78.2 78.9 196 421 908 State Route 29 s/o SR 12 59,200 55 0.0% 92.2% 3.9% 3.9% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 15 77.8 79.6 80.4 245 528 1139 State Route 29 n/o SR 12 88,600 55 0.0% 93.4% 3.3% 3.3% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 16 66.2 69.3 69.5 46 100 215 Airport Blvd w/o SR 29 10,500 45 0.0% 94.3% 2.9% 2.9% 84.1% 4.4% 11.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 17 74.3 78.5 78.8 193 415 894 State Route 12 e/o N. Kelly Road 35,033 55 0.0% 89.3% 5.4% 5.4% 74.0% 8.1% 18.0% 3 Soft 50 0.5 32 19 73.8 76.3 77.0 146 314 675 State Route 37 w/o SR 29 39,980 55 0.0% 94.7% 2.7% 2.7% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 20 75.7 78.2 78.8 194 418 900 State Route 37 e/o SR 29 62,495 55 0.0% 95.0% 2.5% 2.5% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 23 66.8 68.9 69.5 46 100 216 American Canyon Rd w/o SR 29 15,330 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.3% 1.3% 81.7% 11.2% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 24 64.4 66.5 67.1 32 69 148 American Canyon Rd e/o Flosden Road 10,771 45 0.0% 99.2% 0.4% 0.4% 81.7% 11.2% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 27 68.4 70.5 71.1 59 128 275 Flosden Road s/o American Canyon Road 21,510 45 0.0% 97.1% 1.5% 1.5% 81.8% 11.1% 7.1% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 28 61.9 63.4 64.0 20 43 93 Newell Drive n/o American Canyon Road 9,685 35 0.0% 97.9% 1.0% 1.0% 84.9% 10.8% 4.3% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 30 57.4 58.7 59.2 10 21 44 South Kelly Road s/o SR 12 1,602 50 0.0% 99.0% 0.5% 0.5% 88.5% 7.7% 3.9% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 Traffic Noise Calculator: FHWA 77-108 Project Title: 19-08743 Watson Lane Annexation - Existing 2022 dBA at 50 feet Distance to CNEL Contour
Output Inputs Auto Inputs
744
ID Leq-24hr Ldn CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment ADT Posted Speed Limit Grade % Autos % Med Trucks
% Heavy
Trucks
%
Daytime % Evening % Night Number of Lanes
Site
Condition
Distance to
Reciever
Ground
Absorption
Lane
Distance
6 70.7 72.4 73.2 81 175 377 State Route 29 s/o SR 37 23,903 55 0.0% 97.9% 1.1% 1.1% 81.9% 12.9% 5.2% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 7 74.1 76.4 77.1 148 319 688 State Route 29 n/o SR 37 43,492 55 0.0% 95.1% 2.4% 2.4% 78.9% 13.3% 7.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 8 73.5 75.7 76.4 133 287 619 State Route 29 s/o Mini Drive 37,915 55 0.0% 95.2% 2.4% 2.4% 79.5% 13.0% 7.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 9 74.1 75.9 76.6 138 297 641 State Route 29 n/o Mini Drive 44,009 55 0.0% 95.4% 2.3% 2.3% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 10 74.5 76.3 77.1 148 319 686 State Route 29 n/o American Canyon Road 49,523 55 0.0% 95.6% 2.2% 2.2% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 11 74.7 76.5 77.2 151 325 700 State Route 29 s/o Napa Junction Road 42,107 55 0.0% 93.1% 3.4% 3.4% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 12 76.3 78.2 78.9 196 421 907 State Route 29 n/o Napa Junction Road 62,507 55 0.0% 92.2% 3.9% 3.9% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 13 76.6 78.4 79.1 202 436 938 State Route 29 n/o Green Island Road 59,161 55 0.0% 89.9% 5.1% 5.1% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 14 76.3 78.1 78.8 193 416 897 State Route 29 s/o SR 12 58,100 55 0.0% 92.2% 3.9% 3.9% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 15 77.7 79.6 80.3 242 522 1125 State Route 29 n/o SR 12 87,000 55 0.0% 93.4% 3.3% 3.3% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 0.5 68 16 66.1 69.2 69.4 46 99 212 Airport Blvd w/o SR 29 10,298 45 0.0% 94.3% 2.9% 2.9% 84.1% 4.4% 11.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 17 74.4 78.6 78.9 196 422 909 State Route 12 e/o N. Kelly Road 35,922 55 0.0% 89.3% 5.4% 5.4% 74.0% 8.1% 18.0% 3 Soft 50 0.5 32 19 73.8 76.3 76.9 145 313 673 State Route 37 w/o SR 29 39,788 55 0.0% 94.7% 2.7% 2.7% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 20 75.7 78.2 78.8 193 417 898 State Route 37 e/o SR 29 62,352 55 0.0% 95.0% 2.5% 2.5% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 23 66.5 68.6 69.3 45 96 207 American Canyon Rd w/o SR 29 14,396 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.3% 1.3% 81.7% 11.2% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 24 64.0 66.1 66.7 30 65 140 American Canyon Rd e/o Flosden Road 9,857 45 0.0% 99.2% 0.4% 0.4% 81.7% 11.2% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 27 68.4 70.5 71.1 59 128 275 Flosden Road s/o American Canyon Road 21,450 45 0.0% 97.1% 1.5% 1.5% 81.8% 11.1% 7.1% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 28 61.7 63.1 63.8 19 41 89 Newell Drive n/o American Canyon Road 9,129 35 0.0% 97.9% 1.0% 1.0% 84.9% 10.8% 4.3% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 30 59.5 60.7 61.2 13 28 61 South Kelly Road s/o SR 12 2,570 50 0.0% 99.0% 0.5% 0.5% 88.5% 7.7% 3.9% 2 Soft 50 0.5 20 Traffic Noise Calculator: FHWA 77-108 Project Title: 19-08743 Watson Lane Annexation - Existing + Project dBA at 50 feet Distance to CNEL Contour
Output Inputs Auto Inputs
745
ID Leq-24hr Ldn CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment ADT Posted
Speed Limit Grade % Autos
% Med
Trucks
% Heavy
Trucks
%
Daytime % Evening % Night Number of Lanes
Site
Condition
Distance to
Reciever
Ground
Absorption
Lane
Distance
6 71.1 72.8 73.6 86 186 400 State Route 29 s/o SR 37 55 0.0% 97.9% 1.1% 1.1% 81.9% 12.9% 5.2% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 7 73.8 76.1 76.8 142 305 657 State Route 29 n/o SR 37 55 0.0% 95.1% 2.4% 2.4% 78.9% 13.3% 7.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 8 73.4 75.7 76.4 133 286 617 State Route 29 s/o Mini Drive 55 0.0% 95.2% 2.4% 2.4% 79.5% 13.0% 7.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 9 74.0 75.9 76.6 137 296 637 State Route 29 n/o Mini Drive 55 0.0% 95.4% 2.3% 2.3% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 10 74.6 76.5 77.2 151 325 699 State Route 29 n/o American Canyon Road 55 0.0% 95.6% 2.2% 2.2% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 11 0.5 68 73.9 75.7 76.4 134 289 622 State Route 29 s/o Napa Junction Road 55 0.0% 93.1% 3.4% 3.4% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 12 0.5 44 76.2 78.0 78.7 190 409 881 State Route 29 n/o Napa Junction Road 55 0.0% 92.2% 3.9% 3.9% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 13 0.5 44 77.5 79.3 80.0 232 501 1078 State Route 29 n/o Green Island Road 55 0.0% 89.9% 5.1% 5.1% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 14 0.5 68 77.2 79.0 79.7 222 478 1031 State Route 29 s/o SR 12 55 0.0% 92.2% 3.9% 3.9% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 15 0.5 68 78.7 80.5 81.2 279 600 1293 State Route 29 n/o SR 12 55 0.0% 93.4% 3.3% 3.3% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 16 0.5 44 66.2 69.3 69.5 47 100 216 Airport Blvd w/o SR 29 45 0.0% 94.3% 2.9% 2.9% 84.1% 4.4% 11.5% 4 Soft 50 17 0.5 32 74.4 78.6 78.9 195 420 905 State Route 12 e/o N. Kelly Road 55 0.0% 89.3% 5.4% 5.4% 74.0% 8.1% 18.0% 3 Soft 50 19 0.5 44 73.7 76.2 76.9 144 309 666 State Route 37 w/o SR 29 55 0.0% 94.7% 2.7% 2.7% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 4 Soft 50 20 0.5 44 75.8 78.2 78.9 196 423 910 State Route 37 e/o SR 29 55 0.0% 95.0% 2.5% 2.5% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 4 Soft 50 23 0.5 44 65.2 67.4 68.0 37 79 170 American Canyon Rd w/o SR 29 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.3% 1.3% 81.7% 11.2% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 24 0.5 20 65.6 67.8 68.4 39 84 180 American Canyon Rd e/o Flosden Road 45 0.0% 99.2% 0.4% 0.4% 81.7% 11.2% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 27 0.5 44 69.8 71.9 72.5 73 158 340 Flosden Road s/o American Canyon Road 45 0.0% 97.1% 1.5% 1.5% 81.8% 11.1% 7.1% 4 Soft 50 28 0.5 44 66.7 68.1 68.8 41 89 192 Newell Drive n/o American Canyon Road 35 0.0% 97.9% 1.0% 1.0% 84.9% 10.8% 4.3% 4 Soft 50 29 0.5 44 65.0 66.4 67.1 32 69 148 Newell Drive s/o Napa Junction Road 35 0.0% 97.9% 1.0% 1.0% 84.9% 10.8% 4.3% 4 Soft 50 30 0.5 20 59.9 61.2 61.7 14 30 65 South Kelly Road s/o SR 12 50 0.0% 99.0% 0.5% 0.5% 88.5% 7.7% 3.9% 2 Soft 50 Auto Inputs
Traffic Noise Calculator: FHWA 77-108 Project Title: 19-08743 Watson Lane Annexation - Cumulative dBA at 50 feet Distance to CNEL Contour
Output Inputs
26,193
40,578
37,689
43,570
50,923
35,274
59,796
62,745
63,160
107,200
10,551
35,717
39,156
63,634
10,744
14,419
29,534
28,695
19,537
11,310
746
ID Leq-24hr Ldn CNEL 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA Roadway Segment ADT Posted
Speed Limit Grade % Autos
% Med
Trucks
% Heavy
Trucks
%
Daytime % Evening % Night Number of Lanes
Site
Condition
Distance to
Reciever
Ground
Absorption
Lane
Distance
6 71.1 72.8 73.5 86 185 399 State Route 29 s/o SR 37 55 0.0% 97.9% 1.1% 1.1% 81.9% 12.9% 5.2% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 7 73.8 76.1 76.8 141 304 656 State Route 29 n/o SR 37 55 0.0% 95.1% 2.4% 2.4% 78.9% 13.3% 7.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 8 73.4 75.7 76.4 133 286 616 State Route 29 s/o Mini Drive 55 0.0% 95.2% 2.4% 2.4% 79.5% 13.0% 7.5% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 9 74.0 75.9 76.6 137 296 637 State Route 29 n/o Mini Drive 55 0.0% 95.4% 2.3% 2.3% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 10 74.7 76.5 77.2 151 325 701 State Route 29 n/o American Canyon Road 55 0.0% 95.6% 2.2% 2.2% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 0.5 44 11 0.5 68 74.0 75.8 76.5 136 293 631 State Route 29 s/o Napa Junction Road 55 0.0% 93.1% 3.4% 3.4% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 12 0.5 44 76.2 78.0 78.7 191 411 886 State Route 29 n/o Napa Junction Road 55 0.0% 92.2% 3.9% 3.9% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 13 0.5 44 77.4 79.3 80.0 231 498 1073 State Route 29 n/o Green Island Road 55 0.0% 89.9% 5.1% 5.1% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 4 Soft 50 14 0.5 68 77.1 79.0 79.7 221 476 1025 State Route 29 s/o SR 12 55 0.0% 92.2% 3.9% 3.9% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 15 0.5 68 78.6 80.4 81.2 277 597 1286 State Route 29 n/o SR 12 55 0.0% 93.4% 3.3% 3.3% 81.6% 12.7% 5.8% 6 Soft 50 16 0.5 44 66.2 69.2 69.4 46 99 213 Airport Blvd w/o SR 29 45 0.0% 94.3% 2.9% 2.9% 84.1% 4.4% 11.5% 4 Soft 50 17 0.5 32 74.4 78.6 78.9 196 423 911 State Route 12 e/o N. Kelly Road 55 0.0% 89.3% 5.4% 5.4% 74.0% 8.1% 18.0% 3 Soft 50 19 0.5 44 73.7 76.2 76.9 143 309 665 State Route 37 w/o SR 29 55 0.0% 94.7% 2.7% 2.7% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 4 Soft 50 20 0.5 44 75.8 78.2 78.9 196 422 910 State Route 37 e/o SR 29 55 0.0% 95.0% 2.5% 2.5% 78.0% 13.5% 8.5% 4 Soft 50 23 0.5 44 65.3 67.5 68.1 37 80 172 American Canyon Rd w/o SR 29 45 0.0% 97.4% 1.3% 1.3% 81.7% 11.2% 7.0% 4 Soft 50 24 0.5 20 65.6 67.7 68.3 38 83 178 American Canyon Rd e/o Flosden Road 45 0.0% 99.2% 0.4% 0.4% 81.7% 11.2% 7.0% 2 Soft 50 27 0.5 44 69.7 71.9 72.5 73 157 339 Flosden Road s/o American Canyon Road 45 0.0% 97.1% 1.5% 1.5% 81.8% 11.1% 7.1% 4 Soft 50 28 0.5 44 66.6 68.0 68.7 41 88 189 Newell Drive n/o American Canyon Road 35 0.0% 97.9% 1.0% 1.0% 84.9% 10.8% 4.3% 4 Soft 50 29 0.5 44 65.5 66.9 67.6 34 74 160 Newell Drive s/o Napa Junction Road 35 0.0% 97.9% 1.0% 1.0% 84.9% 10.8% 4.3% 4 Soft 50 30 0.5 20 59.9 61.2 61.7 14 30 65 South Kelly Road s/o SR 12 50 0.0% 99.0% 0.5% 0.5% 88.5% 7.7% 3.9% 2 Soft 50 Traffic Noise Calculator: FHWA 77-108 Project Title: 19-08743 Watson Lane Annexation - Cumulative + Project dBA at 50 feet Distance to CNEL Contour
Output Inputs Auto Inputs
26,059
40,444
37,666
43,575
51,132
36,053
60,310
62,189
62,560
106,300
10,341
36,038
39,074
63,592
10,935
14,194
29,362
28,072
21,790
11,310
747
Traffic Noise Increase Summary
Project Noise
Increase
Cumulative
Increase
Project
Cumulative
Contribution
(dBA Ldn) (dBA Ldn) (dBA Ldn)
State Route 29 - South of State
Route 37
24,051 23,903 26,193 26,059 0.0 0.3 0.0
State Route 29- North of State
Route 37
43,483 43,492 40,578 40,444 0.0 -0.3 0.0
State Route 29 - South of Mini Drive 37,492 37,915 37,689 37,666 0.0 0.0 0.0 State Route 29 - North of Mini Drive 43,469 44,009 43,570 43,575 0.1 0.0 0.0 State Route 29 - North of American
Canyon Road 49,579 49,523 50,923 51,132 0.0 0.1 0.0
State Route 29 - South of Napa
Junction Road 40,762 42,107 35,274 36,053 0.1 -0.5 0.1
State Route 29 - North of Napa
Junction Road 59,044 62,507 59,796 60,310 0.2 0.1 0.0
State Route 29 - North of Green
Island Road 60,263 59,161 62,745 62,189 -0.1 0.1 0.0
State Route 29 - South of State
Route 12
59,200 58,100 63,160 62,560 -0.1 0.2 0.0
State Route 29 - North of State
Route 12
88,600 87,000 107,200 106,300 -0.1 0.8 0.0
Airport Boulevard - West of State
Route 29
10,500 10,298 10,551 10,341 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1
State Route 12 - East of North Kelly
Road 35,033 35,922 35,717 36,038 0.1 0.1 0.0
State Route 37 - West of State
Route 29
39,980 39,788 39,156 39,074 0.0 -0.1 0.0
State Route 37 - East of State Route
29 62,495 62,352 63,634 63,592 0.0 0.1 0.0
American Canyon Road - West of
State Route 29
15,330 14,396 10,744 10,935 -0.3 -1.5 0.1
American Canyon Road - East of
Flosden Road 10,771 9,857 14,419 14,194 -0.4 1.2 -0.1
Flosden Road - South of American
Canyon Road 21,510 21,450 29,534 29,362 0.0 1.4 0.0
Newell Drive - North of American
Canyon Road 9,685 9,129 28,695 28,072 -0.3 4.6 -0.1
Newell Drive - South of Napa
Junction Road - - 19,537 21,790 - - 0.5
South Kelly Road - South of State
Route 12
1,602 2,570 11,310 11,310 2.1 8.5 0.0
Roadway Segment Existing ADT Existing +
Project ADT
Cumulative
ADT
Cumulative
+ Project
ADT
748
r
Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation
Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2022090097
prepared by
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, California 94503
Contact: Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Environmental Scientists I Planners I Engineers
rinconconsultants.com
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
October 2023
ATTACHMENT 1.C
749
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation
Final Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse No. 2022090097
prepared by
City of American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201
American Canyon, California 94503
Contact: Brent Cooper, AICP, Community Development Director prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
October 2023
750
This page intentionally left blank.
751
Table of Contents
Final Environmental Impact Report i
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Final EIR Contents ........................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Draft EIR Public Review Process ...................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval .............................................................. 1-2 2 Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR .................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Comment Letters and Responses ................................................................................... 2-1 3 Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR ................................................................................................ 3-1

3.1 Revisions to the Draft EIR................................................................................................ 3-1 4 Recirculation Not Warranted ...................................................................................................... 4-1 752
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
753
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Final Environmental Impact Report iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACT Advanced Clean Trucks
ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
AF Acre Feet
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BRA Biological Resources Assessment
CARB California Air Resources Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EV Electric Vehicle
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
GHG Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ITP Incidental Take Permit
LAFCo Napa County Local Agency Formation Commission
LSA Lake and Streambed Alteration
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
NOA Notice of Availability
NOC Notice of Completion
NOP Notice of Preparation
PRC Public Resources Code
TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services
TRU Transport Refrigeration Unit
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
754
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation
iv
This page intentionally left blank.
755
Introduction
Final Environmental Impact Report 1-1
Introduction

1.1 Final EIR Contents
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of American Canyon City) to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Project (hereafter also referred to as “ project”).

Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15132, the City of American Canyon, as the lead agency, is required to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who have reviewed the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses to those comments. This document together with the Draft EIR (incorporated by reference) comprise the Final EIR for the project. This Final EIR includes individual responses to each letter received during the public review period for the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c), the written responses describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised.

The City has provided a good faith effort to respond to all significant environmental issues raised by the comments. The Final EIR also includes minor clarifications, corrections, or revisions to the Draft EIR suggested by certain comments. The Final EIR includes the following contents:

Section 1: Introduction
Section 2: Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
Section 3: Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR
Section 4: Recirculation Not Warranted

1.2 Draft EIR Public Review Process
Pursuant to CEQA, lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies with jurisdiction over a proposed project and to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.

The City of American Canyon filed a notice of completion ( NOC) with the Governor’ s Office of Planning and Research to begin the 45-day public review period (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21161), which began on March 14, 2023, and ended on April 28, 2023. The Draft EIR was made available on the City’s website. 1In addition, the Draft EIR was made available for review at the City’ s offices at 4381 Broadway Street, Suite 201 and the City Library at 300 Crawford Way. A Notice of Availability ( NOA) of the Draft EIR was published on March 14, 2023. As a result of these notification efforts, the City received eight written comments on the content of the Draft EIR.

Section 2, “Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR,” identifies these commenting parties, their respective comments, and responses to these comments. None of the comments received, or the responses provided, constitute “ significant new information” by CEQA standards ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5).
1 Draft EIR for the project is available here: https:// cityofamcan. org/ ProjectReview 756
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation
1-2

1.3 EIR Certification Process and Project Approval
Before adopting the project, the lead agency is required to certify that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, that the decision- making body reviewed and considered the information in the EIR, and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the lead agency.

Upon certification of an EIR, the lead agency makes a decision on the project analyzed in the EIR. A lead agency may: (a) disapprove a project because of its significant environmental effects; (b) require changes to a project to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects; or (c) approve a project despite its significant environmental effects, if the proper findings and statement of overriding considerations are adopted (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15042 and 15043).

In approving a project, for each significant impact of the project identified in the EIR, the lead or responsible agency must find, based on substantial evidence, that either: (a) the project has been changed to avoid or substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact; (b) changes to the project are within another agency' s jurisdiction and such changes have or should be adopted; or (c) specific economic, social, or other considerations make the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). Pursuant to PRC Section 21061.1, feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account, economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.

While the information in the EIR does not constrain the City’s ultimate decision under its land use authority, the City must respond to each significant effect and mitigation measure identified in the EIR as required by CEQA by making findings supporting its decision. If an agency approves a project with unavoidable significant environmental effects, it must prepare a written Statement of Overriding Considerations that sets forth the specific social, economic, or other reasons supporting the agency’ s decision and explains why the project’ s benefits outweigh the significant environmental effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093).

When an agency makes findings on significant effects identified in the EIR, it must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures that were adopted or made conditions of project approval to mitigate significant effects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[ d]). 757
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
This section includes comments received during public circulation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the City of American Canyon Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation project. The comment letters included herein were submitted to the City of American Canyon by public agencies, an organization, and individuals. The City prepared these responses to written comments received to address the environmental concerns raised by the commenters and to indicate where and how the Draft EIR addresses pertinent environmental issues. The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period that began on March 14, 2023, and ended on April 28, 2023. The City of American Canyon received eight comment letters on the Draft EIR. The commenters and the page number on which each commenter’ s letter appear are listed below.

Letter No. and Commenter Page No.

A.1 Napa County Airport Department of Public Works 2-2
A.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-6
A.3 City of Vallejo 2-28
P.1 Leslie Lawson and Margaret Lawson 2-37
P.2 Leslie Lawson, Margaret Lawson, Sam Clerici, and Leann Clerici 2-45 P.3 Charles Lemmon 2-51
P.4 Yvonne Baginski 2-55
P.5 Frances Tinny, Legal Fellow, Center for Biological Diversity 2-63

2.1 Comment Letters and Responses
Written responses to each comment letter received on the Draft EIR are provided in this section. All letters received on the Draft EIR are provided in their entirety. The comment letters have been numbered sequentially and each separate issue raised by the commenter, if more than one, has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue (Response A.1-1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter A.1). Comments that start with “A” indicate that the commenter represents a public agency; comments that start with “P” indicate that the commenter is an individual or represents a non-governmental organization.

Revisions made to the text of the Draft EIR are provided in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR, including corrected information, data, or intent. Where a comment results in a revision to the Draft EIR text, a notation is made in the response indicating that the text is revised. Within the Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR, revisions in text are signified by strikeouts ( strikeouts) where text is removed and by underlined font (underlined font) where text is added.

Following public review of an EIR, lead agencies are directed to “evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and prepare a written response” ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a)). Some of the comments that were received on the Draft EIR did not address specific environmental issues or effects associated with the project or the adequacy of the analysis contained in the Draft EIR. No additional analysis or response is required for these types of comments. All comments, however, will be noted and made available to applicable decision-makers as they consider the project. 2-1
758
Letter A.1
A.1-1
A.1-3
A.1-4
A.1-2
2-2
759
A.1-5
2-3
760
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter A.1
COMMENTER: Mark Witsoe, A.A.E./ CAE, Napa County Airport Manager, Public Works Department
DATE: April 25, 2023
Response A.1-1
The commenter introduces their understanding of the project and states their opposition to the inclusion of Residential Estates ( RE) zoning within Zone D of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan ALUCP).

The City thanks Napa County Airport for their input on the project and acknowledges their opposition to the proposed zoning. The proposed zoning is a component of the proposed project, which is evaluated for potentially significant effects in the DEIR. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.1-2
The commenter cites the project’ s Notice of Availability, proposed pre-zoning, and existing Napa County land use designation for a portion of the project site.

This comment does not pertain to the DEIR or CEQA, other than describing the circulation of the Notice of Availability of the DEIR. Therefore, no additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.1-3
The commenter discusses the DEIR’ s treatment of growth on land that would be pre-zoned for RE uses because the RE zoning allows for an ADU on parcels, plus Senate Bill 9 could allow lot splits. The commenter speculates that pre-zoning as RE would induce further growth that is not permitted under the ALUCP.

As described on page 2-15 of the DEIR, the parcels that would be pre-zoned as Residential Estate RE) under the proposed project already have existing residential uses. Therefore, the proposed RE pre-zoning component of the project would not induce additional residential development beyond existing conditions. Senate Bill 9 is a State law that deems lot splits as ministerial. Therefore, CEQA does not apply. For these reasons, no additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.1-4
The commenter cites the DEIR’ s discussion of development in Zone D of the ALUCP and the Settlement Agreement regarding residential development in Zone D. The commenter notes and suggests for inclusion in the DEIR that Napa County has initiated an update to the ALUCP, which is anticipated to be completed by Summer 2024.

The City concurs that the General Plan Amendment and Pre-zoning require review by the Airport Land Use Commission ( ALUC).

As described in the DEIR, the Settlement Agreement does not prohibit the City from processing an application for a residential proposal within Zone D. Given that the annexation area remains outside 2-4
761
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
City limits and, by considering a General Plan Amendment and Pre-zoning only at this time, the City has no capacity to consider or approve any residential use prior to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan amendment approval or December 31, 2023, whichever occurs first.

To reflect the most recent status of the ALUCP, the City has made revisions under Section 2.8, Required Approvals, which are included in Section 3 of the FEIR, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR.

Response A.1-5
The commenter concludes their letter by requesting that the annexation should be consistent with the ALUCP and not permit new residential development in Zone D. The commenter further requests that the DEIR analyzes potential future subzone restrictions under Zone D.

Please refer to responses A.1-3 and A.1-4 for a discussion of residential development in Zone D.

Regarding future subzones, the City cannot use the DEIR to speculate on zoning districts, subzones, or zoning overlays that are not proposed in the project. Environmental analysis considers existing conditions at the time of publication of the Notice of Preparation, which was September 7th 2022 for the project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)(1). No revisions to the DEIR are required. 2-5
762
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Bay Delta Region
2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
707) 428-2002
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’ s Wildlife Since 1870
April 26, 2023
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
Post Office Box 7043
Corte Madera, CA 94976
[email protected]
Subject: Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2022090097, City of American Canyon, Napa County Dear Mr. Kennings:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) from the City of American Canyon (City) for the Paoli/Watson Lane Annexation Project (Project) pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1 CDFW provided comments in response to the EIR’ s Notice of Preparation (NOP) in a letter dated October 4, 2022.

CDFW is submitting comments on the EIR to inform the City, as the Lead Agency, of potentially significant impacts to biological resources associated with the Project.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is a Trustee Agency with responsibility under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15386 for commenting on projects that could impact fish, plant, and wildlife resources. CDFW is also considered a Responsible Agency if a project would require discretionary approval, such as permits issued under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program, or other provisions of the Fish and Game Code that afford protection to the state’s fish and wildlife trust resources.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: City of American Canyon
Objective: Annex 83 acres of an unincorporated area in Napa County into American Canyon city limits. Several parcels would be rezoned to urban land use, including 47 acres currently designated as Agricultural land to be changed to Industrial and Residential Estate land. The Project would promote development and extend Newell 1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

Letter A.2
A.2-1
A.2-2
A.2-3
2-6
763
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

Drive approximately one mile from State Route 29, southeast along the northern boundary of the annexation area, to its planned terminus at the northern limits of Watson Ranch.

Location: The annexation site is within unincorporated Napa County within the Sphere of Influence of the City of American Canyon and is surrounded by City limits to the east, west, and south centered at approximate Latitude 38.191004°N, Longitude 122.252360°W. Immediately west of the annexation area is Paoli Loop Road and State Route 29. The northern boundary of the annexation area parallels the terminus of Paoli Loop Road. The Union Pacific Railroad ( UPRR) runs through the east side of the annexation area and the annexation area is bounded to the south by the UPRR and vacant land and mixed residential/commercial uses further south.

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
California Endangered Species Act
Please be advised that a CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained if the Project has the potential to result in “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA, either during construction or over the life of the Project. The Project may impact Swainson’ s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), which are CESA listed as threatened species. Issuance of an ITP is subject to CEQA documentation; the CEQA document must specify impacts, mitigation measures, and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. If the Project will impact CESA listed species, early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to the Project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain an ITP.

CEQA requires a Mandatory Finding of Significance if a project is likely to substantially restrict the range or reduce the population of a threatened or endangered species. (Pub.

Resources Code, §§ 21001, subd. (c) & 21083; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15380, 15064, & 15065). Impacts must be avoided or mitigated to less-than-significant levels unless the CEQA Lead Agency makes and supports Findings of Overriding Consideration (FOC).

The CEQA Lead Agency’s FOC does not eliminate the Project proponent’s obligation to comply with CESA.

Lake and Streambed Alteration
Notification, pursuant to Fish and Game Code sections 1600 et. seq. is required for any activity that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow; change or use material from the bed, channel, or bank including associated riparian or wetland resources; or deposit or dispose of material where it may pass into a river, lake or stream. Work within ephemeral streams, washes, watercourses with a subsurface flow, and floodplains are subject to notification requirements. Thank you for including Mitigation Measure BIO-5 which requires the Project to obtain an LSA Agreement prior to impacting A.2-4
A.2-3
cont.

A.2-6
A.2-5
2-7
764
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

any streams or lakes. CDFW, as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, will consider the CEQA document for the Project. CDFW may not execute the final LSA Agreement until it has complied with CEQA as a Responsible Agency.

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. Based on the Project's avoidance of significant impacts on biological resources with implementation of mitigation measures, including those CDFW recommends in Attachment A, CDFW concludes that an EIR is appropriate for the Project.

I. Subsequent Project CEQA Evaluation
COMMENT 1: For future development within the Project site, Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 requires a “preliminary biological resource screening ” to determine if a biological resources assessment is necessary; however, it is unclear how adequate mitigation measures would be identified to reduce impacts to biological resources to less-thansignificant. CEQA Guidelines section 15168, subdivision (c)(4) states, “Where the later activities involve site-specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operation were within the scope of the program EIR” and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4, subdivision (a)(2) requires that “Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. In the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, mitigation measures can be incorporated into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design” (also see Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.6, subd. (b)).

MM BIO-1 does not require a written checklist to outline fully enforceable mitigation measures of future development projects.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: Pursuant to our response letter to the EIR’s NOP, based on CEQA Guidelines section 15183.3 and associated Appendix N Checklist, and consistent with other program EIRs, CDFW recommends creating a procedure or checklist for evaluating subsequent Project impacts on biological resources to determine if they are within the scope of the Program EIR or if an additional environmental document is warranted. This checklist should be included as an attachment to the EIR. Future analysis shall include all special-status species and sensitive habitats including, but not limited to, species considered rare, threatened, or endangered species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15380.

When used appropriately, the checklist should be accompanied by enough relevant information and reasonable inferences to support a “within the scope” of the EIR A.2-6
cont.

A.2-8
A.2-9
A.2-7
2-8
765
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

conclusion. For subsequent Project activities that may affect sensitive biological resources, a site-specific analysis shall be prepared by a Qualified Biologist to provide the necessary supporting information. In addition, the checklist should cite the specific portions of the EIR, including page and section references, containing the analysis of the subsequent Project activities’ significant effects and indicate whether it incorporates all applicable mitigation measures from the EIR.

II. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: Does the Project have the potential to threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or substantially reduce the number or restrict range of a rare or endangered plant or animal? COMMENT 2: Swainson’s Hawk – Environmental Setting and Mitigation Measure Shortcoming
Issue: The Project may impact nesting Swainson’s hawk, which occurs in Napa County.

MM BIO-2 is insufficient to reduce potential impacts to Swainson’s hawk to less-thansignificant. BIO-2 only requires surveys for Swainson’s hawk be conducted between January 1 and March 20 and recommends, but does not require, that the Project follow the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’s Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley.

Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant: There are potentially suitable Swainson's hawk nest trees on and adjacent to the Project site, and open areas potentially suitable for foraging. If active Swainson’s hawk nests are not detected by surveys or appropriate buffer zones are not established , Swainson’s hawk could be directly impacted by the removal of nest trees or experience indirect impacts from noise and visual disturbance from Project activities resulting in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or reduced health and vigor and loss of young, thereby, substantially reducing the number of the species.

Swainson’s hawk is CESA listed as a threatened species and therefore, is considered to be a threatened species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15380. The estimated historical population of Swainson’s hawk was nearly 17,000 pairs; however, in the late 20th century, Bloom (1980) estimated a population of only 375 pairs. The decline was primarily a result of habitat loss from development ( CDFW 2016). The most recent survey conducted in 2009 estimated the population at 941 breeding pairs. The species is currently threatened by loss of nesting and foraging habitat (e.g., from agricultural shifts to less crops that provide less suitable habitat), urban development, environmental contaminants (e.g., pesticides), and climate change (CDFW 2016).

Therefore, if an active Swainson’s hawk nest is disturbed by the Project, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the number of a threatened species, which is A.2-9 cont.

A.2-10
A.2-11
2-9
766
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

considered a Mandatory Finding of Significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (a)(1).

Recommended Mitigation Measure: For an accurate environmental setting, to reduce impacts to Swainson’s hawk to less-than-significant, and to comply with CESA, CDFW recommends adding the following mitigation measure:

Swainson’s Hawk Surveys and Avoidance: If Project activities are scheduled during the nesting season for Swainson’s hawks (March 1 to August 31), prior to beginning work on this Project, Swainson’s hawk surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with experience surveying for and detecting the species pursuant to the Recommended timing and methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley Swainson’s Hawk (2000)2
survey protocol, within 0.5-mile of the Project site each year that Project activities occur. Pursuant to the above survey protocol, surveys shall be completed for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to a project’s initiation. If the qualified biologist identifies nesting Swainson’s hawks, the Project shall implement a 0.5-mile no-disturbance buffer zone around the nest. Project activities shall be prohibited within the buffer zone between March 1 and August 31, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. If take of Swainson’s hawk cannot be avoided, the Project shall consult with CDFW pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP.

COMMENT 3: Tricolored Blackbird – Environmental Setting and Mitigation Measure Shortcoming
Issue: There are several documented occurrences of tricolored blackbird occurring in the vicinity of the Project, including approximately 1 mile north of the annexation area.

The Project site is within the range of and appears to contain suitable habitat for tricolored blackbird. MM BIO-2 requires a 150-foot buffer for passerines may not be sufficient to avoid impacts to tricolored blackbird.

Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant: If active tricolored blackbird nests are not detected by the proposed surveys or appropriate buffer zones are not established, tricolored blackbird could be disturbed by Project activities resulting in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or reduced health and vigor and loss of young, thereby substantially reducing the number of the species. Tricolored blackbird is CESA listed as a threatened species and therefore, is considered to be a threatened species pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15380. Therefore, if an active tricolored blackbird nest is disturbed by the Project, the Project may result in a substantial reduction in the number of a threatened species, which is considered a Mandatory Finding of Significance pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15065, subdivision (a)(1). 2 Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2000.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83990&inline A.2-11 cont.

A.2-12
A.2-13
2-10
767
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

Recommended Mitigation Measure: For an accurate environmental setting, to comply with CESA, and to reduce impacts to tricolored blackbird to less-than-significant, CDFW recommends including the following mitigation measure.

Tricolored Blackbird Avoidance. If nesting tricolored blackbird or evidence of their presence is found during nesting bird surveys within 500 feet of Project activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately, and work shall not occur without written approval from CDFW allowing the Project to proceed. Project activities shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. Presence of nesting tricolored blackbird may require a CESA ITP before Project activities may commence.

COMMENT 4: Special-Status Plants – Environmental Setting and Mitigation Measure Shortcoming
Issue: The Project site has potentially suitable habitat for several special-status plants, including, but not limited to, two-fork clover (Trifolium amoenum), which is federally listed as endangered, has a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)3 1B.1, and has historically been observed at the Project site. Protocol level surveys for plants were not conducted to determine whether or not special-status plants occur within the annexation area.

Specific impacts, why they may occur and be potentially significant: If specialstatus plants are present and not detected by the appropriate surveys, the Project may result in potential significant impacts through crushing and killing plants and impacting viable seeds in the soil.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: For an accurate environmental setting and to reduce impacts to plants to less-than-significant, CDFW recommends including the following mitigation measure.

Pre-Project Special-Status Plant Surveys. A Qualified Biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for special- status plants, and if habitat is present, shall conduct a botanical survey during the appropriate blooming period and conditions for all special-status plants that have the potential to occur, prior to the start of construction. More than one year of surveys may be necessary. Surveys shall be conducted following CDFW’s Protocol for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Survey-Protocols#377281280-plants). Survey reports shall be submitted to CDFW for written approval prior to the start of construction. 3 CRPR rank definitions are available in CDFW’s Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109383&inline) and on the California Native Plant Society website (https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-rare-plant-ranks).

A.2-14
A.2-15
A.2-16
2-11
768
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

If any special-status plant species are observed, the Project shall fully avoid direct and indirect impacts to all individuals and prepare and implement a CDFW-approved avoidance plan prior to Project activities. If impacts cannot be avoided, the Project shall provide compensatory habitat at a minimum 3:1 ratio including preparing, implementing, and funding in perpetuity a long-term management plan, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.

III. Would the Project 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 CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
COMMENT 5: Burrowing Owl – Mitigation Measure Shortcoming Issue: If the Project cannot avoid wintering western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), MM BIO-3 states that the Project will utilize “additional measures such as passive relocation during the nonbreeding season and construction buffers of 200 feet during the breeding season.” CDFW does not consider eviction of burrowing owls (i.e., passive removal of an owl from its burrow or other shelter) as a “take” avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measure, and a 200-foot buffer may be insufficient to reduce impacts to this species to less-than-significant.

Additionally, MM BIO-3 indicates that surveys for burrowing owl would be conducted 30 days prior to Project activities; however, this is inconsistent with the survey requirements in the Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) referenced in MM BIO-3.

Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant: The Project could result in injury or mortality of adult burrowing owl, and a permanent reduction of burrowing owl habitat in Napa County.

Burrowing owl is a Species of Special Concern (SSC) because the species’ population viability and survival are adversely affected by risk factors such as precipitous declines from habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation; evictions from nesting sites without habitat mitigation; wind turbine mortality; human disturbance; and eradication of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) resulting in a loss of suitable burrows required by burrowing owls for nesting, protection from predators, and shelter Shuford and Gardali 2008; CDFW 2012 Staff Report; personal communication, CDFW Statewide Burrowing Owl Coordinator Esther Burkett, May 13, 2022). Preliminary analyses of regional patterns for breeding populations of burrowing owls have detected declines both locally in their central and southern coastal breeding areas, and statewide where the species has experienced breeding range retraction (CDFW 2012 Staff Report; personal communication, Esther Burkett, May 13, 2022).

A.2-16
cont.

A.2-17
2-12
769
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

Historically, burrowing owl populations were locally abundant within portions of Solano County. Burrowing owls are no longer abundant and habitat loss caused by development is the most immediate threat to burrowing owls in high growth areas of the San Francisco Bay Area, and loss of burrowing owl habitat will likely continue well into the future (Townsend and Lenihan 2007). As urbanization increases and local burrowing owl populations decline, they become vulnerable to stochastic events demographic, genetic, and environmental) associated with small population size, creating the potential for an extinction “vortex” (Gilpin and Soulé 1986 as cited in Townsend and Lenihan 2007).

The Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) states, “current scientific literature supports the conclusion that mitigation for permanent habitat loss necessitates replacement with an equivalent or greater habitat area for breeding, foraging, wintering, dispersal…”
Based on the above, if the Project would result in impacts to burrowing owl, Project impacts to burrowing owls would be potentially significant.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: To reduce impacts to burrowing owl to less-thansignificant, CDFW recommends including the below mitigation measure.

Burrowing Owl Surveys. To protect wintering burrowing owl, a Qualified Biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment, and surveys if warranted based on the habitat assessment, pursuant to the Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) survey methodology prior to Project activities beginning during the non-breeding wintering season (September 1 to January 31), unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. Any deviations from the survey methodology must be approved in writing by CDFW. If burrowing owl is detected, CDFW shall be immediately notified and a Qualified Biologist shall establish suitable buffers pursuant to the above survey methodology which shall be a minimum of 500 meters (1,640 feet) to ensure the owl is not disturbed by Project activities, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.

To prevent encroachment, the established buffers shall be clearly marked by high visibility material. Detected burrowing owls shall be avoided pursuant to the buffer zone prescribed in the Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW, and any eviction plan shall be subject to CDFW review. Please be advised that CDFW does not consider eviction of burrowing owls (i.e., passive removal of an owl from its burrow or other shelter) as a “take” avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measure; therefore, off -site habitat compensation shall be included in the eviction plan. Habitat compensation acreages shall be approved by CDFW, as the amount depends on site-specific conditions and completed before Project construction unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. It shall also include placement of a conservation easement and A.2-17
cont.

A.2-18
2-13
770
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

preparation, implementation, and funding of a long-term management plan prior to Project construction.

COMMENT 6: American Badger – Environmental Setting and Mitigation Measure Shortcoming
Issue: The Project is within the range4 of the American badger (Taxidea taxus). The Project is located within grassland habitat that may be suitable for American badger.

Badgers range throughout most of California and can dig burrows in a single day; therefore, the species may occupy the Project site and adjacent habitat prior to Project construction (Ministry of Environment Ecosystems 2007 as cited in Brehme et al. 2015).

Additionally, the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Predicted Habitat Suitability for most of the site is mapped as Medium Suitability.

Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant: American badger is an SSC. The Project may result in injury or mortality to adult or young badgers, or burrow abandonment. Therefore, if American badgers are present on or adjacent to the Project area, Project impacts to American badger would be potentially significant.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: For an adequate environmental setting and to reduce impacts to American badger to less-than-significant, CDFW recommends that the EIR include the following mitigation measure.

American Badger Avoidance. A Qualified Biologist shall survey the Project site and adjacent habitat for signs of American badger and suitable burrows. If occupied burrows are detected, the Project shall avoid occupied burrows and establish a sufficient buffer as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by CDFW. If badgers are found on or adjacent to the Project site and cannot be avoided the Project shall prepare and implement a CDFW-approved relocation plan.

COMMENT 7: Pallid Bat – Environmental Setting and Mitigation Measure Shortcoming
Issue: The annexation area includes buildings and trees which may provide suitable habitat for roosting bats, including pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), an SSC which is known to roost in tree bark, hollows, or foliage, as well as, man-made structures Johnston 2004). The EIR does not include any measures to avoid or minimize impacts to special-status bats.

Specific impacts and why they may occur and be significant: Mature trees and buildings scheduled for removal could provide suitable roosting habitat for pallid bat. 4 The American badger range map is available at
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2598&inline=1 A.2-18
cont.

A.2-19
A.2-21
A.2-20
2-14
771
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

These bats are experiencing population declines in California (Brylski et al. 1998). Bats are long-lived and have a low reproductive rate (Johnston 2004); therefore, each mortality can have a protracted effect on the reproductive rate of the population.

Removal of habitat could result in injury or mortality of these special-status bats, which would be a potentially significant impact.

Recommended Mitigation Measure: For an adequate environmental setting and to reduce impacts to pallid bat to less-than-significant, CDFW recommends that the EIR include the following mitigation measure.

Bat Habitat Assessment and Surveys. Prior to Project activities that would remove trees or modify buildings or bridges, a Qualified Biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats. The habitat assessment shall be conducted a minimum of 30 to 90 days prior to the beginning of Project activities.

For tree removal, the habitat assessment shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (e.g., cavities, crevices in wood and bark, exfoliating bark for colonial species, suitable canopy for foliage roosting species, and anthropogenic structures such as buildings, bridges, and culverts). If suitable habitat is found, it shall be flagged or otherwise clearly marked. Trees shall be removed only if: a) presence of bats is presumed, or documented during the surveys described below, in trees with suitable habitat, and removal using the two-step removal process detailed below occurs only during seasonal periods of bat activity, from approximately March 1 through April 15 and September 1 through October 15, or b) after a qualified biologist conducts night emergence surveys or completes visual examination of roost features that establish absence of roosting bats. Two-step tree removal shall be conducted over two consecutive days, as follows: 1) the first day (in the afternoon), under the direct supervision and instruction by a qualified biologist with experience conducting two-step tree removal, limbs and branches shall be removed by a tree cutter using chainsaws only. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark fissures shall be avoided, and 2) the second day the entire tree shall be removed.

If roosting bats are detected in anthropogenic structures that will be impacted by Project activities, a bat avoidance and exclusion plan shall be implemented. The plan shall recognize that both maternity and winter roosting seasons are vulnerable times for bats and require exclusion outside of these times, generally between March 1 and April 15 or September 1 and October 15 when temperatures are sufficiently warm. Work operations shall cease if bats are found roosting within the Project area and CDFW shall be consulted.

A.2-21
cont.
2-15
772
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in EIRs and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. €.) Accordingly, please report any special-status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNDDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final.

Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089).

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EIR to assist the County in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Melanie Day, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory), at (707) 210-4415 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Erin Chappell
Regional Manager
Bay Delta Region
Attachment A: Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ec: Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH No. 2022090097) A.2-22
2-16
773
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

REFERENCES
Bloom, P. H. 1980. The status of the Swainson’s hawk in California, 1979. Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento, CA, USA.

Brehme, C.S.; Hathaway, S.A.; Booth, R.; Smith, B.H.; and Fisher, R.N. 2015. Research of American Badgers in Western San Diego County, 2014. Data Summary prepared for California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the San Diego Association of Governments. 24pp. (42pp. with Appendix).

Brylski, Phillip V.; Collins, Paul W.; Peirson, Elizabeth D.; Rainey, William E.; and Kucera, Thomas E. 1998. Draft Terrestrial Mammals Species of Special Concern in California. Report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2016. 5-year Status Review:

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). Prepared for the California Fish and Game Commission. Nongame Bird and Mammal Program 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA.

Johnston, D., Tartarian, G., and Poerson, E. 2004. California Bat Mitigation Techniques, Solutions, and Effectiveness. California Department of Transportation Office of Biological Studies and Technical Assistance. Sacramento, CA.

Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Townsend, S.E. and C. Lenihan. 2007. Burrowing Owl status in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. Proceedings of the Burrowing Owl Symposium 60-69. The Institute for Bird Populations 2007.
2-17
774
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

ATTACHMENT A
Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ( MMRP) CDFW provides the following language to be incorporated into the MMRP for the Project. 5 Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee, 2000.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83990&inline Biological Resources (BIO)
Mitigation
Measure
MM)
Description Timing Responsible
Party
MM BIO-1
Subsequent Project CEQA Evaluation. A procedure or
checklist for evaluating subsequent Project impacts on
biological resources shall be prepared to determine if the impacts are within the scope of the Program EIR or if an additional environmental document is warranted. This
checklist should be included as an attachment to the EIR.

Future analysis shall include all special-status species and sensitive habitats including, but not limited to, species considered rare, threatened, or endangered species
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15380.

When used appropriately, the checklist should be
accompanied by enough relevant information and
reasonable inferences to support a “within the scope” of the EIR conclusion. For subsequent Project activities that may affect sensitive biological resources, a site-specific analysis should be prepared by a Qualified Biologist to provide the necessary supporting information. In addition, the checklist shall cite the specific portions of the EIR, including page and section references, containing the analysis of the
subsequent Project activities’ significant effects and indicate whether it incorporates all applicable mitigation measures from the EIR.

Prior to
Ground
Disturbance
Project
Applicant
MM BIO-2
Swainson’s Hawk Surveys and Avoidance: If Project
activities are scheduled during the nesting season for
Swainson’s hawks (March 1 to August 31), prior to
beginning work on this Project, Swainson’s hawk surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist with experience surveying for and detecting the species pursuant to the Recommended timing and methodology for Swainson’s
Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley
Swainson’s Hawk (2000)5 survey protocol, within 0.5-mile of the Project site each year that Project activities occur. 2-18
775
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

Pursuant to the above survey protocol, surveys shall be completed for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to a Project’s initiation. If the qualified biologist identifies nesting Swainson’s hawks, the Project shall
implement a 0.5-mile no-disturbance buffer zone around the nest. Project activities shall be prohibited within the buffer zone between March 1 and August 31, unless otherwise
approved in writing by CDFW. If take of Swainson’s hawk cannot be avoided, the Project shall consult with CDFW
pursuant to CESA and obtain an ITP.

MM BIO-3
Tricolored Blackbird Avoidance. If nesting tricolored
blackbird or evidence of their presence is found during nesting bird surveys within 500 feet of Project activities, CDFW shall be notified immediately, and work shall not
occur without written approval from CDFW allowing the
Project to proceed. Project activities shall not occur within 500 feet of an active nest unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. Presence of nesting tricolored blackbird may require a CESA ITP before Project activities may
commence.

Prior to
Ground
Disturbance
or Impacts
to
Vegetation
and
continuing
over the
course of
the Project
Project
Applicant
MM BIO-4
Pre-Project Special-Status Plant Surveys. A Qualified
Biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for special0status plants, and if habitat is present, shall conduct a botanical survey during the appropriate blooming period and conditions for all special- status plants that have the potential to occur, prior to the start of construction. More than one year of surveys may be necessary. Surveys shall be
conducted following CDFW’s Protocol for Surveying and
Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant
Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ SurveyProtocols#377281280-plants). Survey reports shall be submitted to CDFW for written approval prior to the start of construction. If any special-status plant species are
observed, the Project shall fully avoid direct and indirect impacts to all individuals and prepare and implement a
CDFW-approved avoidance plan prior to Project activities. If impacts cannot be avoided, the Project shall provide
compensatory habitat at a minimum 3:1 ratio including
preparing, implementing, and funding in perpetuity a longterm management plan, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW.

Prior to
Ground
Disturbance
or Impacts
to
Vegetation
Project
Applicant
MM BIO-5
Burrowing Owl Surveys. To protect wintering burrowing owl, a Qualified Biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment, and surveys if warranted based on the habitat assessment, pursuant to the Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) survey methodology
Prior to
Ground
Disturbance
or Impacts
to
Project
Applicant
2-19
776
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

prior to Project activities beginning during the non-breeding wintering season (September 1 to January 31), unless
otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. Any deviations
from the survey methodology must be approved in writing by CDFW. If burrowing owl is detected, CDFW shall be
immediately notified and a Qualified Biologist shall establish suitable buffers pursuant to the above survey methodology which shall be a minimum of 500 meters (1,640 feet) to
ensure the owl is not disturbed by Project activities, unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. To prevent
encroachment, the established buffers shall be clearly
marked by high visibility material. Detected burrowing owls shall be avoided pursuant to the buffer zone prescribed in the Department of Fish and Game Staff Report on
Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012), unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW, and any eviction plan shall be subject to CDFW review. Please be advised that CDFW does not
consider eviction of burrowing owls (i.e., passive removal of an owl from its burrow or other shelter) as a “take”
avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measure; therefore, off-site habitat compensation shall be included in the
eviction plan. Habitat compensation acreages shall be
approved by CDFW, as the amount depends on site specific conditions, and completed before Project construction
unless otherwise approved in writing by CDFW. It shall also include placement of a conservation easement and
preparation, implementation, and funding of a long-term management plan prior to Project construction.

Vegetation
MM BIO-6
American Badger Avoidance. A Qualified Biologist shall
survey the Project site and adjacent habitat for signs of American badger and suitable burrows. If occupied burrows are detected, the Project shall avoid occupied burrows and establish a sufficient buffer as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by CDFW. If badgers are found on or adjacent to the Project site and cannot be avoided the
Project shall prepare and implement a CDFW- approved
relocation plan.

Prior to
Ground
Disturbance
and
continuing
over the
course of
the Project
Project
Applicant
MM BIO-7
Bat Habitat Assessment and Surveys. Prior to Project
activities that would remove trees or modify buildings or bridges, a Qualified Biologist shall conduct a habitat
assessment for bats. The habitat assessment shall be
conducted a minimum of 30 to 90 days prior to the beginning of Project activities.

For tree removal, the habitat assessment shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (e.g., cavities, crevices in wood and bark, exfoliating bark for colonial species, suitable canopy for foliage roosting species, and anthropogenic structures such as buildings, bridges, and Prior to
Ground
Disturbance
or Impacts
to
Vegetation
or
Anthropoge
nic
Structures
Project
Applicant
2-20
777
Sean Kennings
City of American Canyon
April 26, 2023

culverts). If suitable habitat is found, it shall be flagged or otherwise clearly marked. Trees shall be removed only if: a) presence of bats is presumed, or documented during the
surveys described below, in trees with suitable habitat, and removal using the two-step removal process detailed below occurs only during seasonal periods of bat activity, from approximately March 1 through April 15 and September 1
through October 15, or b) after a qualified biologist conducts night emergence surveys or completes visual examination of roost features that establish absence of roosting bats. Twostep tree removal shall be conducted over two consecutive days, as follows: 1) the first day (in the afternoon), under the direct supervision and instruction by a qualified biologist with experience conducting two-step tree removal, limbs and
branches shall be removed by a tree cutter using chainsaws only. Limbs with cavities, crevices, or deep bark fissures shall be avoided, and 2) the second day the entire tree shall be removed.

If roosting bats are detected in anthropogenic structures that will be impacted by Project activities, a bat avoidance and exclusion plan shall be implemented. The plan shall
recognize that both maternity and winter roosting seasons are vulnerable times for bats and require exclusion outside of these times, generally between March 1 and April 15 or September 1 and October 15 when temperatures are
sufficiently warm. Work operations shall cease if bats are found roosting within the Project area and CDFW shall be consulted.
2-21
778
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Letter A.2
COMMENTER: Erin Chappell, Regional Manager, Bay Delta Region, California Department of Fish and Wildlife
DATE: April 26, 2023
Response A.2-1
The commenter introduces the project as a project governed by CEQA and their input on potentially significant impacts to biological resources.

The commenter described CEQA as applicable to the proposed project. The City has and continues to undertake the CEQA process for the proposed project, such as preparing the Notice of Preparation, DEIR, and this FEIR.

Response A.2-2
The commenter reiterates its roles as a Trustee and Responsible Agency under CEQA.

Under Section 1.6, Lead Responsible, and Trustee Agencies, the DEIR notes that CDFW is a Trustee Agency due to the potential for impacts to rare or endangered species on the project site. No revisions to the DEIR are required.

Response A.2-3
The commenter summarizes the project objective and location.

This comment does not pertain to the DEIR or CEQA. Therefore, no additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.2-4
The commenter advises that a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Incidental Take Permit (ITP) must be obtained if the project may result in taking of Swainson’ s hawk or tricolored blackbird. The commenter notes that issuance of an ITP must be covered by a CEQA document.

As discussed on page 4.4-4 of the DEIR, there are several records of Swainson’ s hawks nesting within five miles of the project site. No tricolored blackbirds were noted on the project site during queries of various databases to obtain comprehensive information on special- status species, as discussed in page 4.4-3 of the DEIR. The CEQA document presents a programmatic analysis since no site-specific development plans are yet to be submitted or considered by the City. As noted under Impact BIO-1, mitigation measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would be required to avoid and minimize potential impacts to nesting birds, such as Swainson’ s hawk and tricolored blackbird. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require a site-specific biological resources assessment to determine if, in fact, Swainson’ s hawk or tricolored blackbird are subject to be impacted by the project. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would require a pre-construction survey to determine if there are nesting birds, such as Swainson’ s hawk or tricolored blackbird on the project site at the time site-specific development plans are submitting for review and approval by the City. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would include consultation with CDFW, if necessary. Overall, no ITPs are required at this programmatic stage and adequate mitigation measures are in place to identify and, if warranted, to mitigate impacts to any species protected under CESA prior to any project approval. No revisions to the DEIR are necessary. 2-22
779
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response A.2-5
The commenter summarizes CEQA requirements regarding Mandatory Finding of Significance for threatened or endangered species and Findings of Overriding Consideration.

The DEIR identifies the potentially significant impacts of the project, including potentially significant impacts to biological resources. All impacts of the project would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures found throughout the DEIR. Specifically, mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would mitigate impacts to threatened or endangered species to less than significant levels. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is not required, as this is a requirement only when a significant impact is unavoidable ( CEQA Guidelines Section 15093). Therefore, as the DEIR already provides determinations of potentially significant impacts of the project, no additional revisions to the DEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response A.2-6
The commenter summarizes Fish and Game Code sections 1600 et. seq. regarding lake and streambed alteration (LSA). The commenter thanks the City for including Mitigation Measure BIO-5, which requires obtaining an LSA agreement, and reiterates their role as a Responsible Agency under CEQA.

Game Code Section 1600 et. seq. As the commenter acknowledges, Mitigation Measure BIO-5 on page 4.4-18 of the Draft EIR requires project applicants to obtain an LSA as applicable. Therefore, no additional revisions to the DEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response A.2-7
The commenter introduces their comments and recommendations to assist the City in identifying and/ or mitigating impacts to biological resources and concurs that an EIR was the appropriate level of environmental review for the project.

The commenter provides no specific comments on the adequacy of the DEIR, but rather introduces comments that follow later in the letter. Therefore, no revisions to the DEIR are necessary in response to this comment. Please see the remaining responses below for responses to the later comments provided in this comment letter.

In addition, CDFW references Attachment A to their letter, which includes a summary of the language that they believe should be incorporated into the MMRP for the Project. In the subsequent responses, the City provides a response to each specific suggested revision made in Attachment A. In addition, please refer to Section 3 of the FEIR, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR, which shows the revisions that the City has made to the mitigation measures, in response to CDFW’ s comment. These revisions will be included in the MMRP for the project.

Response A.2-8
The commenter quotes CEQA Guidelines regarding activities within the scope of a program EIR and enforceability of mitigation. The commenter opines that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 as written does not include a mechanism to ensure that mitigation set forth in the DEIR will be fully enforceable for future development projects facilitated by the annexation. 2-23
780
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 does not explicitly require preparation of a checklist that outlines fully enforceable mitigation measures of future development projects to accompany the Biological Resources Assessment required under Mitigation Measure BIO-1 because Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires a preliminary biological screening. As discussed below in Response A.2-9, the City is revising Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to ensure that a reconnaissance survey is conducted prior to evaluation of whether a complete biological resources assessment is required. This revision would improve enforceability of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. Additionally, the City’s community development department would review all future development proposals on the project site to determine whether they are within the scope of the EIR or require additional CEQA review. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.2-9
The commenter suggests creating a procedure or checklist to evaluate subsequent project impacts on biological resources that may result from this programmatic DEIR. The checklist should include site-specific analysis prepared by a qualified biologist and support that the project is within the scope of the DEIR conclusion and cite specific portions of the DEIR.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 ensures site-specific analysis for projects facilitated by this DEIR.

However, in response to this comment, the City is revising Section 4.4, Biological Resources, as shown in Section 3 of the FEIR, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR ( see page 3-1 and 3-2, which identifies the revisions to Mitigation Measure BIO-1). Additionally, as discussed under Response A.2- 8, development proposals on the project site would potentially require additional CEQA review if such proposals are outside of the scope of the EIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment beyond those identified in Section 3.

Response A.2-10
The commenter is concerned that Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would not sufficiently reduce impacts to Swainson’ s hawk to be less than significant since the timing for surveys is only from January 1 to March 20 and since the Swainson’ s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’ s Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’ s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’ s Central Valley is recommended but not required.

project site. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires a pre-construction surveys and subsequent avoidance for Swainson’ s hawk for future development facilitated by the project, which reduces impacts to less than significant levels. However, in response to this comment, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been revised to require the use of Swainson’ s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee’ s Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’ s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’ s Central Valley. The City has revised Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to ensure clarity on the timing and requirements around Swainson’ s hawk surveys. These revisions are included in Section 3 of the FEIR, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR ( see pages 3-2 and 3-3, which identifies the revisions to Mitigation Measure BIO-2). Please refer to Response A.2-12 for further revisions regarding Swainson’ s hawk.

No additional revisions to the DEIR are necessary in response to this comment beyond those identified in Section 3.

Response A.2-11
The commenter notes the potentially suitable Swainson’ s hawk habitat near the project site and notes the potential to impact Swainson' s hawk through indirect noise and visual impacts if surveys 2-24
781
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
and buffers are not adequate. The commenter summarizes Swainson' s hawk status as a CESA threatened species and notes that the project could result in a substantial reduction in Swainson' s hawk if nests are disturbed.

Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-4 would reduce impacts to Swainson’ s hawk to less than significant. As discussed in Response A.2-10 and Response A.2-12, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is revised consistent with the commenter’ s recommendations. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.2-12
In order to reduce impacts to Swainson’ s hawk, the commenter recommends mitigation to perform comprehensive surveys and avoidance tactics.

The City notes that most recommendations regarding Swainson’ s hawk are already integrated into Mitigation Measure BIO-2. The City has made revisions in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, which are included in Section 3 of the FEIR, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR, including those referenced in Response A.2-10 to address the commenter’ s concern. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.2-13
The commenter notes documented occurrences of tricolored blackbird in the vicinity of the project site and is concerned that Mitigation Measure BIO-2 does not adequately avoid impacts to tricolored blackbird. The commenter suggests that tricolored blackbird nests may be disturbed by the project if they are not detected during pre-construction surveys or appropriate buffer zones are not established.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce impacts to migratory nesting birds, including tricolored blackbirds, to levels that are less than significant. The City, as discussed in Response A.2-14 and Response A.2-12, has revised Mitigation Measure BIO-2 to increase the protective buffer for tricolored blackbirds. No additional revisions to the DEIR are necessary in response to this comment.

Response A.2-14
The commenter recommends including mitigation specifically for tricolored blackbirds, including an increased buffer, notification of CDFW, and potentially acquiring an ITP.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2 provides protection for tricolored blackbirds and reduces impacts to less than significant. However, the commenters recommendations may further reduce impacts.

Accordingly, the City revised Section 4.4, Biological Resources, as shown in Response A.2-12 and Section 3 of the FEIR, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.2-15
The commenter notes that there is suitable habitat on the project site for special- status plants, including those that may be federally listed as endangered. The commenter is concerned that special- status plants may be impacted from implementing the project.

As discussed on pages 4.4-3 and 4.4-4 of Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of the DEIR, queries of various databases were made for analysis in the DEIR to determine special- status species that are likely to occur on the project site. Special- status species include federally listed species. The queries 2-25
782
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
found 73 special-status plant species, but none of the plant species were found to have moderate or greater potential to occur within the project site. Further, as discussed in Response A.2-16, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been revised to further protect botanical resources and would identify special- status plant species on the project site prior to commencement of development projects facilitated by the project. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.2-16
The commenter recommends inclusion of mitigation to perform pre-project surveys for special- status plant species and recommends a specific protocol to follow.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 addresses all biological resources, and thus would effectively protect special- status plant species, including with the minor revisions show in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would initiate a survey of each proposed project site and subsequent assessment, when necessary. To provide additional clarification or guidance, the City has revised Mitigation Measure BIO-1 as shown in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR, to include timing for botanical surveys, protocol for such surveys, and actions to be taken in the event of discovery of special- status plant species. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.2-17
The commenter takes issue with the provision in Mitigation Measure BIO-3 regarding passive relocation of burrowing owls, if necessary, as well as how early the survey can be conducted. The commenter summarizes the importance of protecting burrowing owls and their habitat.

The City revised Mitigation Measure BIO-3 as shown in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR.

Passive relocation is offered as an example of measures that could be taken when habitat avoidance is not feasible. The City further acknowledges the importance of mitigating potentially significant impacts to burrowing owls and their habitat and the possibility of occurrence on the project site, as discussed on page 4.4-4 of Section 4, Biological Resources, in the DEIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment beyond those identified in Section 3. Revisions are included in Section 3 of the FEIR, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR ( see page 3-3, which identifies the revisions to Mitigation Measure BIO-3).

Response A.2-18
The commenter provides suggested revisions to burrowing owl mitigation to better protect them and their habitat.

As discussed above under Response A.2-17, the DEIR includes Mitigation Measure BIO-3 to reduce impacts to burrowing owls to less-than-significant levels. However, in response to this comment and comment A.2-17, above, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 has been revised to include additional clarification on mitigating impacts to burrowing owls, such as specifying survey timing, specifying an avoidance buffer, and removing passive relocation in favor of off-site compensation. Specific revisions to Mitigation Measure BIO-3 are included in Section 3 of the FEIR, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment. 2-26
783
City of American Canyon
Paoli/ Watson Lane Annexation Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR Final Environmental Impact Report
Response A.2-19
The commenter notes that the project site is in the range and potentially suitable for American badger habitat. American badgers are special- status species.

As noted on page 4.4-4 of Section 4, Biological Resources, of the DEIR, American badgers have a low potential to occur within the project site according to databases queried during preparation of the DEIR. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 on pages 4.4-14 and 4.4-15, as revised in Section 3, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR, would reduce potentially significant impacts to special- status species to less than significant. American badgers are a special- status species. Therefore, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to American badgers to less than significant. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.2-20
The commenter suggests a new mitigation measure to survey for and avoid American badgers and their burrows.

As discussed above under Response A.2-19, impacts to special- status species, such as American badgers and their habitat, would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, as revised in this FEIR. Revisions to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 are included in Section 3 of the FEIR, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR. No additional revisions to the DEIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.2-21
The commenter notes that the project site may provide habitat for roosting bats that may be specialstatus species. The commenter provides context for bat population decline and the importance of protecting their habitat. The commenter provides a recommended mitigation measure to protect bat habitat and bats themselves.

As described in the Biological Resources Assessment for the project site, which is provided as Appendix B to the DEIR, special- status bats such as pallid bat, Townsend’ s big-eared bat, and big free-tailed bat were not expected to occur within the project site nor was suitable roosting habitat present. However, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is revised to specifically require contacting CDFW for guidance on roosting bats if they are discovered during a site-specific survey and assessment, as habitat conditions could change over time. The revisions to Mitigation Measure BIO-1 are included in Section 3 of the FEIR, Minor Revisions to the Draft EIR. No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.

Response A.2-22
The commenter reminds the City to record instances of special- status species or natural communities recorded on the project site to CDFW and reminds the City of CEQA filing fees. The commenter concludes their letter thanking the City for opportunity to comment and provides contact information to follow up.

The City thanks the commenter for their reminder of recording obligations and filing fees. This comment does not pertain to the DEIR or CEQA, other than describing the circulation of the Notice of Availability of the DEIR. Therefore, no additional revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this comment.
2-27
784
City of

VALLEJO
California
Water Department 202 Fleming Hill Road Vallejo CA
94589
707.648. 4307
CW128476.1}April 28, 2023 VIA PROJECT PORTAL AND ELECTRONIC MAIL to the following website and email addresses: https://portal. laserfiche. com/ f0791/forms/ hkadg; jholley@cityofamericancanyon. org; cityclerk@cityofamericancanyon. org; wross@lawross. com; bcooper@cityofamericancanyon. orgAttn: Jason Holley, City ManagerandBrent Cooper, AICP, Community Development
Director Cityof American Canyon
4381 Broadway Street, Suite
201 American Canyon, California 94503 Re.: City ofVallejo Comments onthe Draft Environmental Impact Report
for Paoli/ Watson
Lane Annexation DearMr. Cooper, Thank you for providing theCityof Vallejo (Vallejo) the opportunity tocommentonthePaoli/Watson Lane Annexation Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which proposes toannex83acres of privately owned property intothe City of American Canyon asapartofalarger development project, including the Promontory Subdivision and Residences at Napa Junction. The purpose ofthis letter is toprovide the CityofAmerican Canyon (American Canyon) comments Vallejo deems vitaltoVallejo citizens and regional
water customers, including American Canyon. 1. The DEIR failed toidentify areas of known controversy by failing toconsider the ongoing litigation between American Canyon and Vallejo relative to the 1996
Water Service Agreement (“ 1996 Agreement”)OnJuly 11, 2022, American Canyon filed itscomplaint against Vallejo for declaratory relief and breach ofcontract under the 1996 Agreement in City of American Canyon v. City of Vallejo Case No. 22CV000772) ( the “Litigation”). The Notice ofPreparation ofthis DEIR occurred on September 7, 2022. Despite ample time between American Canyon’ sinitiation ofthe Litigation and its preparation ofthe DEIR, the Litigation was not considered as part of the DEIR. The DEIR’sfailure to consider the impacts ofthe Litigation makes its findings ofless than significant without mitigation under Impact UTL-2unreliable andincomplete. The Litigation iscentered around Vallejo and American Canyon’s competing interpretations of the 1996 Agreement – thekey water supply document between the cities.

Ataminimum, theLitigation underscores uncertainties regarding American Canyon’swater supply and itswater supply planning. Therefore, Vallejo recommends American Canyon refrain from relying on Vallejo water toservethe Project andother developments while the Litigation
is ongoing. Letter
A.3 A.
3-2 A.
3-1
785

CW128476. 1}

2. The DEIR mischaracterizes the nature of the water Vallejo supplies to American Canyon.

The DEIR mischaracterizes Vallejo’ s water rights that supply American Canyon. Section 4.17.1 of the DEIR fails to recognize the place of use restrictions associated with Vallejo’ s water rights in stating, at page 4-17-2:

Under the Vallejo Agreement, a specific source is identified for Permit Water supply but not for Treated or Emergency Water,” and further states, “ A specific source for Treated Water is not identified in the Vallejo Agreement; thus, the ultimate source of this water is a blend of Vallejo’ s water sources.” Unequivocally, a “ blend of all of Vallejo’s water sources” is not used to provide American Canyon with potable water. Vallejo’ s only water right with an authorized place of use that includes any portion of American Canyon is License 7848, sometimes referred to as “ Vallejo Permit Water.” The authorized place of use for License 7848 does not extend to the whole of American Canyon.

Although a Water Supply Assessment is not required as part of this DEIR, there are several planned projects associated with this annexation that will have a cumulative impact on the water supply. Vallejo recommends that American Canyon perform a Cumulative Water Supply Assessment for all planned projects near the Paoli/ Watson Lane annexation area, and not simply piecemeal smaller projects without performing water supply assessments. As part of that cumulative assessment, American Canyon should consult with Vallejo to determine whether the Project site falls within the authorized place of use of License 7848. Vallejo also recommends that even if the Project is located within the authorized place of use for License 7848, American Canyon should consider developing an alternative water supply for the Project.

Engaging in a cumulative water supply assessment supports the purpose of the DEIR as a Programmatic EIR by considering broad programmatic issues early in the planning process. For example, the pre-zoning for the project expands the Residential Estate zoning area, allowing additional residences with a lot size of at least 1-acre. (ES 2-7, 2-9, 2-10.) However, the land use impact analysis finds that the pre-zoning for the project is consistent with American Canyon’ s General Plan objective of ensuring that land use development is coordinated with the ability to provide adequate public infrastructure, despite the uncertainty of American Canyon’ s water supply. ( 4.11-6.) The DEIR should evaluate the impact of increasing the acreage of the Residential Estate zoning area to ensure that the programmatic issues are properly addressed and mitigated before American Canyon relies on this DEIR’ s conclusion to allow projects to move forward. The additional impacts on water supply resources from expanding the Residential Estate zoning designation area are just one example of the DEIR failing to evaluate reasonably foreseeable impacts from the project.

A.3-4
A.3-5
A.3-6
2-29
786