Healdsburg City Council
November 3, 2025

August 2025
The proposed project would only cause elevated vibration levels during construction, as the proposed project would not involve any uses or operations that would generate substantial groundborne vibration. Although noise and vibration associated with the construction phase of the project would add to the noise and vibration environment in the immediate project vicinity, construction activities would be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours, consistent with Section

9.32.070 of the City’s Municipal Code.

The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during construction when activities such as grading, utilities placement, and parking lot construction occur. Table 9 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment at various distances. As shown in the table, the most substantial source of groundborne vibrations associated with project construction would be the use of vibratory compactors/rollers.

Table 8
Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings
PPV
mm/sec in/sec Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.15 to

0.30 0.006 to

0.019
Threshold of perception;
possibility of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause
damage of any type

2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the
vibration to which ruins and ancient
monuments should be subjected

2.5 0.10
Level at which continuous
vibrations begin to annoy
people
Virtually no risk of “architectural”
damage to normal buildings

5.0 0.20
Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings (this agrees with the
levels established for people
standing on bridges and
subjected to relative short
periods of vibrations)
Threshold at which there is a risk
of “architectural” damage to normal
dwelling - houses with plastered
walls and ceilings. Special types of
finish such as lining of walls,
flexible ceiling treatment, etc.,
would minimize “architectural”
damage
10 to 15 0.4 to 0.6
Vibrations considered
unpleasant by people subjected
to continuous vibrations and
unacceptable to some people
walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than
normally expected from traffic, but
would cause “architectural”
damage and possibly minor
structural damage
Source: Caltrans. Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2002.

Item 7.c
273 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
Table 9
Vibration Levels for Various Construction Equipment
Type of
Equipment
PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
PPV at 50 feet
(in/sec)
Peak Particle
Velocity at 100 Feet
(in/sec)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000
Auger/Drill Rigs 0.089 0.031 0.011
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025 0.009
Vibratory
Compactor/Roller

0.210 (less than 0.20
at 26 feet) 0.074 0.026
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines, May 2006.

However, as shown in the table, construction vibration levels are less than 0.2 in/sec threshold at distances of 26 feet. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction related vibrations, especially compactors/rollers, are located further than 26 feet from construction activities. At distance greater than 26 feet construction vibrations are not predicted to exceed acceptable levels.

Based on the above, development of the proposed project would not expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, and a less-thansignificant impact would occur. c. The nearest airport to the project site is the Healdsburg Municipal Airport, located approximately 5.5 miles northwest of the site. The site is not covered by an airport land use plan. Given that the project site is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the proposed project would not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels associated with such. Thus, no impact would occur.

Item 7.c
274 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through
projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
   
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
   
Discussion
a. The proposed project would include redevelopment of an existing public park. Given that the project would not include any residential, commercial, or industrial development, the project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. In addition, the project would not include extension of any major infrastructure. Thus, the proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, and no impact would occur.
b. The project site does not currently include existing housing or other habitable structures.

As such, the proposed project would not displace existing housing or people and would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur.

Item 7.c
275 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES.

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Fire protection?    
b. Police protection?    
c. Schools?    
d. Parks?    
e. Other Public Facilities?    
Discussion
a-e. The proposed project would include redevelopment of Badger Park, which would include improvements to the existing park and new park amenities such as two adventure play areas, a picnic area, a riverwalk trail, two new sports courts, an expanded dog park, and an expanded community garden. Generally, the proposed project would not result in increased demand for fire or police protection services relative to what currently occurs associated with the existing park use. In addition, the project would not include construction of any housing or development of new businesses. Thus, the project would not result in population growth such that demand for schools, parks, or other public facilities would increase. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-thansignificant impact related to the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, police protection facilities, schools, parks, or other public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

Item 7.c
276 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
XVI. RECREATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
   
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
   
Discussion
a,b. The proposed project would include redevelopment of the existing Badger Park. The proposed project would not result in population growth that could result in increased demand on existing recreational facilities or cause the construction of new or expansion of existing recreational facilities. Thus, a less-than-significant impact would occur related to recreation.

Item 7.c
277 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
XVII. TRANSPORTATION.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
LessThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
   
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?    
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
   
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?    
Discussion
a. The following discussions are based on the Transportation Initial Study Checklist prepared for the proposed project by W-Trans (see Appendix E).24

The law has changed with respect to how transportation-related impacts may be addressed under CEQA. Traditionally, lead agencies used level of service (LOS) to assess the significance of such impacts, with greater levels of congestion considered to be more significant than lesser levels. Enacted as part of SB 743 (2013), PRC Section 21099, subdivision (b)(1), directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency for certification and adoption proposed CEQA Guidelines addressing “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects within transit priority areas. Those criteria shall promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” Pursuant to SB 743, the Natural Resources Agency promulgated CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 in late 2018. It became effective in early 2019. Subdivision (a) of that section provides that “[g]enerally, vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.

Except as provided in subdivision (b)(2) below (regarding roadway capacity), a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact.” Please refer to Question ‘b’ for a discussion of VMT.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Currently, pedestrian and bicycle facilities are present in the project area. Specifically, paved sidewalks are located within the project vicinity on Heron Drive with sidewalks on the south side for its entire length and on the north side from 400 feet south of the intersection of South Fitch Mountain Road/Heron Drive to the eastern terminus of Heron Drive. The City of Healdsburg maintains three classes of bicycle facilities (Class I, Class II, and Class III). In the project area, a Class II bike lane exists on the north side of South Fitch Mountain Road between Greens Street and 650 feet east of Latimer Road. Bicycle facilities and pedestrian facilities are not planned in the study area according to the 24 W-Trans. Draft Transportation Initial Study Checklist for the Badger Park Master Plan Project. July 9, 2024.

Item 7.c
278 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
Healdsburg Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.25 Therefore, the project would not conflict with the existing or proposed facilities. However, the proposed project would provide additional trails through the park and connection to the Russian River.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing pedestrian or bicycle facilities.

Transit Service and Facilities
Transit service in the City of Healdsburg is provided by Sonoma County Transit (SCT).

The SCT provides fixed route bus service in Healdsburg. Route 67 provides loop service to destinations throughout the City of Healdsburg and stops adjacent to the project site on Heron Drive and Riverside Club House. Route 67 operates Monday through Saturday from 8:40 AM to 4:10 PM with headways that range from one hour to one-and-one-half hours.

Two or three bicycles can be carried on most SCT buses. Bike rack space is on a first come, first served basis. In addition, the proposed project does not propose any features which could conflict with existing or planned transit facilities. The SCT bus route serving the project site and the existing access to the transit route is adequate to accommodate project generated facilities, as local parks typically serve local residents. Therefore, the transit access to the project site is adequate and would not result in any significant impacts to the nearby transit network.

Conclusion
Based on the above, the project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines provides specific considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Pursuant to Section 15064.3, analysis of VMT attributable to a project is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts.

Pursuant to Section 15064.3(b)(3), a lead agency may analyze a project’s VMT qualitatively based on the availability of transit, proximity to destinations, etc. Other relevant considerations may include the effects of the project on transit and non-motorized travel.

The potential for the project to conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, was evaluated based on the project’s anticipated VMT and the City’s VMT Policy.

The City of Healdsburg has adopted guidelines for the analysis of VMT. The City’s policy identifies several criteria that may be used to identify certain types of projects that are unlikely to have a VMT impact and can be “screened” from further VMT analysis. One of these screening criteria pertains to small projects, which the City identifies as generating fewer than 110 vehicle trips per day. According to the Transportation Initial Study Checklist, the proposed project is anticipated to generate approximately 91 daily vehicle trips for the pickleball courts, which falls below the City’s threshold. As a result, it is reasonable to conclude that the project can be presumed to have a less-than-significant impact on VMT.

Based on the above, the proposed project would not substantially increase VMT relative to existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict or be inconsistent 25 City of Healdsburg. Healdsburg Bicycle and Pedestrian Mater Plan, Sonoma County Transportation Authority. 2013.

Item 7.c
279 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
c,d. The project site is currently served by a driveway on Heron Drive and the proposed project would not result in any changes to the driveway or trip generation that would affect the site access, safety, or sight distance. Emergency response vehicles would be able to access the site by way of the project driveway on Heron Drive. The existing 27-foot driveway meets the 20-foot driveway access requirement for emergency vehicles.

Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses, and emergency access to the site would be adequate. The proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact.

Item 7.c
280 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
XVIII.TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES.

Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k).
   
b. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
   
Discussion
a,b. As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, of this IS/MND, a Cultural Resources Study was prepared for the proposed project by Evans and De Shazo Archeology and Historic Preservation. As part of the Cultural Resources Study, a record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands File was completed and the results were positive, indicating a potential presence of tribal cultural resources in the project area. 26 Additionally, pursuant
to the records search of the CHRIS conducted by the NWIC, the potential for unrecorded Tribal Cultural Resources to occur in the project area is high. 27 In compliance with AB 52 (PRC Section 21080.3.1), project notification letters were distributed to the Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, Guildville Rancheria of California, Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria, Lytton Rancheria, Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians, Mishewal-Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley, Pinoleville Pomo Nation, and Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians. The letters were distributed on May 3, 2024. One response was received by the Lytton Rancheria on May 23, 2024 confirming receipt of the notification letter; however, the tribe did not request further consultation.

Additional requests to consult were not received within the mandatory 30-day response period.

While known Tribal Cultural Resources do not exist within the site, based on the Cultural Resources Study, the potential presence/sensitivity of the site for tribal cultural resources is high. Therefore, the possibility exists that the proposed project could result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource if previously unknown Tribal Cultural Resources are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities.

Thus, a potentially significant impact to Tribal Cultural Resources could occur. 26 Native American Heritage Commission. Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project, Sonoma County. April 12, 2024. 27 Northwest Information Center. Cultural Resources Study for the Proposed Badger Park Redevelopment Plan Project at 750 Heron Drive, Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California. April 15, 2024.

Item 7.c
281 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
Mitigation Measure(s)
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the above potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

XVIII-1 Implement Mitigation Measures V-1, V-2, V-3 and V-4.

Item 7.c
282 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS.

Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
   
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple dry
years?
   
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
   
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
   
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
   
Discussion
a. Existing water, sewer, stormwater, and electric utility infrastructure is provided in the project vicinity, and the existing on-site park currently includes connections to water, stormwater, and electrical infrastructure. The project would not include any substantial modifications to existing utilities in the site vicinity. The proposed park would include the construction of a new bathroom building immediately north of the community garden. The bathroom building would connect to the existing sewer gravity main on Heron Drive by either forced lateral or gravity flow depending on elevation changes. In addition, the existing sewer lift station, north of the project site, across from Heron Drive, would be relocated on to the northern portion of the project site, west of the access roadway.

Given that the proposed project is consistent with the site’s General Plan land use and zoning designations, standard utility improvements associated with the proposed park redevelopment have been generally anticipated by the City, and associated environmental effects have been analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
b. Water supplies in the central and southern portions of the City of Healdsburg, including the project area, are derived from surface water primarily through water rights as well as a backup supply of contracted water from Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA).

Pursuant to the Healdsburg 2020 UWMP, the City’s combined projected water supplies are sufficient to meet projected demands during normal water supply conditions. Under single-year and multiple-dry year conditions, there is a need for mandatory conservation Item 7.c
283 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
ranging from as little as five percent to as high as 40 percent or higher. 28 To lessen the
negative affects of future droughts the City must continue efforts towards water conservation, water supply contingency planning, and investigate the development of new and more resilient water supplies. The City of Healdsburg’s 2020 UWMP addresses vulnerabilities to the City’s water supply due to climate change, including droughts, floods, and wildfires. In recent years, the City has seen curtailments of its water diversions in response to extended drought conditions. The City is planning for future curtailments by improving and adding water supply infrastructure, gaining new water rights, and educating the public about the need for water conservation to ease the negative impacts associated with future droughts. Local measures to address water supply limitations include requiring the use of drought-resistant landscaping and enforcing mandatory conservation requirements as dictated by the severity of water supply shortages. The UWMP provides water supply and demand projections for periods of prolonged drought (five years) and concludes that the level of conservation needed to address annual deficits ranges from less than five percent to roughly 12 percent. The UWMP establishes City protocols for accessing and determining water supply reliability on an annual basis to help forecast and calibrate shortage response actions. The proposed park would be subject to demand reduction measures identified in the City’s Water Shortage Contingency Plan that are implemented by the City in response to water shortages and emergencies.

The proposed project would include redevelopment of the existing on-site park, which currently includes water demands associated with irrigation of landscaping features. The proposed project would require additional water usage associated with new site improvements such as landscaping and the proposed sports fields. The proposed project would also include the construction of one new restroom building immediately north of the community garden. The restroom building would have flushing toilets and would connect to the existing water main on Heron Drive. Upon completion of the proposed redevelopment, the park would not involve substantially increased water demand relative to what currently exists. All landscaping improvements would be consistent with Section

20.16.105, Water Efficient Landscape, of the City’s Municipal Code which protects local water supplies through the implementation of a whole systems approach to design, construction, installation, and maintenance of the landscape resulting in water conserving climate-appropriate landscapes, improved water quality and the minimization of natural resource inputs. Based on these factors, Healdsburg would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years, and a less-than-significant impact would occur. c. Collected wastewater flows from the project site would ultimately be transported to the City of Healdsburg wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) for treatment and disposal. The City’s existing WWTP has a permitted capacity of 4.0 million gallons per day (mgd) of average daily water flow (ADWF), and the estimated ADWF is approximately 1.6 mgd.

Therefore, a remaining unused capacity of 2.4 mgd ADWF is available to accommodate development and growth within the City. The addition of the bathroom building would create an increase in wastewater generation; however, the generation would not exceed the WWTP’s capacity. With respect to wastewater, implementation of the Badger Park redevelopment would not result in increased generation of wastewater which would require construction of new on-site collection and conveyance facilities or the extension of 28 City of Healdsburg. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan Update, City of Healdsburg Utility Department. October 2021.

Item 7.c
284 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
existing off-site lines. Thus, the project would not affect the City’s wastewater treatment capacity, and no impact would occur.
d,e. Solid waste, recyclable materials, and compostable material collection within the City of Healdsburg is provided by Recology Sonoma Marin through an exclusive franchise agreement. Once collected, solid waste is hauled to the Healdsburg Transfer Station. The Healdsburg Transfer Station serves the unincorporated areas of northern Sonoma County, Cloverdale, Healdsburg, Windsor, and Geyserville. The transfer station is permitted to accept 435 tons per day (TPD) of solid waste. From the transfer station, solid waste is transported to any of four landfills, depending on the size of the loads, time of day, and season. The four landfills are Redwood Sanitary Landfill, Potrero Hills Landfill, Vasco Road Sanitary Landfill, and Keller Canyon Landfill.29 The current disposal facilities capacities are shown in Table 10.

Table 10
Current Disposal Facility Capacities
Facility Name
Permitted Daily
Throughout
Permitted
Capacity
Remaining
Capacity
Redwood Sanitary
Landfill 2,300 19,100,000 26,000,000
Potrero Hills Landfill 4,330 83,100,000 13,872,000
Vasco Road Sanitary
Landfill 2,518 40,207,100 11,560,000
Keler Canyon
Landfill 3,500 75,018,280 63,408,410
Source: CalRecycle 2024
As shown in the table, the landfills would all have sufficient remaining capacity to serve the proposed project. In addition, given the proposed park uses, the proposed project would result in a relatively small waste generation as compared to the residential or commercial uses within the City. Furthermore, because the proposed project is consistent with the project site’s current General Plan land use and zoning designations, the project would not result in increased solid waste generation beyond what has been previously anticipated for the site by the City and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable provisions of Chapter 8.08, Solid Waste Management, of the City’s Municipal Code, including Section 8.08.580 related to construction and demolition waste.

Therefore, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals and would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. A less-thansignificant impact related to solid waste would occur as a result of the proposed project. 29 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). FacilitySite Summary Details: Keler Canyon Landfill (07-AA-0032). Available at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/4407?siteID=228. Accessed July 2024.

Item 7.c
285 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
XX. WILDFIRE.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No Impact
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?    
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
   
c. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
   
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
   
Discussion
a-d. According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within or near a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or State Responsibility Area. 30 In addition, the Master
Plan includes removal of invasive vegetation within the park’s forested area to open and thin the tree canopy and reduce fire fuel. The project site is currently developed with the existing approximately 20-acre Badger Park, which consists of a 114,000-sf informal recreation field, a 6,250-sf playground, a 7,500-sf dog run, and a 27,000-sf community garden, as well as picnic areas and a 46-space parking lot. The generally open nature of the project site and surrounding area could serve as a firebreak and reduce the spread of fire. Based on the above, the proposed project would not be expected to be subject to or result in substantial adverse effects related to wildfires, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
30 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones.

Accessed May 2024.

Item 7.c
286 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-ThanSignificant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-ThanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
   
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
   
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
   
Discussion
a. As discussed in Section IV, Biological Resources, of this IS/MND, with implementation of Mitigation Measures IV-1 through IV-19, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts to special-status plant or wildlife species. The project site is currently disturbed and does not contain any known historic or precontact resources. Thus, implementation of the proposed project is not anticipated to have the potential to result in impacts related to historic or precontact resources. Nevertheless, Mitigation Measures V1 through V-4 would ensure that in the event that historic or precontact resources are discovered within the project site during construction activities, such resources would be protected in compliance with the requirements of CEQA.

Considering the above, the proposed project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species; 3) cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur. b. The proposed project in conjunction with other development within the City of Healdsburg could incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts in the area. However, as demonstrated in this IS/MND, all potential environmental impacts that could occur as a result of project implementation would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through compliance with the mitigation measures included in this IS/MND, as well as applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, and other applicable local and State regulations. In addition, the proposed project would be limited to redevelopment of the existing on-site park; upon completion of such activities, the project site would continue to function as a public park, consistent with the site’s existing land use and zoning designations.

Item 7.c
287 of 697
Badger Park Redevelopment Master Plan Project
Initial Study

August 2025
Therefore, when viewed in conjunction with other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts in the City of Healdsburg, and the project’s incremental contribution to cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
c. As described in this IS/MND, the proposed project would comply with all applicable General Plan policies, Municipal Code standards, other applicable local and State regulations, and mitigation measures included herein. In addition, as discussed in the Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise sections of this IS/MND, the proposed project would not cause substantial effects to human beings, which cannot be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, including effects related to exposure to air pollutant and GHG emissions, geologic hazards, hazardous materials, and excessive noise. Therefore, the proposed project’s impact would be less than significant.

Item 7.c
288 of 697

APPENDIX A

AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS MODELING RESULTS
Item 7.c
289 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
1 / 41
Badger Park Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Item 7.c
290 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
2 / 41

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
Item 7.c
291 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
3 / 41

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Item 7.c
292 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
4 / 41

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Item 7.c
293 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
5 / 41

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Item 7.c
294 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
6 / 41

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Item 7.c
295 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
7 / 41

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Badger Park
Construction Start Date 5/1/2025
Operational Year 2028
Lead Agency City of Healdsburg
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 2.20
Precipitation (days) 11.8
Location 750 Heron Dr, Healdsburg, CA 95448, USA
County Sonoma-North Coast
City Healdsburg
Air District Northern Sonoma County APCD
Air Basin North Coast
TAZ 891
EDFZ 2
Electric Utility City of Healdsburg Electric Department Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.25

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Item 7.c
296 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
8 / 41
City Park 20.4 Acre 20.4 0.00 888,624 888,624 — —
Parking Lot 67.0 Space 0.60 0.00 0.00 — — —

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 4.15 3.50 37.1 32.0 0.07 1.44 20.8 22.3 1.33 10.4 11.8 — 9,400 9,400 0.28 0.68 7.87 9,617 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.50 1.25 11.3 14.2 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.42 0.00 0.42 — 2,531 2,531 0.10 0.02 0.00 2,540 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.02 0.85 7.68 10.0 0.02 0.31 1.48 1.79 0.29 0.64 0.93 — 1,803 1,803 0.07 0.03 0.14 1,809 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.19 0.15 1.40 1.83 < 0.005 0.06 0.27 0.33 0.05 0.12 0.17 — 299 299 0.01 0.01 0.02 300

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Item 7.c
297 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
9 / 41
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 4.15 3.50 37.1 32.0 0.07 1.44 20.8 22.3 1.33 10.4 11.8 — 9,400 9,400 0.28 0.68 7.87 9,617 2026 1.43 1.19 10.7 14.1 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.37 0.00 0.37 — 2,531 2,531 0.10 0.02 0.00 2,539 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.50 1.25 11.3 14.2 0.03 0.46 0.00 0.46 0.42 0.00 0.42 — 2,531 2,531 0.10 0.02 0.00 2,540 2026 1.43 1.19 10.7 14.1 0.03 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.37 0.00 0.37 — 2,531 2,531 0.10 0.02 0.00 2,539 2027 0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 134 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 1.00 0.84 7.68 8.54 0.02 0.31 1.48 1.79 0.29 0.64 0.93 — 1,755 1,755 0.07 0.03 0.14 1,767 2026 1.02 0.85 7.63 10.0 0.02 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.26 0.00 0.26 — 1,803 1,803 0.07 0.01 0.00 1,809 2027 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 — 3.40 3.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 3.41 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2025 0.18 0.15 1.40 1.56 < 0.005 0.06 0.27 0.33 0.05 0.12 0.17 — 291 291 0.01 0.01 0.02 292 2026 0.19 0.15 1.39 1.83 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 — 299 299 0.01 < 0.005 0.00 300 2027 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 — 0.56 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.56

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.73 0.72 0.21 1.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 0.95 420 421 0.12 0.02 1.14 430 Item 7.c
298 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
10 / 41
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Unmit. 0.73 0.71 0.24 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 0.95 408 409 0.12 0.02 0.03 418 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.62 0.62 0.12 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.95 259 260 0.11 0.01 0.26 266 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.16 42.9 43.1 0.02 < 0.005 0.04 44.0

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.23 0.21 0.21 1.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 330 330 0.01 0.02 1.14 336 Area 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 28.6 28.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 61.7 61.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.09 0.00 — 3.31 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.73 0.72 0.21 1.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 0.95 420 421 0.12 0.02 1.14 430 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.22 0.21 0.24 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 318 318 0.02 0.02 0.03 324 Area 0.51 0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item 7.c
299 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
11 / 41
Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 28.6 28.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 61.7 61.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.09 0.00 — 3.31 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.73 0.71 0.24 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 0.95 408 409 0.12 0.02 0.03 418 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 — 169 169 0.01 0.01 0.26 172 Area 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 28.6 28.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 61.7 61.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.09 0.00 — 3.31 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.62 0.62 0.12 0.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.16 < 0.005 0.04 0.04 0.95 259 260 0.11 0.01 0.26 266 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 28.0 28.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 28.5 Area 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Energy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 4.73 4.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.75 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.3 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.02 0.00 — 0.55 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.16 42.9 43.1 0.02 < 0.005 0.04 44.0

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Site Preparation (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Item 7.c
300 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
12 / 41
Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.94 3.31 31.6 30.2 0.05 1.37 — 1.37 1.26 — 1.26 — 5,295 5,295 0.21 0.04 — 5,314 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 19.7 19.7 — 10.1 10.1 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.11 0.09 0.87 0.83 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.03 — 0.03 — 145 145 0.01 < 0.005 — 146 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.54 0.54 — 0.28 0.28 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.16 0.15 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 24.0 24.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 24.1 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.10 0.10 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item 7.c
301 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
13 / 41
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.11 0.10 0.08 1.08 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 153 153 0.01 0.01 0.66 155 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.10 0.09 5.41 0.79 0.03 0.07 0.99 1.06 0.07 0.28 0.36 — 3,952 3,952 < 0.005 0.63 7.22 4,148 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.05 4.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 4.11 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.15 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 108 108 < 0.005 0.02 0.09 114 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.67 0.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.68 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 17.9 17.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 18.8

3.3. Grading (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

3.80 3.20 29.7 28.3 0.06 1.23 — 1.23 1.14 — 1.14 — 6,599 6,599 0.27 0.05 — 6,622 Item 7.c
302 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
14 / 41
Dust — — — — — — 9.20 9.20 — 3.65 3.65 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.36 0.31 2.85 2.71 0.01 0.12 — 0.12 0.11 — 0.11 — 633 633 0.03 0.01 — 635 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.88 0.88 — 0.35 0.35 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.52 0.50 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 105 105 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 105 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.16 0.16 — 0.06 0.06 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.13 0.12 0.09 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.00 0.04 0.04 — 175 175 0.01 0.01 0.75 178 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item 7.c
303 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
15 / 41
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 16.2 16.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 16.4 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.68 2.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 2.72 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.35 1.13 10.4 13.0 0.02 0.43 — 0.43 0.40 — 0.40 — 2,398 2,398 0.10 0.02 — 2,406 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item 7.c
304 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
16 / 41
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.41 0.34 3.15 3.93 0.01 0.13 — 0.13 0.12 — 0.12 — 723 723 0.03 0.01 — 725 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.07 0.06 0.57 0.72 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 120 120 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 120 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item 7.c
305 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
17 / 41
Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.28 1.07 9.85 13.0 0.02 0.38 — 0.38 0.35 — 0.35 — 2,397 2,397 0.10 0.02 — 2,405 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.91 0.76 7.02 9.24 0.02 0.27 — 0.27 0.25 — 0.25 — 1,708 1,708 0.07 0.01 — 1,713 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.17 0.14 1.28 1.69 < 0.005 0.05 — 0.05 0.05 — 0.05 — 283 283 0.01 < 0.005 — 284 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item 7.c
306 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
18 / 41
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item 7.c
307 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
19 / 41
Off-Road
Equipment

0.95 0.80 7.45 9.98 0.01 0.35 — 0.35 0.32 — 0.32 — 1,511 1,511 0.06 0.01 — 1,517 Paving 0.08 0.08 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.05 0.04 0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 82.8 82.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 83.1 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.07 0.10 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 13.7 13.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 13.8 Paving < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 131 131 0.01 0.01 0.56 133 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item 7.c
308 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
20 / 41
Worker 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.94 6.94 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 7.04 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.15 1.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.17 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.04 0.24 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 36.6 36.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 36.7 Item 7.c
309 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
21 / 41
Onsite 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 truck
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 6.06 6.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 6.08 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item 7.c
310 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
22 / 41

3.13. Architectural Coating (2026) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.12 0.86 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.10 0.09 0.61 0.81 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 95.4 95.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 95.7 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.02 0.11 0.15 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 15.8 15.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 15.8 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item 7.c
311 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
23 / 41
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.15. Architectural Coating (2027) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item 7.c
312 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
24 / 41
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Winter
(Max)
Off-Road
Equipment

0.14 0.11 0.83 1.13 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.40 3.40 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.41 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.56 0.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.56 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Item 7.c
313 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
25 / 41
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.23 0.21 0.21 1.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 330 330 0.01 0.02 1.14 336 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.23 0.21 0.21 1.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 330 330 0.01 0.02 1.14 336 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.22 0.21 0.24 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 318 318 0.02 0.02 0.03 324 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.22 0.21 0.24 1.51 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.30 0.30 < 0.005 0.08 0.08 — 318 318 0.02 0.02 0.03 324 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 28.0 28.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 28.5 Item 7.c
314 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
26 / 41
Parking 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lot
Total 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.14 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 — 28.0 28.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 28.5

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 28.6 28.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.7 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 28.6 28.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 28.6 28.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.7 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 28.6 28.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 28.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 4.73 4.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.75 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 4.73 4.73 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.75 Item 7.c
315 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
27 / 41

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Item 7.c
316 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
28 / 41
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Consum
er
Products

0.51 0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.51 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products

0.51 0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 0.51 0.51 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products

0.09 0.09 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Item 7.c
317 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
29 / 41
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 61.7 61.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 61.7 61.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 61.7 61.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 61.7 61.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 61.9 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.3 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 10.2 10.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.3

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.09 0.00 — 3.31 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Item 7.c
318 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
30 / 41
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.09 0.00 — 3.31 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.09 0.00 — 3.31 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.09 0.00 — 3.31 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.02 0.00 — 0.55 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.02 0.00 — 0.55

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item 7.c
319 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
31 / 41
City Park — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Item 7.c
320 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
32 / 41
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Item 7.c
321 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
33 / 41
Vegetatio TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Item 7.c
322 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
34 / 41
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
———————————————————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Item 7.c
323 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
35 / 41
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
d
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Site Preparation Site Preparation 5/1/2025 5/14/2025 5.00 10.0 — Grading Grading 5/15/2025 7/2/2025 5.00 35.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 7/31/2025 12/30/2026 5.00 370 — Paving Paving 7/3/2025 7/30/2025 5.00 20.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 8/14/2025 1/13/2027 5.00 370 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 367 0.40 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 4.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 148 0.41
Grading Excavators Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Grading Scrapers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 423 0.48
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 367 0.40 Item 7.c
324 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
36 / 41
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 3.00 8.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Generator Sets Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 14.0 0.74 Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 367 0.29 Building Construction Welders Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 46.0 0.45 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 3.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 89.0 0.36 Paving Rollers Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Site Preparation — — — —
Site Preparation Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Site Preparation Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Site Preparation Hauling 56.1 20.0 HHDT
Site Preparation Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 20.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 0.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 0.00 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Item 7.c
325 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
37 / 41
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 15.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.00 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (Cubic Yards) Material Exported (Cubic Yards) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (sq. ft.) Acres Paved (acres) Site Preparation — 4,481 15.0 0.00 —
Grading — — 105 0.00 —
Item 7.c
326 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
38 / 41
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
City Park 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 0.60 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2025 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005
2026 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005
2027 0.00 453 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year City Park 15.9 40.0 44.7 8,563 147 370 413 79,231
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths
Item 7.c
327 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
39 / 41

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
— — — — —

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00
Summer Days day/yr 180

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) City Park 0.00 453 0.0330 0.0040 0.00
Parking Lot 23,010 453 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) City Park 0.00 17,060,491
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00
Item 7.c
328 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
40 / 41

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
City Park 1.75 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced City Park Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
City Park Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor Item 7.c
329 of 697
Badger Park Custom Report, 7/8/2024
41 / 41

5.16.2. Process Boilers
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number Boiler Rating (MMBtu/hr) Daily Heat Input (MMBtu/day) Annual Heat Input (MMBtu/yr)

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year) Item 7.c
330 of 697

APPENDIX B

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
Item 7.c
331 of 697

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

BADGER PARK PROJECT

HEALDSBURG, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

RANEY PLANNING & MANAGEMENT, INC.

Contact: Nick Pappani
1501 Sports Drive, Suite A
Sacramento, CA 95834
Telephone: 916.372.6100
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by:

HUFFMAN-BROADWAY GROUP, INC.
1101 5th Avenue, Suite 205
San Rafael, CA 94901
Contact: Greg Huffman
Telephone: (415) 925-2000
August 2024
Item 7.c
332 of 697
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Project Location................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Description ...........................................................................................................................1

1.3 Purpose of this Biological Resources Assessment...............................................................................3

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING............................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Federal Regulations..........................................................................................................................4

2.2 State Regulations..............................................................................................................................8

2.3 Local Regulations............................................................................................................................11

2.3.1 Natural Resources Goals and Policies. ...............................................................................................................12

2.3.2 Natural Resources Implementation Measures..................................................................................................13

2.3.3 City of Healdsburg Heritage Tree Ordinance. ....................................................................................................13

2.3.4 City of Healdsburg Zoning Ordinance- Riparian Setbacks..................................................................................13

2.4 Other .............................................................................................................................................14

3.0 Methods................................................................................................................................ 15

3.1 Definitions......................................................................................................................................15

3.1.1 Special Status Species........................................................................................................................................15

3.1.2 Sensitive Natural Communities..........................................................................................................................15

3.2 Desktop Review..............................................................................................................................16

3.3 Field Surveys..................................................................................................................................16

3.4 Potential Presence Assessment.......................................................................................................17

4.0 Results................................................................................................................................... 19

4.1 Site Characteristics .........................................................................................................................19

4.1.1 Land Use.............................................................................................................................................................19

4.1.2 Topography and Soils.........................................................................................................................................19

4.1.3 Climate...............................................................................................................................................................20

4.1.4 Hydrology...........................................................................................................................................................20

4.1.5 Plant Communities.............................................................................................................................................20

4.1.6 Animal Populations............................................................................................................................................24

4.1.7 Wetlands............................................................................................................................................................26

4.2 Special-Status Species.....................................................................................................................29

4.2.1 Special Status Plants ..........................................................................................................................................30

4.2.2 Special Status Animals .......................................................................................................................................30

4.2.3 Sensitive Natural Communities..........................................................................................................................35

4.2.4 Wildlife Movement/Corridors............................................................................................................................36

4.2.5 Critical Habitat ...................................................................................................................................................36

4.2.6 Heritage Tree Survey..........................................................................................................................................36

5.0 Project Impacts and MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................................... 37

5.1 Standards of Significance ................................................................................................................37 Item 7.c
333 of 697

TABLE OF CONTENTS
iii

5.2 Plant Communities.........................................................................................................................38

5.2.1 Plant Community Impacts.................................................................................................................................. 38

5.2.2 Heritage Tree Impact .........................................................................................................................................40

5.2.3 Sensitive Natural Communities and Wetlands ..................................................................................................41

5.3 Special-Status Species.....................................................................................................................43

5.3.1 Special Status Plant............................................................................................................................................43

5.3.2 Special Status Animals .......................................................................................................................................44 Coho Salmon, Steelhead, and Russian River Tule Perch....................................................................................................44 Foothill Yellow-legged Frog ...............................................................................................................................................46 Western Pond Turtle..........................................................................................................................................................47 Osprey ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...47

5.4 Animal Populations ........................................................................................................................48

5.4.1 Wildlife Movement/Corridors............................................................................................................................48

5.4.2 Birds Protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code....................................................................50

5.4.3 Bats Protected by the California Fish and Game Code ......................................................................................51

5.5 Postconstruction Impacts and Mitigation Measures.........................................................................52

6.0 Environmental Regulatory Authorizations.............................................................................. 54

7.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 55

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Pertinent Characteristics of Soils Mapped Onsite by NRCS Table 2. Summary of the Types of Aquatic Resources Identified Within the Review Area that are Potentially Subject to Corps and USEPA Jurisdiction
Table 3 Summary of the Types of Aquatic Resources Identified Within the Review Area that are Potentially Subject to Water Board and CDFW Jurisdiction Table 4. Regulatory Authorizations Potentially Required for the Project

LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Site Location
Figure 2a USGS Topographic Map of the Project Site
Figure 2b Project Site with Elevation Contours
Figure 3a Aerial Image of the Project Site
Figure 3b Aerial Image of the Project Site
Figure 4 Vegetation Map
Figure 5 NRCS Soils Map
Figure 6 USGS NHD HUC 10 Watershed Boundaries
Figure 7 USGS NHD HUC 12 Watershed Boundaries
Figure 8 FEMA Flood Zone Mapping
Figure 9 CWA Aquatic Resource Delineation
Figure 10 North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Aquatic Resources Delineation Item 7.c
334 of 697

TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv
Figure 11 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Aquatic Resources Delineation Figure 12 Proposed Badger Park Master Plan
Figure 13 Proposed Development and Aquatic Resources
Figure 14 Proposed Development with FEMA Flood Hazard Zones Figure 15 Vegetation Impacts
Figure 16 Vegetation & Soil Management Area
Figure 17 Impacts to Existing Land Use/Cover and Aquatic Resources Subject to Corps/USEPA Clean Water Act Section 404 Jurisdiction
Figure 18 Impacts to Existing Land Use/Cover and Aquatic Resources Subject to North Coast Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction
Figure 19 Impacts to Existing Land Use/Cover and Aquatic Resources Subject to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction
APPENDIX B. BIOLOGICAL SPECIES TABLES AND IPaC INFORMATION Table 1. Vascular Plant Species Observed in the Project Site During 2024 Plant Surveys Table 2. Bird Species Observed on the Project Site February, March, and June, 2024 (eBird Checklists)
Table 3. Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site, Sonoma County, California
Table 4. Special Status Animal Species that Have Been Reported in the Vicinity of the Project Site, Sonoma County, California
Table 5. IPaC Resource List
APPENDIX C. BADGER PARK REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
APPENDIX D. AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT, BADGER PARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, HEALDSBURG, CALIFORNIA.

APPENDIX E. TREE SURVEY, BADGER PARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, HEALDSBURG, CALIFORNIA.

This report should be cited as: Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. 2024. Biological Resources Assessment, Badger Park Project, Healdsburg, California. San Rafael, California. 57 pp. plus appendices. Prepared for Raney Planning & Management, Inc., Sacramento, California. August.

Item 7.c
335 of 697
1 1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the request of Raney Planning & Management, Inc., Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. (HBG) conducted a Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) related to the redevelopment of Badger Park (Project), in Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California.

1.1 Project Location
The Project Site is located at 7560 Heron Drive in the City of Healdsburg, California. The site is identified by APNs 088-141-012 and -016.

Badger Park is an existing 21-acre park consisting of a 114,000-sf informal recreation field, a 6,250-sf playground, a 7,500-sf dog run, and a 27,000-sf community garden, as well as picnic areas and a 46- space parking lot. A large portion of the park is forested and impacted by dense growth of invasive plant species which include English ivy and Himalayan blackberry. From the maintained portion of the park's recreational areas, a forested area transitions down to the Russian River where two natural promontory areas, situated on river terraces, and a number of informal pathways can be found. The site is designated Park/Open Space per the City’s General Plan and is zoned P (Public).

The project site is bounded by single-family residences to the north and west, single-family residences and an electrical substation to the east; and the Russian River to the south.

The regional location of the Project Site is shown in Appendix A, Figure 1. Appendix A, Figure 2a shows the location of the site on 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle mapping. Appendix A, Figure 3a shows an aerial photo of the Project Site and the surrounding area.

Note: Appendix H of the Aquatic Resources Delineation (Appendix D of this document) provides representative photos of the Project Site.

1.1 Project Description
The proposed project consists of a Master Plan to redevelop Badger Park (see Appendix C). The goal of the proposed Master Plan includes expanding park uses for the community, reconnecting the park to the Russian River, management of invasive species, and the creation of a more resilient climate adaptive park.

The proposed Master Plan would include a variety of active and passive spaces which surround a central field area bracketed by curvilinear promenades. A secondary path system would connect the park and the adjacent neighborhood to the riverfront through the forested areas.

The park’s primary vehicular entrance and exit would remain at Heron Drive. The parking lot would be expanded to accommodate 67 vehicles, for an increase of 21 spaces, and a turn-around/drop-off loop would be added north of the existing UV treatment structure. The loop would allow vehicles to turn around and/or drop-off park visitors and human-powered watercraft such as canoes and kayaks.

Informal recreation would continue in an expanded central field area. Although the central field area is large enough to accommodate soccer play, the existing field is currently not programmed or permitted Item 7.c
336 of 697

1.0 INTRODCUTION
2 for sports practices, games, or tournaments. Due to drought, soccer programs on the existing field ceased in 2021. Games and practices have been relocated to other parks. The City of Healdsburg does not anticipate the soccer program returning to Badger Park in the future, and thus, this IS/MND does not evaluate impacts associated with organized sports games, tournaments, etc., at the park.

The existing playground would remain in approximately the same location as current conditions and would be reconstructed and expanded to ensure the playground is up to code and ADA standards. The new play structures and amenities would embrace natural-universal play and river-related themes would be included.

The existing dog park would be reconstructed on the west side of the park’s vehicular entrance and exit so that it is not adjacent to the electrical substation. The reconstructed dog park would be substantially similar to the existing dog park, with new amenities including water and dog play objects.

The existing community garden would be expanded to the south and would approximately double in size.

A portable toilet is currently in use at the existing Badger Park. As such, the proposed project would include the construction of one new restroom building immediately north of the community garden.

The restroom building would have flushing toilets and be an energy-efficient structure with passive ventilation and solar power. The restroom building would connect to the existing sewer gravity main on Heron Drive by either forced lateral or gravity flow depending on elevation changes.

The proposed project would also include the construction of new sports courts and a half-court for basketball south of the relocated and reconstructed dog park. The courts would not host any league play or be lit at night. Three small picnic areas with tables are proposed near the playground, community garden, and central field.

The Master Plan also highlights two areas for future utility infrastructure. A cryptosporidium treatment facility will be constructed near the existing wells and south of the community garden. The facility will include six cartridge filter housings along with ancillary piping and controls modifications, six-foot tall chain link fencing, and a gravel access road. The Master Plan also designates a potential utility expansion area south of the existing UV treatment structure and north of the cryptosporidium treatment facility. However, the future utility infrastructure is not included in the proposed project, and a Notice of Exemption for the cryptosporidium treatment facility was posted by Sonoma County on December 18, 2023.

The proposed project would also include the removal of highly and moderately invasive vegetation within the park’s forested area to open and thin the tree canopy, create better visual access to the river, and reduce fire fuel (Appendix B, Table 1). Two simple, elevated, overlook structures would be constructed at the existing promontory spots, where the river would be visible. An existing pedestrian trail bridge, that spans the drainage channel, would be replaced. The new bridge would continue to span the drainage channel, and thus avoid directly impacting the channel. The bridge is anticipated to be constructed of wood and metal and would be six feet wide. An additional and substantially similar Item 7.c
337 of 697

1.0 INTRODCUTION
3 pedestrian trail bridge would be installed further south. Both bridges would connect the park to the adjacent neighborhood by way of a decomposed granite trail that would include stopping places with logs or boulders for adults and children to climb on and explore.

In addition, the site’s existing topography and habitat along the riverfront in the park’s southwest corner would be preserved. A series of bank stabilizing bioengineered vegetative walls would be installed to support an existing island, which is two feet in elevation above the river. The walls would slow the flow of water at select locations and provide erosion control to protect against flooding. Two at-grade creek crossings constructed of stones would cross the drainage channel and lead to a hidden beach nestled among willow trees with river access for swimming.

An existing informal trail along the riverbank would be widened by approximately one foot for a total width of four feet and resurfaced with decomposed granite to make the trail more navigable and maintained. The riverbank trail would connect the vehicular drop-off loop to two river access points, one at the southeast corner of the site and one in the southwest corner along the Russian River, which would consist of a kayak put-in constructed of wood treads and risers and/or informal rocks.

The operational hours of Badger Park, 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM, would not change with redevelopment of the park. However, the project would improve visual and physical access to the Russian River, which would likely result in increased visitors. In addition, the construction of new sports courts (pickleball, half-court basketball and volleyball), the reconstruction of the playground, and the construction of a new, permanent restroom building would likely draw more visitors as well. Peak times for river access would be summer weekends.

The proposed project would require the following approvals from the City of Healdsburg:
• Adoption of the IS/MND;
• Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and • Master Plan approval.

1.3 Purpose of this Biological Resources Assessment
The purpose of this BRA is to: (1) assess within the Project Site the potential for the occurrence of special-status plant and animal species and their habitats and sensitive natural communities, (2) analyze the potential for substantial adverse Project effects to special-status species and sensitive natural communities following the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Check List questions regarding biological resources, and (3) provide mitigation recommendations based on a review of existing literature, the results of the site reconnaissance, an aquatic resources delineation, pedestrian wildlife and rare plant surveys, and an evaluation of the impacts of the proposed project. It is understood that this document will serve as a technical resource document to be used by the City of Healdsburg in their evaluation of the project pursuant to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Item 7.c
338 of 697
4 2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
The following is a description of relevant federal, state, and local environmental regulations and policies designed to protect sensitive plants and animals, their habitats, and sensitive natural communities that may impact development planning and ultimate Project approval.

2.1 Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act-Section 404. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). “Discharge of fill material” is defined as the addition of fill material into Waters of the U.S., including but not limited to the following: placement of fill that is necessary for the construction of any structure, or impoundment requiring rock, sand, dirt, or other material for its construction; sitedevelopment fills for recreational, industrial, commercial, residential, and other uses; causeways or road fills; and fill for intake and outfall pipes and sub-aqueous utility lines (33 C.F.R. §328.2(f)). In addition, Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into Waters of the United States to obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards.

The Corps and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) are responsible for implementing the Section 404 program. Section 404(a) authorizes the Corps to issue permits, after notice and opportunity for comment, for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of United States (WOTUS). Section 404(b) requires that the Corps issue permits in compliance with EPA guidelines, known as the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. Specifically, Section 404(b)(1) guidelines require that the Corps only authorize the “least environmentally damaging practicable alternative” (LEDPA) and include all practicable measures to avoid and minimize impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. The guidelines also prohibit discharges that would cause significant degradation of the aquatic environment or violate state water quality standards.

Waters of the U.S. include both wetlands and “other waters of the U.S.” Wetlands and other waters of the U.S. are described by US EPA and Corps regulations (40 CFR § 230.3(s) and 33 CFR § 328.3(a), respectively). US EPA and the Corps define 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” (US EPA regulations at 40 CFR § 230.3(t); Corps’ regulations at 33 CFR § 328.3(b)). Both natural and manmade wetlands and other waters (not vegetated by a dominance of rooted emergent vegetation) are subject to regulation. Waters of the U.S. include a range of wet environments such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, and wet meadows.

The geographic extent of wetlands is defined by the collective presence of a dominance of wetland vegetation, wetland hydrology conditions, and wetland soil conditions as determined following the Corps’ 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987 Manual); the Corps’ 2008 Regional Supplement to Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West, Version 2.0 (Arid West Regional Item 7.c
339 of 697

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
5 Supplement); and supporting guidance documents. The geographic extent of other waters of the U.S. is defined by an ordinary high-water mark (OHWM) in non-tidal waters (33 CFR. §328.3(e)) and by the High Tide Line within tidal waters (33 CFR. §328.3(d)). The OHWM is defined by the Corps as “that line on shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (33 C.F.R. §328.3(e)). Tidal waters are also under the jurisdiction of the Corps. The landward limits of jurisdiction in tidal waters extend to the high tide line…“or, when adjacent non-tidal waters of the United States are present, to the limits of jurisdiction for such non-tidal waters” (33 C.F.R.§328.4(b)) High tide is further defined to include the line reached by spring high tides and other high tides that occur with periodic frequency (33 C.F.R.§328.3(d)).

Clean Water Act-NPDES Requirements. In 1972, the Clean Water Act was amended to provide that the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source is unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The 1987 amendments established a framework for regulating municipal, industrial, and constructionrelated stormwater discharges under the NPDES Program. On November 16, 1990, the US EPA published final regulations that establish stormwater permit application requirements for specified categories of industries. The regulations provide that discharges of stormwater from construction projects that encompass one or more acres of soil disturbance are effectively prohibited unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES Permit.

The California State Water Resource Control Board (State Water Board) has developed a general construction stormwater permit to implement the requirements for the federal NPDES permit. The permit requires the submittal of a Notice of Intent to comply, fees, and the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan that specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent construction pollutants from entering stormwater and keep products of erosion from migrating off-site into downstream receiving waters. The Construction General Permit includes post-construction requirements that site design provides no increase in overall site runoff or the concentration of drainage pollutants and requires implementation of Low Impact Development (“LID”) design features.

The Construction General Permit is implemented and enforced by California’s nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Water Boards).

The Water Boards have also adopted requirements for NPDES stormwater permits for medium and large municipalities, and the State Water Resources Control Board has adopted a General Permit for the discharge of stormwater from small municipal storm sewer systems. This General Permit requires projects to develop and implement a post-construction Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.

Federal Endangered Species Act. The United States Congress passed the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) in 1973 to protect those species that are endangered or threatened with extinction. The FESA is intended to operate in conjunction with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to help protect the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend. The FESA establishes an official listing process for plants and animals considered to be in danger of extinction, requires the Item 7.c
340 of 697

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
6 development of specific plans of action for the recovery of listed species, and restricts activities perceived to harm or kill listed species or affect critical habitat (16 USC 1532, 1536).

The FESA prohibits the “take” of endangered or threatened wildlife species. “Take” is defined as harassing, harming (including significantly modifying or degrading habitat), pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting wildlife species, or any attempt to engage in such conduct (16 USC 1532, 50 CFR 17.3). Taking can result in civil or criminal penalties. Federal regulation 50 CFR 17.3 further defines the term “harm” in the take definition to mean any act that actually kills or injures a federally listed species, including significant habitat modification or degradation. Additionally, FESA prohibits the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. In the Service’s regulations at 50 CFR 402.2, destruction or adverse modification is defined as a “direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species”.

Critical Habitat is defined in Section 3 of ESA as:

1. the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection; and

2. specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

For inclusion in a Critical Habitat designation, habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed must first have features essential to the conservation of the species (16 USC 1533). Critical Habitat designations identify, to the extent known and using the best scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (areas on which are found the primary constituent elements). Primary constituent elements are the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. These include but are not limited to the following:

1. Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior

2. Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements

3. Cover or shelter

4. Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring

5. Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.

The ESA also requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify critical habitat (16 USC 1536). Therefore, the ESA is invoked when the property contains a federally listed threatened or endangered species that may be affected by a permit decision. If listed species are involved and a Corps permit is required for impacts to jurisdictional waters, the Corps must initiate consultation with US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service, (NMFS) pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA (16 USC 1536; 40 CFR § 402). If formal consultation is required, USFWS or NMFS will issue a biological opinion stating Item 7.c
341 of 697

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
7 whether the permit action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed species, recommending reasonable and prudent measures to ensure the continued existence of the species, establishing terms and conditions under which the project may proceed, and authorizing incidental take of the species.

For discretionary permit actions by non-federal entities, Section 10 of the ESA provides a mechanism for obtaining take authorization through submittal and approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan that details species impacts, measures to minimize or mitigate such impacts, and funding mechanisms to implement mitigation requirements.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern. The 1988 amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandates USFWS “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under ESA.” To meet this requirement, USFWS published a list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) (USFWS 2008) for the United States. The list identifies the migratory and nonmigratory bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent USFWS’ highest conservation priorities. Depending on the policy of the lead agency, projects that result in substantial impacts to BCC may be considered significant under CEQA.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements international treaties devised to protect migratory birds and any of their parts, eggs, and nests from activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. The regulations governing migratory bird permits are in 50 CFR part 13 General Permit Procedures and 50 CFR part 21 Migratory Bird Permits. Most bird species within California fall under the provisions of the Act. Excluded species include nonnative species such as house sparrow, starling, and ring-necked pheasant and native game species such as quail.

On December 22, 2017, the U.S. Department of Interior’s Office of the Solicitor issued Memorandum M-37050, which states an interpretation that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act does not prohibit the accidental or “incidental” taking or killing of migratory birds. In response to the Trump Administration’s attempted changes to the MBTA, eight states, including California, filed suit in September of 2018, arguing that the new interpretation inappropriately narrows the MBTA and should be vacated. On August 11, 2020, the Southern District of New York ruled in favor of the long-standing interpretation of the MBTA to protect migratory birds, reinstating the historical ban on incidental take. Just days before leaving office, the Trump Administration finalized its pullback of MBTA regulations, despite the ruling of the federal court, and the elimination of protections pursuant to the MBTA went into effect in January of 2021. On his first day in office, new President Joe Biden placed the Trump Administration’s changes to the MBTA on hold, pending further review. The Biden Administration announced the repeal of the January 2021 changes and the reinstatement of protections for migratory birds in December of 2021.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The USFWS also has responsibility for project review under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. This statute requires that all federal agencies consult with USFWS, NMFS, and the state’s wildlife agency (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, CDFW) for activities that affect, control, or modify streams and other water bodies. Under the authority of the Fish and Item 7.c
342 of 697

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
8 Wildlife Coordination Act, USFWS, NMFS, and CDFW review applications for permits issued under Section 404 and provide comments to the Corps about potential environmental impacts.

2.2 State Regulations
Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act/Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Pursuant to section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, projects that require a Corps permit for the discharge of dredge or fill material must obtain water quality certification that confirms a project complies with state water quality standards before the Corps permit is valid. State water quality is regulated/administered by the State Water Board and its nine Regional Water Boards. A water quality certification from a Water Board must be consistent with not only the Clean Water Act, but with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the SWRCB’s requirement to protect beneficial uses of waters of the State.

The State also maintains independent regulatory authority over the placement of waste, including fill, into waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Waters of the State are defined more broadly than “waters of the US” to mean “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (Water Code section 13050(e)). Examples include but are not limited to, rivers, streams, lakes, bays, marshes, mudflats, unvegetated seasonally ponded areas, drainage swales, sloughs, wet meadows, natural ponds, vernal pools, diked baylands, seasonal wetlands, and riparian woodlands. Waters of the State include all waters within the state’s boundaries, whether private or public, including waters in both natural and artificial channels. They include all “waters of the United States”; all surface waters that are not “waters of the United States, e.g., nonjurisdictional wetlands; groundwater; and the territorial seas.

The State Water Resources Control Board’s State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredge of Fill Material to Waters of the State adopted April 2, 2019 (the Procedures) along with the Implementation Guidance for the Procedures dated April 2020 (the Implementation Guidance) defines a wetland as an area that under normal circumstances, (1) has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation. The Procedures, along with the Implementation Guidance, states that the permitting authority (e.g. State Water Board or Regional Water Boards) shall rely on any wetland area delineation from a final aquatic resource report verified by the Corps. If the Corps does not require an aquatic resource delineation report, an applicant must submit a delineation of all waters to Water Board staff during application review.

The Procedures, along with the Interim Guidance, also include procedures for the submission, review, and approval of applications for activities that could result in the discharge of dredged or fill material to any Waters of the State and include elements of the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis Guidelines, thereby bringing uniformity to SWCQB’s regulation of discharges of dredged or fill material to all waters of the state. Typically, the Corps requires a Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis for wetland impacts greater than 0.20 acres. The Procedures require an alternatives analysis to be completed in accordance with a three-tier system. The level of effort Item 7.c
343 of 697

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
9 required for an alternatives analysis within each of the three tiers shall be commensurate with the significance of the impacts resulting from the discharge.

The California State Water Resource Control Board has also developed a general construction storm water permit to implement the requirements of the federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Projects approved by a Water Board must, therefore, include the preconstruction requirement for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and the post-construction requirement for a Stormwater Management Plan.

California Endangered Species Act. The State of California enacted the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. The CESA is similar to the FESA but pertains to state listed endangered and threatened species. CESA requires state agencies to consult with the CDFW when preparing CEQA documents to ensure that the state lead agency actions do not jeopardize the existence of listed species. CESA directs agencies to consult with CDFW on projects or actions that could affect listed species, directs CDFW to determine whether jeopardy would occur, and allows CDFW to identify “reasonable and prudent alternatives” to the project consistent with conserving the species. Agencies can approve a project that affects a listed species if they determine that ‘overriding considerations” exist; however, the agencies are prohibited from approving projects that would result in the extinction of a listed species.

The CESA generally prohibits the taking of state listed endangered or threatened plant and wildlife species, however, for projects resulting in impacts to state listed species, CDFW may authorize take through issuance of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) pursuant to Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 2081 requires that such projects implement an approved habitat management plan or management agreement that avoids or compensates for possible jeopardy. CDFW requires preparation of mitigation plans in accordance with published guidelines that require, among other things, measures to fully mitigate impacts to State listed species. CDFW exercises authority over mitigation projects involving state listed species, including those resulting from CEQA mitigation requirements. No authorization of take under Section 2081 is permitted for species listed in state statutes as Fully Protected Species. Where Fully Protected Species are involved, projects must be designed to avoid all take of the species. CDFW cannot issue an ITP until the CEQA Lead Agency has provided documentation in the form of a Notice of Determination that the project has complied with CEQA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife-Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code requires any person, governmental agency, or public utility proposing any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake, or proposing to use any material from a streambed, to first notify CDFW of such proposed activity. Based on the information contained in the notification form and a possible field inspection, CDFW may propose reasonable modifications in the proposed construction as would allow for the protection of fish and wildlife resources. Upon request, the parties may meet to discuss the modifications. If the parties cannot agree and execute a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, then the matter may be referred to arbitration. CDFW cannot issue a Streambed Alteration Agreement Item 7.c
344 of 697

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
10 until the CEQA Lead Agency has provided documentation in the form of a Notice of Determination that the project has complied with CEQA.

CDFW’s regulations implementing the Fish and Game Code define the relevant rivers, streams, and lakes over which the agency has jurisdiction to constitute “all rivers, streams, lakes, and streambeds in the State of California, including all rivers, streams and streambeds which have intermittent flows of water.” (Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 720). The CDFW takes jurisdiction under its Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement Program for any work undertaken in or near a river, stream, or lake that flows at least intermittently through a bed or channel. CDFW does not have a methodology for the identification and delineation of the jurisdictional limits of streams except for the general guidance provided in A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Section 1600-1607 California Fish and Game Code (CDFG 1994). In making jurisdictional determinations, CDFW staff typically rely on field observation of physical features that provide evidence of water flow through a bed and channel such as observed flowing water, sediment deposits and drift deposits and that the stream supports fish or other aquatic life. Riparian habitat is not specifically defined by the Fish and Game Code but CDFW takes jurisdiction over areas within the flood plain of a body of water where the vegetation (grass, sedges, rushes, forbs, shrubs, and trees) is supported by the surface or subsurface flow.

California Fish and Game Code Special Protections for Birds. In addition to protections contained within the California ESA and California Fish and Game Code § 3511 described above, the California Fish and Game Code includes a number of sections that specifically protect certain birds. • Section 3800 states that it is unlawful to take nongame birds, such as those occurring naturally in California that are not resident game birds, migratory game birds, or fully protected birds, except when in accordance with regulations of the California Fish and Game Commission or a mitigation plan approved by CDFW for mining operations.
• Section 3503 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird.
• Section 3503.5 protects birds of prey (which includes eagles, hawks, falcons, kites, ospreys, and owls) and prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds and their nests.
• Section 3505 makes it unlawful to take, sell, or purchase egrets, ospreys, and several exotic nonnative species, or any part of these birds.
• Section 3513 specifically prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird as designated in the MBTA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife-Fish and Game Code Section 4150. Bats and other nongame mammals are protected in California. Section 4150 of the Fish and Game Code states that all non-game mammals or parts thereof may not be taken or possessed except as otherwise provided in the code or in accordance with regulations adopted by the Fish and Game Commission. Thus, destruction of an occupied, nonbreeding, bat roost, resulting in the death of bats, or disturbance that causes the loss of a maternity colony of bats (resulting in the death of young), is prohibited.

Item 7.c
345 of 697

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
11 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Sensitive Plant Communities. CDFW has designated special status natural communities which are considered rare in the region, rank as threatened or very threatened, support special status species, or otherwise receive some form of regulatory protection.

Sensitive plant communities are those natural plant communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, ordinances, regulations, or by the CDFW which provide special functions or values.

Documentation pertaining to these communities, and special status species (including species of special concern), is kept by CDFW as part of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). All known occurrences of sensitive habitats are mapped onto 7.5-minute US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle maps maintained by the CNDDB. Sensitive plant communities are also identified by CDFW on their List of California Natural Communities Recognized by the CNDDB. Impacts to sensitive natural communities must be considered and evaluated under CEQA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife- Species of Special Concern. CDFW tracks species in California whose numbers, reproductive success, or habitat may be threatened. Species that may be considered for review are included on a list of “Species of Special Concern” developed by the CDFW.

Even though these species may not be formally listed under FESA or CESA, such plant and wildlife species must be evaluated during the CEQA review of development projects, and mitigation should be developed to prevent significant impacts to such species.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife- Fully Protected Animal Species. The classification of Fully Protected was an effort by the State of California in the 1960's to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Most Fully Protected species have also been listed as threatened or endangered species under state endangered species laws and regulations. Species classified as Fully Protected Species by the CDFW may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock (as per California Fish and Game Code Section 3511(a)(1)).

Native Plant Protection Act. The NPPA of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code §§ 1900-1913) was established with the intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this state.” The NPPA is administered by CDFW. The Fish and Game Commission has the authority to designate native plants as “endangered” or “rare”. The NPPA prohibits the take of plants listed under the NPPA, but the NPPA contains a number of exemptions to this prohibition that have not been clarified by regulation or judicial rule. In 1984, the California ESA brought under its protection all plants previously listed as endangered under NPPA. Plants listed as rare under NPPA are not protected under the California ESA but are still protected under the provisions of NPPA. The Fish and Game Commission no longer lists plants under NPPA, reserving all listings to the California ESA.

2.3 Local Regulations
City of Healdsburg. The Healdsburg 2030 General Plan was adopted in 2009 and includes amendments through January 2015. It guides the physical development of the city and land outside city limits, and identifies the community’s environmental, social, and economic goals. The pertinent goals, policies and implementation measures of the Healdsburg General Plan that pertain to biological resources are listed below.

Item 7.c
346 of 697

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
12 2.3.1 Natural Resources Goals and Policies.

The Natural Resources Element provides goals, policies, and implementation measures directed towards protecting and improving the City’s water, agricultural, mineral, air, plant, wildlife, and scenic resources.

Goal NR-A: Improve water quality and flows in the Russian River, Dry Creek, and Foss Creek to protect the city’s water supply, recreation, fish, and wildlife. • Policy NR-A-2: The City will seek to minimize siltation, sedimentation, and pollution discharge into receiving waterways from construction activities and ongoing operations. • Policy NR-A-3: The City strongly supports the maintenance of maximum summer flows in the Russian River to protect water quality and the recreational values of the Russian River.
• Policy NR-A-4: Land with important watershed values shall be designated for open space or very low-intensity uses.

GOAL NR-B Conservation and restoration of Healdsburg’s native plants and wildlife, ecosystems, and waterways.
• Policy NR-B-1: Channel improvements to, and tree and brush clearance activities along Foss Creek shall not unnecessarily disturb riparian vegetation, shall seek to maintain and provide a sufficient shade canopy over the creek, and shall use plants and natural materials to the extent feasible in bank stabilization projects. • Policy NR-B-2: Large, mature trees that contribute to the visual quality of the environment or provide important wildlife habitat shall be protected. • Policy NR-B-3: New development shall be sited to maximize the protection of native tree species, riparian vegetation, important concentrations of native plants, and important wildlife habitat.
• Policy NR-B-4: The use of native tree species in landscaping and in the replanting of cut slopes is encouraged.

Goal NR-C: Preservation and enhancement of Healdsburg’s natural setting. • Policy NR-C-3: Development shall be allowed only in a manner that protects important views and landmarks such as Fitch Mountain, Russian River, and the foothills to the north, west and east of the city.
• Policy NR-C-6: Protection of distinctive natural vegetation such as oak woodlands, riparian corridors, and mixed evergreen forest is encouraged.

Goal NR-E: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency communitywide. • Policy NR-E-5: The City will encourage the use of large-scale trees in new development to lessen heat build-up from solar radiation.

Item 7.c
347 of 697

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
13 2.3.2 Natural Resources Implementation Measures
Riparian Resources Protection
• Policy NR-1: Develop and apply standard mitigation measures and conditions of approval on development permits to reduce siltation, sedimentation and pollution discharge into receiving waterways, both pre- and post-construction. • Policy NR-2: Continue to require Storm Water Pollution Plans (SWPPP) for development projects with a land disturbance of one acre or more that incorporate best management practices to preserve natural drainage systems; provide source control of construction site materials, wastes and chemicals; and control and treat runoff, both during and after construction.
• Policy NR-3: Prepare and distribute to the community guidelines that encourage the use of low impact development techniques to maintain or restore the natural hydrologic functions of a site by detaining water onsite, filtering out pollutants and facilitating the infiltration of water into the ground.
• Policy NR-4: Continue to enforce the riparian setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
• Policy NR-5: Include the locations of identified wetlands in the City GIS database. • Policy NR-6: Continue to promote the use of native plant species and the use of appropriate species in and adjacent to riparian habitat areas through implementation of Zoning Ordinance regulations and adopted design guidelines. • Policy NR-9: Use native plant species in City landscaping projects to the maximum feasible extent.

2.3.3 City of Healdsburg Heritage Tree Ordinance.

The City of Healdsburg has an Ordinance protecting Heritage Trees. Such trees include any tree with a trunk that measures a diameter of 30 inches or greater measured at 24 inches above ground level (Land Use Code Chapter 20.24 § 2). A tree permit must be obtained from the City which authorizes the removal, relocation or specific work to be performed within the protected zone of a heritage tree, before performing any such tasks.

2.3.4 City of Healdsburg Zoning Ordinance- Riparian Setbacks.

The requirements for setbacks to protect rivers, creeks, and streams in the City of Healdsburg are defined in City Land Use Code Sections 20.24.085, 20.24.090, and 20.24.095:

Section 20.24.085 Applicability. These requirements apply to any structure or other form of development located on property adjacent to or near the Russian River, Foss Creek, or other stream or creek, except as provided in this section.

The requirements of this article shall not apply to public streets or utilities, flood control facilities, erosion control structures or creek bank stabilization improvements that have been approved as required by governmental agencies having jurisdiction over them.

Item 7.c
348 of 697

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
14 Section 20.24.090 Riparian setback standards. No building, structure or permanent or temporary improvement, including, but not limited to, buildings of any type, garages, swimming pools and spas, parking lots (paved or unpaved), patios, platforms, decks, fences, liquid storage tanks, trash enclosures, mobile homes, retaining walls, debris, fill or trash shall be allowed within the following setbacks:
• Russian River: 100 feet
• Foss Creek: 35 feet
• All other streams and creeks: 25 feet
Setbacks shall be measured from the top of the existing bank. Where channel improvements are proposed, subject to the approval of a variance pursuant to this section, setbacks shall be measured from the top of the finished bank. Existing riparian vegetation within setback areas shall be maintained and protected from disturbance.

Section 20.24.095 Variances. Variances to the standards set forth in HMC 20.24.090 may be granted pursuant to Chapter 20.28 HMC, Article VI, where the provision of the required setback is infeasible.

Where a variance is granted, and where creeks or other riparian habitats are impacted by proposed activities subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), detailed riparian mitigation plans shall be prepared. Such plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect or qualified field biologist and shall be based on guidelines maintained by the planning and building director. The goal of such mitigation plan is to ensure no net loss of acreage or of functional value of riparian habitat.

2.4 Other
California Native Plant Society
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains a list of plant species native to California that have low numbers, limited distribution, or are otherwise threatened with extinction. This information is published in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2024:
https://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/).

Potential impacts to populations of CNPS-listed plants receive consideration under CEQA review, especially for those plant species included in California Rare Plant Ranks 1 and 2 (see below).

CNPS Rank Status
California Rare Plant Rank 1A Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere.

California Rare Plant Rank 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.

California Rare Plant Rank 2A Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere.

California Rare Plant Rank 2B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere.

California Rare Plant Rank 3 Plants about which more information is needed – a review list.

California Rare Plant Rank 4 Plants of limited distribution – a watch list.

Threat Code Extensions
.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 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 threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)
The following link identifies the definitions of the CNPS listings:
https://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/ranking.php
Item 7.c
349 of 697
15 3.0 METHODS
Both desktop and field surveys were conducted. The following describes how special-status species and sensitive natural communities are defined, and methods used to assess their potential to be present on the Project Site.

3.1 Definitions

3.1.1 Special Status Species
CEQA requires that impacts to special status species be considered and evaluated under CEQA. Special status species include plants or animals that:

1. are listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for future listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

2. are listed or are candidates for future listing as threatened or endangered under the California ESA.

3. meet the definitions of endangered or rare under § 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines.

4. are plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) (California Fish and Game Code, § 1900 et seq.).

5. are considered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to be "rare, threatened, or endangered in California", “plants about which more information is needed”, or “plants of limited distribution – a watch list” (i.e., species with a California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] of 1A,1B, 2A, or 2B.

6. are fully protected in California in accordance with the California Fish and Game Code, §§ 3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (amphibians and reptiles), and 5515 (fishes).

7. are identified as a species of special concern (SSC) by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

8. are birds identified as birds of conservation concern (BCC) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

3.1.2 Sensitive Natural Communities
CEQA requires that impacts to sensitive natural communities be considered and evaluated under CEQA. Sensitive natural communities are plant communities which CDFW designates as sensitive which are considered rare in the region, rank as threatened or very threatened, support special status species, or otherwise receive some form of regulatory protection. Sensitive plant communities also include those plant communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, ordinances, regulations, or by CDFW as those communities that provide special functions or values. CDFW identifies sensitive plant communities on their List of California Natural Communities and records their mapped presence as part of the information documented within the CNDDB. The mapped information in the CNDDB provides a general location of sensitive plant communities and sensitive natural community types.

Item 7.c
350 of 697

3.0 METHODS
16 3.2 Desktop Review
The following information sources were reviewed to develop relevant environmental and biological information for determining if special-status species, critical habitat, and sensitive natural communities that had been previously documented on or within a 10-mile vicinity of the Project Site:
• Aerial imagery available online from Google Earth Pro • Watershed mapping National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) HUC 8 and HUC 12 available online from the US Geological Survey (USGS)
• National Wetlands Inventory mapping available online from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
• Custom Soil Resources Report available online from Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
• Flood Insurance Rate Map available online from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
• 1:24,000 scale topographic mapping available online from the USGS • LIDAR data based topographic mapping for the Project Site available online from Sonoma County
• Vegetation Mapping available online from Sonoma County • California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System (CHWR) • Precipitation and temperature data from NRCS Climate Analysis for Wetlands Tables based on the nearest NRCS WETS Station
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) search for the Project Site 7.5-minute quadrangle and the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles available online from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
• Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) data base available online from the USFWS
• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) list of species and other resources under NMFS jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the Project area • Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California for the Project Site 7.5- minute quadrangle and the eight surrounding USGS quadrangles available online from the CNPS.

3.3 Field Surveys
The Project Site was visited on several occasions by professional biologists to develop information regarding general ecological conditions and potential presence/absence of special status plant and animal species and sensitive natural communities to include aquatic resources. These studies/biological surveys are summarized below.

Plant and Wildlife Surveys. Plant and wildlife species and habitat surveys were conducted on the Project Site by Gary Deghi of HBG on February 28,March 21, and June 12, 2024. In addition, Greg Huffman and Agie Gilmore of HBG conducted a tree survey at the site on February 27 and 28, 2024. To determine if sensitive natural communities occur within the Project Area, a detailed floristic inventory was prepared based on CNPS relevé plot sampling. Wildlife observations in the Project Area were Item 7.c
351 of 697

3.0 METHODS
17 based on visual sightings and observations of tracks, dens, and scat. Trees surveyed in the Project Site were measured at a height of 24 inches above ground level. Any tree having a diameter of 30 inches or more was considered a Heritage Tree and was mapped utilizing ESRI Field Maps in conjunction with a Trimble DA2 GPS receiver.

Aquatic Resources Survey. Wetland Scientist Greg Huffman and Environmental Scientist Agie Gilmore of HBG conducted field investigations on February 27 and 28, 2024 to identify and map aquatic resources meeting the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS) (33 CFR § 328.3 (a)), including wetlands (33 CFR § 328.3 (a)(4)), potentially regulated by the Corps and USEPA under Section 404 of the CWA. Potential WOTUS were identified and delineated using the Corps’ 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps Delineation Manual) and the Corps’ 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (Regional Supplement) and supporting guidance documents. The Regional Supplement was followed when determining the presence or absence of vegetation, soil, and hydrology indicators. Ordinary High Water Mark identification and delineation followed the methods described in A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual.

HBG also assessed the Project Area on February 27 and 28, 2024 to determine the presence of Waters of the State (WOTS) in accordance with the April 2, 2019, State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State, also referred to as the “Procedures” and, therefore, potentially regulated under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act by the North Coast Water Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board). Additionally, HBG evaluated the Project Area to determine the presence or absence of lakes or streams potentially subject to regulation under Fish and Game Code Section 1602 by CDFW’s Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement Program (LSAA Program).

The findings of these biological surveys have been incorporated into this BRA in Section 4.0.

3.4 Potential Presence Assessment
Based on species occurrence information provided by the CNDDB and IPaC databases, special plant and animal species were summarized in table format (Appendix B) with listing status information together with descriptions of macro and micro habitat requirements. Using the criteria listed below, each plant and animal species and community listed was then evaluated as to its potential for being present on the Project Site (Section 4.2). The evaluation was based on an assessment of information obtained relevant to the Project Site and vicinity which included: (1) general ecological information regarding land use, climate, topographic, soils, hydrology, and vegetation type and animal species typically associated with the existing Project Site; and (2) specific technical information regarding listed plant and animal species distribution range, habitat, and known threats together with onsite general level plant, wildlife, and aquatic resource surveys (Section 4.2.1 and 4.2.2). Sensitive natural communities mentioned in the CNDDB are also discussed in Section 4.2.3.

No Potential: Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, Item 7.c
352 of 697

3.0 METHODS
18 plant community, site history, disturbance regime).

Unlikely: Few of the habitat components 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.

Moderate Potential: Some of the habitat components 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 of the habitat components 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 (i.e., CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently.

If determined potentially present, the plant species, animal species, and/or sensitive natural community was evaluated to determine if the Project would have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications and, if necessary, recommend action(s) either before or after proposed project approval, but prior to ground-disturbing activities (also provided in Section 5.0).

Item 7.c
353 of 697
19 4.0 RESULTS

4.1 Site Characteristics

4.1.1 Land Use
The proposed Project Site is Badger Park, a park owned and operated by the City of Healdsburg.

Adjacent land uses to the west, north, and east of the Badger Park Project Site consist of single-family residential land uses. The Project Site is bordered to the south by the Russian River. Current land uses within the Project Site consist of a variety of recreational uses including play fields, sports courts, a children’s tot-lot, a dog play area, a community garden, picnic areas, and ad hoc trails into the woodlands.

4.1.2 Topography and Soils
The Project Site, and the intermediate surrounding area, consists of relatively flat to gently rolling landscapes. The topography, which varies at elevations between approximately 78 to 100 feet NAVD 88, is shown in the Healdsburg USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle topographic map in Appendix A, Figure 2b and 3b.

Soil survey information for the Review Area was obtained from the National Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2023) (Appendix A, Figure 5). Four (4) different soil types are mapped by NRCS within the Project Site as described in the table below.

Table 1. Summary of Pertinent Characteristics of Soils Mapped Onsite by NRCS Soil Name Landform/Parent
Material
Typical Profile
(inches)
Natural Drainage
Class/Runoff Class
Depth to
Water
Table
Frequency of
Flooding/Ponding
Pleasanton loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes,
MLRA 14
Alluvial fans / Alluvium derived
from sedimentary rock
Ap - 0 to 5 inches: loam
A - 5 to 18 inches: loam
Bt1 - 18 to 23 inches: clay
loam
Bt2 - 23 to 44 inches: fine
gravelly clay loam
Bt3 - 44 to 66 inches: fine
gravelly sandy clay loam
Well drained / n/a More than
80 inches
None/None
Pleasanton gravelly
loam, 2 to 5 percent
slopes
Terraces, alluvial fans / Alluvium
derived from sedimentary rock
H1 - 0 to 27 inches:
gravelly loam
H2 - 27 to 72 inches:
gravelly clay loam
Well drained / low More than
80 inches
None/None
Riverwash Flood plains / Sandy and
gravelly alluvium
H1 - 0 to 6 inches: very
gravelly sand
H2 - 6 to 60 inches:
stratified very gravelly
coarse sand to very
gravelly sand
Excessively drained /
Negligible
~ 0 inches Frequent / n/a
Yolo sandy loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes
Alluvial fans / Alluvium derived
from sedimentary rock
H1 - 0 to 15 inches: sandy
loam
H2 - 15 to 60 inches: loam
Well drained/ Low More than
80 inches
None/ None
Item 7.c
354 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
20 4.1.3 Climate
Based on WETS Station “HEALDSBURG, CA” precipitation and temperature data for the period of record (1971 – 2022), the average annual precipitation amount received approximately 6.5 miles from the site is 41.67 inches received as rainfall and 0.00 inch received as snow. The average minimum and maximum precipitation amount ranges between 0.05 and 8.08 inches. The wettest months, in which average monthly rainfall exceeds 7.00 inches, are January, February, and December (8.01, 7.78, and

8.08 inches) with the lowest average amount occurring in July and August (0.05 and 0.09 inches).

Record data also indicates that the annual average daily temperature is 60.6 ° F. Average high and low temperatures range between 74.1 ° F and 47.0 ° F with the coldest months typically including January and December where temperatures are in the upper 30s and the hottest months being July and August where temperatures are in the lower 70s. The annual growing season with a 50% probability of having days above 32° F is 302 days (February 7 to December 6), and, with a 70% probability of having days above 32° F, is 321 days (January 29 to December 16).

4.1.4 Hydrology
Watersheds. A review of the US Geological Survey (USGS) National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) data shows that the Project Site lies within the 10‐digit HUC (1801011006) (Appendix A, Figure 6) “Middle Russian River” watershed and the 12-digit HUC (180101100605) “Brooks Creek-Russian River” subwatershed (Appendix A, Figure 7).

Direction of Surface Water Flow. Surface water that flows within the Project Site is the direct result of precipitation and associated stormwater runoff. This stormwater is collected by an incised natural drainage which directs flows to the southern edge of the Project Site. Streamflow from the Project Site travels south-southwesterly towards and into the Russian River. Russian River surface flows run into the Pacific Ocean.

FEMA. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map for “Sonoma County” 06097C0551E (Effective Date:
12/2/2008) indicates the Project Site is within FEMA zoning associated with an annual chance flood hazard (AE: 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard; and Regulatory Floodway) (Appendix A, Figure 8).

4.1.5 Plant Communities
General Classification. Vegetation communities are assemblages of plant species growing in an area of similar biological and environmental factors. Vegetation communities and habitats at the Project Site were identified based on the currently accepted List of Natural Communities (CDFW 2010). The list is based on A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (Sawyer et al 2009), which is the National Vegetation Classification applied to California. Vegetation communities and habitats at the project site were also identified using the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) classification (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988), which defines aquatic as well as terrestrial habitats including urban areas. The CWHR habitat classification scheme was developed to provide a systematic method for describing how habitats and structures support California's regularly occurring birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. At present, there are 59 wildlife habitats in the CWHR System: 27 trees, 12 shrubs, 6 herbaceous, 4 aquatic, 8 agricultural, 1 developed, and 1 non-vegetated.

Item 7.c
355 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
21 Wetland habitats potentially subject to federal or state jurisdiction were further classified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Classification System for Wetland and Deepwater Habitats (Cowardin et al. 1979, see wetland delineation discussion in Section 4.1.7).

Based on Sonoma County vegetation mapping and results of field surveys conducted by HBG, the Project Site contains six plant communities or habitat types: (1) Valley Foothill Riparian, (2) Coastal Oak Woodland, (3) Valley Oak Woodland, (4) Non-native Annual Grassland, (5) Urban, and (6) Riverine (the portion of the site that is within the Russian River). . Summary descriptions of these plant communities/habitat types on the Project Site follows.

A list of plant species observed on the Project Site during field reviews conducted in February, March, and June of 2024 is included in Appendix B, Table 1. A general map of plant communities on the project site based on mapping by Sonoma County and available online is shown in Appendix A, Figure 4.

Valley Foothill Riparian (9.5 acres)
Structure. Mature riparian ecosystems include canopy trees with a canopy cover of 20 to 80 percent, a subcanopy tree layer and an understory shrub layer. Generally, the understory is impenetrable and includes fallen limbs and other debris. In the CDFW List of Natural Communities, the area mapped as Valley Foothill Riparian within the floodplain of the Russian River and dominated by willow trees would be referred to as North Coast Riparian Scrub.

Composition. The Valley Foothill Riparian habitat on the Project Site consists of the forested area between the developed portion of Badger Park and the Russian River. Dominant species in the canopy layer of the on-site riparian habitat include arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), box elder (Acer negundo), and a lesser number of other native trees such as California bay (Umbellularia californica), Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophylla), Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), and blue elderberry (Sambucus cerulea). The canopy layer of this habitat on the project site also includes a considerable number of non-native tree privet (Ligustrum lucidum) and a single Canary Island palm (Phoenix canariensis).

The understory of the extensive Valley Foothill Riparian habitat within the park is thick growth of mostly non-native plants that includes species such as greater periwinkle (Vinca major), English ivy (Hedera helix), poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), giant reed (Arundo donax), blue lily (Agapanthus praecox), purple dead nettle (Lamium purpureum), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and sour grass (Oxalis pes-caprae), but also native species such as Witch grass (Panicum capillare), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), common bedstraw (Gallium aparine), California bee plant (Scrophularia californica), and water sedge (Carex aquatilis). Plant species growing along the edge of the riparian habitat closest to the mowed play fields included fruit trees (Prunus sp.), tree privet, French broom (Genista monspessulana), California blackberry, and lemon balm (Melissa officinalis).

An unnamed creek enters the site near the northeast corner of the site within the Valley Oak Woodland, runs along the northern border of Badger Park (between Badger Park and Heron Drive), and traverses south through the Coastal Oak Woodland and Valley Foothill Riparian areas of the site before emptying into the Russian River near a large clump of arroyo willows at the southwest corner of the Item 7.c
356 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
22 site. Tree canopy within and along the banks of this stream is mainly arroyo willow, tree privet, blue elderberry, Coast live oak, and a few Valley oak (Quercus lobata), and with an understory consisting mainly of California blackberry.

Coastal Oak Woodland (1.21 acres)
Structure. The overstory of Coastal Oak Woodlands consists of deciduous and evergreen hardwoods (mostly oaks), sometimes mixed with scattered conifers. In mesic sites, the trees are dense and form a closed canopy. In drier sites, the trees are widely spaced, forming an open woodland or savannah. The understory is equally variable. In some instances, it is composed of shrubs from adjacent chaparral or coastal scrub which forms a dense, almost impenetrable, understory. More commonly, shrubs are scattered under and between trees. Where trees form a closed canopy, the understory varies from a lush cover of shade-tolerant shrubs, ferns, and herbs to sparse cover with a thick carpet of litter. When trees are scattered and form an open woodland, the understory is grassland, sometimes with scattered shrubs. The interrelationships of slope, soil, precipitation, moisture availability, and air temperature cause variations in the structure of Coastal Oak Woodlands. These factors vary along the latitudinal, longitudinal, and elevational gradients over which Coastal Oak Woodlands are found.

Composition. The Coastal Oak Woodland on the Project Site is continuous with the Valley Foothill Riparian habitat but is found further inland from the Russian River. Tree canopy composition of Coastal Oak Woodlands on the Project Site is dominated by Coast live oak, with several California buckeye (Aesculus californica) and a large numbers of non-native tree privet. Typical understory plants in the onsite Coast Live Oak Woodlands include California blackberry, English ivy, elderberries, poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), among others.

Valley Oak Woodland (0.38 acres)
Structure. Valley Oak Woodland varies from savanna-like to forest-like stands with partially closed canopies, comprised mostly of winter-deciduous, broad-leaved species. Denser stands typically grow in valley soils along natural drainages. Tree density decreases with the transition from lowlands to the less fertile soils of drier uplands. Similarly, the shrub layer is best developed along natural drainages, becoming insignificant in the uplands with more open stands of oaks. Valley oak stands with little or no grazing tend to develop a partial shrub layer of bird disseminated species, such as poison-oak, toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and coffeeberry (Frangula californica). Ground cover consists of a welldeveloped carpet of annual grasses and forbs. Mature valley oaks with weil-developed crowns range in height from 15 to 35 m (49 to 115 ft)
Composition. The Valley Oak Woodland on the Project Site consists of a patch of this habitat at the northern end of the Project Site between the Badger Park parking lot and Heron Drive. A small stream enters this habitat through a culvert under the park entrance road and continues west into the Coastal Oak Woodland and then south into the Riparian habitat before emptying into the Russian River near the southwest corner of the site. The dominant canopy tree in this patch of Valley oak habitat is valley oak, but other trees such as native Coast live oak and arroyo willow and non-native tree privet are also present, especially along the small stream. Typical understory plants include California blackberry, English ivy, and poison oak, along with grasses such as wild oat (Avena fatua), rattlesnake grass (Briza maxima), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and others.

Item 7.c
357 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
23 Urban (5.95 acres)
Structure. The structure of urban vegetation varies, with five types of vegetative structure defined:
tree grove, street strip, shade tree/lawn, lawn, and shrub cover. Tree groves, common in city parks, green belts, and cemeteries, vary in height, tree spacing, crown shape, and understory conditions, depending upon the species planted and the planting design. The juxtaposition of urban vegetation types within cities produces a rich mosaic with considerable edge areas. The overall mosaic may be more valuable as wildlife habitat than the individual units in that mosaic.

Composition. The Urban habitat on the Project Site consists primarily of the developed portions of the Project Site (including the play fields, tot-lot, parking lot and other amenities where some remnant native trees may be present but where most vegetation consists of non-native species or plants used in landscaping), the community garden, and an adjacent small field of non-native grasses and herbaceous species that is considered a ruderal habitat. The composition of the vegetation within the Urban habitat is discussed below, however, investigators did not attempt to catalog vegetation within the community garden as the Project proposes no change to the community garden.

The area of the parking lot is mostly paved, but trees are planted within islands and medians consisting mostly of common hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) and with Empress tree (Paulownia tomentosa) planted along the edge of the dog park. Several Coast redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) have been planted in the southeast corner of the parking lot. The tot-lot was apparently constructed in a small area of native Valley oaks as tree canopy in this area consists of several remnant valley oak trees.

Other landscaping in this area includes attractive species such as Chinese fringe flower (Loropetalium chinesnse). The Urban habitat also includes the mowed grassy fields that are used as play fields and the dog park. These areas were freshly mowed at the time of the field reviews, but grasses and herbaceous plants identifiable along the edges of these areas revealed that vegetation is non-native grass species such as wild oat, ripgut brome, foxtail barley, perennial ryegrass (Festuca perennis), and Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and common non-native herbaceous species (or forbs) such as spring vetch (Vicia sativa), redstem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), cut-leaf geranium (Geranium dissectum), dandelion (Taraxicum officinale), bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), bull mallow (Malva nicaeensis), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), and white clover (Trifolium repens).

Non-Native Annual Grassland (0.73 acres)
Structure. Annual Grassland habitat occurs mostly on flat plains to gently rolling foothills. Annual Grassland habitats are open grasslands composed primarily of annual plant species. Many of these species also occur as understory plants in woodlands and other habitats. Structure in Annual Grassland depends largely on weather patterns and livestock grazing. Dramatic differences in physiognomy, both between seasons and between years, are characteristic of this habitat. Fall rains cause germination of annual plant seeds. Plants grow slowly during the cool winter months, remaining low in stature until spring, when temperatures increase and stimulate more rapid growth. Large amounts of standing dead plant material can be found during summer in years of abundant rainfall and light to moderate grazing pressure. Heavy spring grazing favors the growth of summer-annual forbs and reduces the amount of standing dead material. Grasslands, in general, are of conservation concern nationwide due to the loss of these habitats with conversion to agriculture and urban development.

Item 7.c
358 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
24 Composition. The annual grassland area on the Project Site consists of a ruderal field vegetated primarily with non-native weedy species in the eastern portion of the project area between the community garden and the forest habitat along the river. This ruderal field is not mowed. Vegetation includes the non-native grasses and forbs found in the play fields such as wild oat, ripgut brome, foxtail barley, spring vetch, dandelion, and cut-leaf geranium, but also species such as curly dock, greater periwinkle, bedstraw, Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), wild radish (Raphanus sativa), pennyroyal (Mentha spicata), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), purple salsify (Tragopogon porrifolius), chicory (Cichorium intybus), and other larger plants such as non-native sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) and poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), and native California blackberry.

Riverine (0.87 acres)(portion of the site within theRussian River) Structure. Intermittent or continually running water distinguishes rivers and streams. A stream originates at some elevated source, such as a spring or lake, and flows downward at a rate relative to slope or gradient and the volume of surface runoff or discharge. Velocity generally declines at progressively lower altitudes, and the volume of water increases until the enlarged stream finally becomes sluggish. Over this transition from a rapid, surging stream to a slow, sluggish river, water temperature and turbidity will tend to increase, dissolved oxygen will decrease, and the bottom will change from rocky to muddy. Riverine systems are often lacking in vegetation.

4.1.6 Animal Populations
General Characteristics of Onsite Habitats. The habitats on site and in the surrounding area support many wildlife species, mostly those typically found in disturbed forested habitats, wetlands, and urban habitats in this part of Sonoma County. Trees and other vegetation within forested habitats on the property generally provide shelter and cover for a variety of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals and provide foraging and breeding habitat for a variety of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species.

Riparian habitats provide food and water sources, migration and dispersal corridors, and escape, nesting, and thermal cover for an abundance of wildlife. They also provide breeding sites for amphibians and feeding areas for larger mammals such as deer. Canopy riparian trees and other vegetation provide nesting substrates for a number of bird species and foraging areas for both migratory and resident species. Well-developed riparian canopies also provide significant habitat in support of neotropical migrant land birds during spring and fall migration. The canopy vegetation provides shading and inputs of leaves and woody material to stream channels that provides suitable conditions for many aquatic organisms, including fish, that in Sonoma County can include species of anadromous salmonids. Fresh Emergent Wetlands are present within the Valley Foothill Riparian habitat and are among the most productive wildlife habitats in California.

Coastal Oak and Valley Oak Woodlands also provide food and cover for many species of wildlife. Many species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians are specifically adapted to life in oak woodlands.

Oaks have long been considered important to some birds and mammals as a food resource (i.e., acorns and browse). Cavities in mature trees oak woodlands and riparian habitats may serve as nesting sites for cavity nesting birds and may serve as winter or maternity roost sites for various species of bat. The adjacent Russian River is a significant feature adjacent to the Project Site. In general, depending on the amount of water in a riverine system, streams provide suitable habitat for a variety of insects and Item 7.c
359 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
25 amphibian species, and provides a source of water for reptiles, amphibians, and mammals, and foraging habitat for birds adapted to aquatic habitat such as waterfowl, waterbirds and shorebirds. In areas of open water, insectivorous birds such swallows and some flycatchers will hawk for prey during the spring and summer. The Russian River supports a variety of fish species, including populations of special status anadromous fish including coho salmon and steelhead (see Section 4.2.2).

Animal Populations at the Project Site. The Russian River and adjacent riparian forest within the Project Site boundary provide wildlife habitat that includes a water source and that serves as a movement/migration corridor and foraging and breeding habitat for a variety of aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species. The Valley Foothill Riparian area in the southern portion of the Project Site is part of a wildlife corridor extending along the Russian River. An unnamed stream traverses the northern end of the site within the Valley Oak Woodland before passing through the Coastal Oak Woodland and Valley Foothill Riparian habitats and then emptying into the Russian River at the southwest corner of the site.

This stream is also a wildlife corridor but at a smaller scale. Many of the trees in the Valley Foothill Riparian and Coastal Oak and Valley Oak Woodland habitats at the site are old enough to have significant cavities that could support cavity nesting birds or could serve as either winter or maternity roosts for various species of bat. All bat species and bat roosts are protected under California Fish and Game Coode Section 4150.

The aquatic environments on the Project Site are particularly suitable as breeding habitat for various species of amphibian that would be expected to include species such as Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla), California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris), and western toad (Anaxyrus boreas), among others. Western fence lizards (Scoloperus occidentalis) were common in developed portions of the park; other common reptiles could include southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinatus), Pacific gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), and common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis elegans). Mammals observed at the Project Site during the field review included western gray squirrels (Sciurus griseus) within the forested habitats. Other mammals expected at the site, especially near developed park facilities, would include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), house mouse (Mus musculus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus).

HBG’s wildlife biologist observed 50 avian species at the site during February 28, March 21, and June 12, 2024, field reviews. The biologist developed an eBird checklist of all birds observed during the field reviews (See Appendix B, Table 2). Most of the bird species observed during February and March would be either permanent residents or winter visitors that could remain on the site during spring and summer to nest, but those observed during the June review are mostly likely species nesting at the site or in the immediate vicinity. .

The greatest diversity of avian species was noted in the Valley Foothill Riparian habitat between the developed portions of the park and the Russian River where trees and shrubs provide suitable habitat.

Bird species observed in this area included Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), hairy woodpecker (Dryobates villosus), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), western flycatcher (Empidonax difficilus), California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma Item 7.c
360 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
26 californica), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), violetgreen swallow (Tachycineta thalassina), bushtit (Psaltriparius minimus), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), house wren (Troglodytes aedon), hermit thrush (Catharus guttatus), Swainson’s thrush (Catharus ustulatus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria). white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), golden-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia atricapilla), fox sparrow (Passerella iliaca), spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), and blackheaded grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus). Avian diversity was generally greatest in the riparian habitat immediately along the Russian River and along the stretch of creek that passes through the Coastal Oak Woodland and Valley Foothill Riparian habitats before emptying into the Russian River at the southwest corner of the site in the vicinity of the willow island.

Additional bird species were seen in the Coastal Oak Woodland including acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), Nuttall’s woodpecker (Dryobates nuttallii), downy woodpecker (Dryobates pubescens), Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), Hutton’s vireo (Vireo huttoni), Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), brown creeper (Certhia americana), western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), Townsend’s warbler (Setophaga townsendi), and western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana). Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), common merganser (Mergus merganser), and killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) were observed within the Russian River or along its banks, All active nests of bird species mentioned above are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. Sections 3503, 3505, and 3513. Bird species not covered by the MBTA and Fish and Game Code would include introduced non-native species such as European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), rock pigeon (Columba livia), Eurasian collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto), and house sparrow (Passer domesticus), which all likely occur at the site. Many of the bird species observed during the February and March surveys could remain on the site to nest. Bushtit, oak titmouse, and Bewick’s wren were all observed carrying nesting material during the March 21, 2024, survey, evidence that these species nest within the forested areas on the site. Several nesting pairs of western bluebirds were observed in developed portions of the park carrying food for young during the June survey. Any of the species observed during the June survey likely nest on the site or in the immediate vicinity, including the neotropical migrants observed in the field (western flycatcher, Swainson’s thrush, western tanager, and black-headed grosbeak). Other nesting neotropical migrants could include warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus), Bullock’s oriole (Icterus bullockii), and Wilson’s warbler (Cardellina pusilla).

4.1.7 Wetlands
An area totaling 3.07 acres of aquatic resources was identified and delineated by HBG during field surveys conducted on February 27 and 28, 2024 (see technical report included as Appendix D). More specifically, using the USFWS classification system (Cowardin et al 1979), the wetland aquatic resources consisted of Riverine Lower Perennial (1.51 acres), Riverine Intermittent (0.14 acre), and Palustrine Forested (1.42 acres) (Appendix A, Figures 9, 10, and 11).

Item 7.c
361 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
27 Mazor, R.D., et al. (2021) define intermittent and perennial flows1 as follows:

Intermittent reaches are channels that contain sustained flowing surface water for only part of the year, typically during the wet season, where the streambed may be below the water table and/or where the snowmelt from surrounding uplands provides sustained flow. The flow may vary greatly with stormwater runoff.

Perennial reaches are channels that contain flowing surface water continuously during a year of normal rainfall, often with the streambed located below the water table for most of the year.

Groundwater typically supplies the baseflow for perennial reaches, but the baseflow may also be supplemented by stormwater runoff and/or snowmelt.

All of the 3.07 acres of aquatic resources meet the definition of WOTUS (33 CFR § 328.3 (a)) and therefore are potentially subject to Corps and USEPA jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA (Table 2). In addition, 4.79 acres of non-wetland areas were observed below ordinary high water (Appendix A, Figure 9). All 7.86 acres of aquatic resources (WOTUS wetlands/non-wetlands) meet the Water Board’s definition of wetlands and are subject to jurisdiction as WOTS under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Table 3). In addition, 0.86 acres of non-wetland stream channel (to the top of the stream bank) is also potentially considered an “other WOTS” subject to Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act jurisdiction (Appendix A, Figure 10). The above-described wetland aquatic resources and nonwetlands would be potentially considered as a streambed under the CDFW’s LSAA Program and subject to regulation under Fish and Game Code Section 1602 (Table 3) (Appendix A, Figure 11).

Table 2. Summary of the Types of Aquatic Resource Habitats Identified Within the Review Area and Analysis for Why They are Potentially Subject to CWA Section 404 Jurisdiction, Size, and Cowardin Classification, Badger Park, Healdsburg, California
Aquatic
Resource ID #
Aquatic
Habitat Type
WOTUS
Definition
Met?
Description of Relevant 33 CFR 328.3
WOTUS Definition Size Cowardin
Classification1
and Analysis Acres Linear Ft
R1 Tributary Yes R1 meets the WOTUS definition of an
A1 Water which is defined by 33 CFR
328.3 as (a)(1) Traditional navigable
waters, the territorial seas, and
interstate waters.

Analysis: The Russian River is a
perennial stream that is “navigable in
fact”.

1.514 1085 Lower
Perennial,
Riverine
1 National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) stream permanence classifications (SPC; perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral) are widely used for data visualization and applied science and have implications for resource policy and management. NHD SPC were assigned using a combination of topographic field surveys and interviews with local residents. However, previous studies indicate that non‐NHD, in situ streamflow observations (NNO) frequently disagree with NHD SPC (Konrad Hafen, et. al., 2020).

Item 7.c
362 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
28 Table 2. Summary of the Types of Aquatic Resource Habitats Identified Within the Review Area and Analysis for Why They are Potentially Subject to CWA Section 404 Jurisdiction, Size, and Cowardin Classification, Badger Park, Healdsburg, California
Aquatic
Resource ID #
Aquatic
Habitat Type
WOTUS
Definition
Met?
Description of Relevant 33 CFR 328.3
WOTUS Definition Size Cowardin
Classification1
and Analysis Acres Linear Ft
R2, R3, R4, R5,
R6, and R7
Tributary Yes R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7 are
intermittent streams that meet the
WOTUS definition of Jurisdictional
Tributaries which are defined by 33
CFR 328.3 as (a)(3) jurisdictional
Tributaries of waters identified in
paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this
section that are relatively permanent,
standing or continuously flowing
bodies of water; [i.e., Jurisdictional
Tributaries].

Analysis: R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and R7
are relatively permanent, standing or
continuously flowing bodies of water.

These tributaries have ephemeral
flows resulting from stormwater flow
generating precipitation events,
groundwater discharge, and high
water table.

0.135 1427 Intermittent,
Riverine
W1, W2, W3,
and W4
Wetland Yes W1, W2, W3, and W4 are Wetlands
which are defined by 33 CFR 328.3 as
(a)(4) and are adjacent to the
following waters: (i) Waters identified
in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or
(ii) Relatively permanent, standing or
continuously flowing bodies of water
identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3)
of this section and with a continuous
surface connection to those waters;
[i.e., Jurisdictional Adjacent Wetlands]
Analysis: W1, W2, W3, and W4 are
adjacent to an (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3)
water.

1.417 n/a Forested,
Palustrine
U1, U2, U3,
U4, U5
NonWetland/Other
Waters
No Are part of the R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, and
R7 tributaries described above.

4.79 n/a Upland Below
Ordinary High
Water
Total 7.86 1,427
Table 3. Summary of the Types of Aquatic Resources Identified Within the Review Area that are Potentially Subject to Water Board and CDFW Jurisdiction, Badger Park, Healdsburg, California Aquatic
Resource ID #
Aquatic Resource Type Size
Cowardin Classification1
Water Board WOTS CDFW Acres Linear
Feet
R1 Streambed/Wetland Streambed 1.514 1085 Lower Perennial, Riverine R2 Streambed/Wetland Streambed 0.065 759 Intermittent, Riverine Item 7.c
363 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
29 Table 3. Summary of the Types of Aquatic Resources Identified Within the Review Area that are Potentially Subject to Water Board and CDFW Jurisdiction, Badger Park, Healdsburg, California Aquatic
Resource ID #
Aquatic Resource Type Size
Cowardin Classification1
Water Board WOTS CDFW Acres Linear
Feet
R3 Streambed/Wetland Streambed 0.05 430 Intermittent, Riverine R4 Streambed/Wetland Streambed 0.004 127 Intermittent, Riverine R5 Streambed/Wetland Streambed 0 16 Intermittent, Riverine R6 Streambed/Wetland Streambed 0.001 15 Intermittent, Riverine R7 Streambed/Wetland Streambed 0.015 79 Intermittent, Riverine W1 Wetland Streambed 1.333 n/a Forested, Palustrine
W2 Wetland Floodplain*/Wetland 0.006 n/a Forested, Palustrine W3 Wetland Streambed 0.076 n/a Forested, Palustrine
W4 Wetland Streambed 0.003 n/a Forested, Palustrine
U1-U5 Other Water* Floodplain* 5.65 n/a Upland Below Ordinary High Water Total 8.72 2,511
1 Cowardin et al. 1979. 2 P = Pond; R = Riverine drainage; W = Wetland; n/a = not applicable. 3 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least “seasonally” (e.g., typically, 3 months). * = Non-wetland portion of the 100-year floodplain within the project area below Top of Bank.

4.2 Special-Status Species
Based on species occurrence information from the literature review and field observations, and USFWS IPaC database review, a list of special-status and CNDDB-tracked plant and animal species considered to have the potential of occurring within the Project was generated and is summarized in Tables 3 and 42 of Appendix B. Each species considered potentially occurring at the Project or in the vicinity was then evaluated based on the occurrence criteria provided in Section 3.4, above.

Based on a CNDDB search there are no special-status species documented within the Project Site boundaries, however 52 special-status species of plants, 29 special status animals, and 1 sensitive natural community known to occur within the vicinity of the Project Site. Appendix B, Tables 3 and 4 provide lists of the plant and animal species identified. Tables 3 and 4 also provide listing status, general and micro habitat descriptions, an evaluation of the species potential for occurring within the Project Site based on the criteria listed in Section 3.4, above, and recommended action if the proposed project is approved. The sensitive natural community mentioned in the CNDDB (Northern Claypan Vernal Pool) is discussed in Section 4.2.3.
2 It should be noted that the USFWS IPaC also included the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas), and monarch butterfly (Danaus Plexippus). It was determined the Project Site lacks suitable habitat for these species and there is no potential for occurrence.

Item 7.c
364 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
30 4.2.1 Special Status Plants
Based on the database search, literature review and habitat types found in the Project, 14 specialstatus plant species were identified as having a moderate to high potential to occur within the Project Site (Appendix B, Table 3). Special status species with a Moderate to High Potential for presence in the onsite areas of Valley Foothill Riparian habitat with associated areas of freshwater marsh include the following:
• Sonoma alopecurus (Alopercurus aequalis var. sonomensis), federally listed as endangered and CRPR 1B.1
• Thurber’s reed grass (Calamagrostis crassiglumis), CRPR 2B.1 • Bristly sedge (Carex comosa), CRPR 2B.1
• Pitkin Marsh paintbrush (Castilleja uliginosa), state listed and endangered and CRPR 1A (may be extinct)
• Peruvian dodder (Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa), CRPR 2B.2 • Swamp harebell (Eastwoodia californica), CRPR 1B.2
• Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala), state listed endangered, CRPR 1B.2 • Pitkin Marsh lily (Lilium pardalinum spp. pitkinense), state and federally listed endangered, CRPR 1B.1
• White-beaked rush (Rhynchospora alba), CRPR 2B.2
• California beaked rush (Rhynchospora californica), CRPR 1B.1 • Brownish beaked rush (Rhynchospora capitellata), CRPR 2B.2 • Round-headed beaked rush (Rhynchospora globularis), CRPR 2B.1 • Kenwood Marsh checkerbloom (Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida), state and federally listed endangered, CRPR 1B.1
• Northern slender pondweed (Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina), CRPR 2B.2 All other plant species identified in the database search were determined to be absent due to the lack of potentially suitable habitat as documented by the CNDDB database. Field studies conducted by HBG on February 27 and 28, 2024 found no special-status plants, but these surveys were not conducted during the flowering period of the target plant species.

4.2.2 Special Status Animals
FISH
Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)- Central California Coast Distinct Population Segment Range. The Central California Coast DPS of Steelhead includes all naturally spawned population of steelhead and their progeny in streams from the Russian River south to Aptos Creek in Santa Cruz County. The DPS does not include the Pajaro River but does include the drainages of the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays.

Special Status Listing. Steelhead populations in the Central California Coast DPS are listed as threatened under the federal ESA.

Item 7.c
365 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
31 Critical habitat for Central California Coast steelhead includes all river reaches and estuarine areas accessible to steelhead in coastal river basins from the Russian River to Aptos Creek (inclusive), and the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Also included are adjacent riparian zones, all waters of San Pablo Bay west of the Carquinez Bridge, and all waters of San Francisco Bay to the Golden Gate.

Critical habitat for this DPS includes the waters of the Russian River adjacent to the Project Site.

Habitat. Steelhead require well-oxygenated streams with riffles and loose, silt-free gravel substrate for spawning. Steelhead possess the ability to spawn repeatedly, maintaining the mechanisms to return to the Pacific Ocean after spawning in freshwater. Juvenile steelhead may spend up to four years residing in fresh water prior to migrating to the ocean as smolts. Steelhead spawning migrations occur from late November through April in years of normal runoff. Most upstream migration occurs during and immediately following periods of heavy storm runoff. Most salmon die after spawning, but steelhead begin a return migration to the ocean soon after completion of spawning. Juvenile steelhead require a period of residency in the stream before migrating downstream to the ocean with the length of freshwater residency varying from one to three years or more depending on the living conditions in the stream. The major downstream migration of juvenile steelhead occurs during the period from February through June, depending on the water year and pattern of winter-spring runoff. Fish habitat is physically reduced to a minimum during the low-flow period of July through October when the actual physical habitat supporting fish life is at its minimum and the amount of available habitat becomes a limiting factor in the health and survival of fish populations.

Threats. Historically, the Russian River had 20-65,000 steelhead returning annually, making it the third largest run in California, after the Sacramento and the Klamath Rivers. The Russian River steelhead fishery was world renowned up till the 1960’s. Every accessible stream in the watershed supported steelhead at one time, but human impacts such as logging, dams, water diversions, and agricultural and urban development, have caused extreme habitat degradation over centuries and this once robust fishery has dwindled. Efforts to increase steelhead in the Russian River have been in place since 1870 and continue today with steelhead production programs at the Warm Springs and Lake Mendocino hatcheries (Sea Grant California 2024). Steelhead populations have fluctuated widely since about 1970 and are significantly reduced from historic populations. Human-caused factors for this decline include habitat alterations such as water diversions, road building, timber harvest, urbanization, flood control structures and practices, and climate change (NMFS 2012).

Potential Site Occurrence. Moderate Potential. The nearest sighting of steelhead mentioned in the CNDDB is from Mill Creek and its upstream tributaries (Wallace, Felta, Palmer and Angel Creeks) in the area west of Healdsburg. These sightings were of hundreds of individuals observed in the Mill Creek watershed during fisheries studies conducted between 2013 and 2016. The location of these observations is approximately 1.4 miles from Badger Park. Steelhead have been known to occur within the Russian River watershed and a remnant population remains today. It is likely that steelhead occasionally pass by the Project Site within the Russian River.

Item 7.c
366 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
32 Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)- Central California Coast Environmentally Sensitive Unit (ESU) Range. Central California Coast Coho Salmon ESU includes all naturally spawned coho salmon originating from rivers south of Punta Gorda, California to and including Aptos Creek, as well as such coho salmon originating from tributaries to San Francisco Bay.

Special Status Listing. Populations of coho salmon within the Central California ESU are federally listed as endangered between Punta Gorda and the San Lorenzo River and are state listed south of San Francisco Bay.

Critical habitat for the Coho Salmon Central California Coast ESU encompasses accessible reaches of all rivers (including estuarine areas and tributaries) between Punta Gorda and the San Lorenzo River (inclusive) in California, including two streams entering San Francisco Bay: Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio and Corte Madera Creek. Critical habitat for this ESU includes the waters of the Russian River adjacent to the Project Site.

Habitat. This salmonid requires beds of loose, silt-free, coarse gravel for spawning and cover, cool water and sufficient dissolved oxygen. Coho salmon spawning migrations occur from late November through April in years of normal runoff. Most upstream migration occurs during and immediately following periods of heavy storm runoff. All coho salmon die after spawning. Juvenile coho salmon require a period of residency in the stream before migrating downstream to the ocean. The length of freshwater residency may vary from one to three years or more depending on the living conditions in the stream. The major downstream migration of coho salmon occurs during the period from February through June, depending on the water year and pattern of winter-spring runoff. Fish habitat is physically reduced to a minimum during the low-flow period of July through October. At this time, the actual physical habitat supporting fish life is at its minimum and the amount of available habitat becomes a limiting factor in the health and survival of fish populations.

Threats. Annual Russian River coho salmon runs were estimated at over 15,000 as recently as 1952.

Coho salmon populations have fluctuated widely since about 1970 and are significantly reduced from large historic populations. Throughout California, populations of native fish species, including coho and steelhead, have been steadily declining. Human-caused factors for this decline include habitat alterations such as water diversions, road building, timber harvest, urbanization, flood control structures and practices, and climate change (NMFS 2012).

Potential Site Occurrence. Moderate Potential. The nearest sighting of coho salmon in the CNDDB is of 16 individuals observed at the Highway 101 bridge over the Russian River during fisheries studies conducted in 1998. This site is just under 0.5 miles from Badger Park. It is likely that coho salmon occasionally pass by the Project Site within the Russian River.

Russian River Tule Perch (Hysterocarpus traski pomo)
Range. There are three subspecies of tule perch in California: one residing in Clear Lake, Lake County, California; one in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system; and a third subspecies residing in the Russian River. Moyle (2002) indicates that the Russian River tule perch occur throughout the mainstem of the Russian River and the lower reaches of its major tributaries in Mendocino County. The CNDDB reports that Russian River tule perch are found in low elevation streams of the Russian River system in Item 7.c
367 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
33 Sonoma and Mendocino Counties, occurring in the Russian River from approximately Ukiah in Mendocino County to Monte Rio in Sonoma County.

Special Status Listing. Species of Special Concern (CDFW 2024).

Habitat. Russian River tule perch require clear, flowing water and abundant cover, such as submerged tree branches, submerged logs, or plants overhanging the stream. They sometimes feed in riffles but generally require deep pools of several feet or more. Russian River tule perch are intolerant of turbid conditions and extreme variations in flow, and are therefore not found in polluted, low flow, or turbid streams.

Threats. Russian River tule perch have experienced declines in populations since population studies were conducted at U.C. Davis in the 1970s. The limited distribution, short life span, and low numbers make this species susceptible to extinction. Russian River tule perch are sensitive to stream pollution, therefore a main threat is from stream sedimentation resulting from timber harvest, agriculture and urban development. Major threats to the species are from alteration of habitat and water quality from damming of tributaries and agricultural development (especially vineyards) in the watershed (Moyle 2002). The CNDDB indicates threats locally in the project area include stream flow changes, recreational pressures, gravel mining, water diversions, grazing, and agriculture.

Potential Site Occurrence. Moderate Potential. The nearest sighting of Russian River tule perch in the CNDDB is of three adults caught by electrofishing and others observed in studies conducted at the Highway 101 bridge over the Russian River in 1998. This site is just under 0.5 miles from Badger Park. It is likely that Russian River tule perch occasionally pass by the Project Site within the Russian River.

AMPHIBIANS
Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)- North Coast Distinct Population Segment (DPS).

Range. The North Coast Distinct Population Segment of this species range extends north of San Francisco Bay through the Coast Range and Klamath Mountains to the northern limit of the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog's range and east through the Cascade Range. It includes all of Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Napa, Shasta, Solano, Sonoma, Tehama, Trinity, and Yolo counties and portions of Butte, Lassen, Modoc, and Siskiyou counties, California, USA. The eastern boundary of this range is delineated by the Applegate, Big-Chico Creek-Sacramento, Lower Klamath, Lower Pit, McCloud, Sacramento Headwaters, Salmon, Scott, Shasta, and Upper Klamath watersheds (Patterson et al 2019).

Special-Status Listing. Species of Special Concern (CDFW 2024).

Habitat. Foothill yellow-legged frog requires partly shaded, shallow streams and riffles with rocky substrate in a variety of habitats. The frogs need at least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-laying.

Larvae require at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis. Yellow-legged frogs are usually found on stream banks, especially near riffles.

Item 7.c
368 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
34 Threats. Populations of this species in this DPS likely occupied many more streams historically.

Although populations in this DPS occupy much of the former range, overall abundance has likely decreased compared to historical levels. Drought and climate change impacts remain a threat. The short-term trend of populations in this DPS are stable to declining as the effects of climate change and legacy logging impacts continue to impact habitat suitability. Several protection and conservation measures are in place that promote population stability throughout the DPS. The habitat elements necessary for stable populations were degraded throughout the DPS and are now beginning to recover. https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.1216584/Rana_boylii_pop_1 Project Site Occurrence. Moderate Potential. The nearest sighting of foothill yellow-legged frog as reported in the CNDDB is of a population known along Felta Creek, which is a tributary of Mill Creek, southwest of the City of Healdsburg. At this location, which is over 2.2 miles from Badger Park, adult frogs and five juveniles were documented during fish surveys conducted in 2018. Aquatic habitats within the Valley Foothill Riparian habitats, including the unnamed creek passing through the Coastal Oak Woodland and riparian habitat in the western and southern portions of Badger Park may provide suitable habitat for this species.

REPTILES
Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata):

Range. Range extends from Washington or British Columbia to central California. https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103571/Actinemys_marmorata Special-Status Listing. Federally proposed as a threatened species, CDFW Species of Special Concern (CDFW 2024). Note that CNDDB uses the species scientific name Emys marmorata which is synonymous with Actinemys marmorata.

Habitat. Western pond turtles occupy ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. The turtles prefer aquatic habitats with calm waters, vegetated banks and emergent logs or rocks to use as basking sites. The turtles also rely on suitable upland areas of scrub and woodlands for aestival refugia and may use upland habitats up to 0.5 km from water for activities such as egg-laying. Pond turtles living in streams may vacate flood-prone areas during the rainy season.

Western pond turtles occur broadly in suitable habitats throughout the state of California.

Threats. Distribution and abundance have declined as a result commercial exploitation for the pet trade, habitat loss and degradation, introduced species, and (locally) disease. https://explorer.natureserve.org/Taxon/ELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103571/Actinemys_marmorata. Specific threats for this stretch of the Russian River as reported in the CNDDB include loss of riparian habitat, riprap used for bank stabilization, and the presence of recreational boaters.

Project Site Occurrence. Moderate Potential. The CNDDB reports presence of western pond turtle within a polygon along the Russian River extending from Alexander Valley Road east of Healdsburg downstream to about one mile downstream of Wohler Bridge, an area that encompasses the stretch of the Russian River adjacent to Badger Park. Western pond turtle was not observed during field surveys conducted by HBG on February 27 and 28, 2024. However, ponded areas within the forested floodplain Item 7.c
369 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
35 area within the southern and western portions of Badger Park could potentially provide suitable breeding habitat for western pond turtle, and suitable upland habitat for this species may be present within the Coastal oak woodland that is continuous with the riparian habitat. This species has a Moderate Potential for occurrence.

BIRDS
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)
Range. The osprey is found in temperate and tropical regions of all continents, except Antarctica; in North America it breeds from Alaska and Newfoundland south to the Gulf Coast and Florida, wintering further south to Argentina. In California, ospreys breed in northern California from the Cascade Ranges south to Lake Tahoe, and along the coast south to Marin County.

Special-Status Listing. Osprey was recently considered a California Species of Special Concern, but nesting osprey are currently on the CDFW Watchlist.

Habitat. Ospreys are associated strictly with large, fish‐bearing waters, primarily in ponderosa pine through mixed conifer habitats (Zeiner et al 1990). They nest usually from late March to late August (Wheeler 2003) in nests built in large snags or open trees near large bodies of water. Osprey often construct nests on manmade structures such as telephone poles or transmission towers, channel markers, duck blinds, cranes, and artificial nest platforms. Artificial platforms have been instrumental in reintroducing ospreys into areas where they had disappeared. Nest sites can be used for breeding purposes for many years.

Threats. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the main threats to osprey populations were egg collectors and hunting of the adults along with other birds of prey. By the 1950s and 1960s, significant declines resulted from egg-thinning caused by use of DDT. Use of DDT was banned in the early 1970s, and osprey populations have made a significant recovery. The breeding population was estimated in 1975 at 350‐400 pairs in northern California, although numbers have been increasing in recent years.

Project Site Occurrence. Moderate Potential. Osprey have been known to nest along the Russian River, and the CNDDB reports 1972 and 1985 sightings of osprey suspected of nesting at a location “in the vicinity of Fitch Mountain east of Healdsburg”, a location that is approximately 0.6 miles from Badger Park. An osprey was observed flying over Badger Park by the HBG wildlife biologist during the March 21, 2024, field review. It’s possible this individual is nesting somewhere in the vicinity of the Project Site. Suitable nest trees are present along the Russian River within or near Badger Park, and nesting by this species in the general vicinity of the Project Site is possible.

4.2.3 Sensitive Natural Communities
One sensitive natural community occurs within the 10-mile CNDDB database search radius: Northern Claypan Vernal Pool. This community type was not found at the Project Site during HBG’s field investigations on February 27 and 28, and March 21, 2024. However, the aquatic resources including wetlands, streams, and other waters found within the Project Site are considered to provide significant water quality, flood protection, and habitat functions, and as such, are potentially subject to Corps, Water Board, and CDFW jurisdiction.

Item 7.c
370 of 697

4.0 RESULTS
36 The Russian River is designated as a stream protected by the County of Sonoma’s Riparian Corridor Ordinance and within Badger Park by City of Healdsburg riparian policies. City Zoning Ordinance Section 20.24.090 (Riparian Setback Standards) requires a 100-foot setback from the top of bank of the Russian River for any structure or permanent or temporary improvement. The setback for these types of uses is to be 50 feet from the top of bank of Foss Creek (not in the project area) and 25 feet from the top of bank of all other streams. The unnamed stream traversing the oak woodlands and riparian habitats at the north and west end of the site would require a 25-foot setback to comply with City code.

4.2.4 Wildlife Movement/Corridors.

Wildlife use and wildlife movement through the Project is expected. The Russian River and Valley Foothill Riparian habitat in the southern portion of the Project Site is part of a wildlife corridor extending along the Russian River. The unnamed stream traversing the northern end of the site before passing through the Coastal Oak Woodland and Valley Foothill Riparian habitats and then emptying into the Russian River at the southwest corner of the site s also a wildlife corridor but at a smaller scale. Avian diversity was generally greatest in the riparian habitat immediately along the Russian River and along the stretch of creek that passes through the Coastal Oak Woodland and Valley Foothill Riparian habitats before emptying into the Russian River at the southwest corner of the site in the vicinity of the willow island. These areas provide a movement corridor for local insects, and amphibian, reptile, bird, and mammal species.

4.2.5 Critical Habitat
Critical habitat for Central California Coast steelhead includes all river reaches and estuarine areas accessible to steelhead in coastal river basins from the Russian River to Aptos Creek (inclusive), and the drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Also included are adjacent riparian zones, all waters of San Pablo Bay west of the Carquinez Bridge, and all waters of San Francisco Bay to the Golden Gate.

Critical habitat for this DPS includes the waters of the Russian River adjacent to the Project Site.

Critical habitat for the Coho Salmon Central California Coast ESU encompasses accessible reaches of all rivers (including estuarine areas and tributaries) between Punta Gorda and the San Lorenzo River (inclusive) in California, including two streams entering San Francisco Bay: Arroyo Corte Madera Del Presidio and Corte Madera Creek. Critical habitat for this ESU includes the waters of the Russian River adjacent to the Project Site.

4.2.6 Heritage Tree Survey
A total of 32 heritage trees as defined by the City of Healdsburg Heritage Tree Ordinance were found within the Project site (Appendix E). Tree diameters ranged from 30 to 64 inches as measured 24 inches above the ground. Tree species include Black cottonwood, Coast redwood, Coast live oak, tree privet, Oregon ash, and Valley Oak. A multitrunked Bay laurel and a multitrunked tree privet were inventoried. These trees are likely deeply rooted given their size and the nature of the sandy soils they are growing within as they have not fallen during flooding by the Russian River.

Item 7.c
371 of 697
37 5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

5.1 Standards of Significance
According to CEQA Guidelines3, the project would be considered to have a significant impact 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 Wildlife and Game 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, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. 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.
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.

A draft of the proposed Badger Park Master Plan showing the location of planned uses within the Badger Park site is provided in Appendix A, Figure 12. The project architect has prepared a project footprint that can be seen in Figures 13 through 19 that encompasses 6.25 acres of the overall site.

Sections 5.2 to 5.5 below provide an evaluation of the potential biological impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Master Plan and recommended measures to reduce, avoid, minimize, or compensate for potential impacts to biological resources and aquatic resources that may result from the proposed Project (Appendix A, Figures 13 and 14) construction and post-construction operations. The recommended mitigation measures may be revised based on the evaluation of detailed final plans for the project.
3 www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/board_decisions/basin_plan_amendments/technical_documents/2007- 012/07_0317/SED%20Appendix%20G%20_%20CEQA%20Guildelines_Appendix%20G.pdf Item 7.c
372 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
38 5.2 Plant Communities

5.2.1 Plant Community Impacts.

Plant community impacts will result from the clearing of vegetation within the various habitats comprising the existing Badger Park Project Site. These impacts will occur within the 6.25-acre project footprint and will specifically result from (1) construction of trails, overlooks, or a small canoe/kayak launch ramp into the river or from trail improvements along the berm adjacent to the river, or (2) clearing of vegetation related to construction of picnic areas or children’s adventure play areas at the east end of the site. The impacts of the planned improvements within the various plant communities that occur within Badger Park are shown in Figure 15. Within this project footprint, impacts to 4.49 acres of Urban habitat (previously disturbed areas of the existing Badger Park) and 0.73 acres of the non-native annual grassland area near the community garden would not be considered significant pursuant to CEQA guidelines as these areas have limited ecological value. The project would also impact 11.09 acres of more sensitive forested habitat consisting of 9.5 acres of Valley Foothill Riparian habitat mostly along the Russian River, 1.21 acres of Coastal Oak Woodland in the western portion of the site, and 0.38 acres of Valley Oak Woodland in the northeast portion of the site near Heron Drive.

Improvements in these forested areas may result in impacts to wetlands within the Valley Foothill Riparian forest, including wetlands potentially subject to agency regulatory jurisdiction (see Section

5.2.3), or impacts related to removal of heritage trees (see Section 5.2.2).

Many locations within the forested areas of the site contain extensive growth of non-native trees and other vegetation. Large areas of the Coastal Oak Woodland, for instance, are vegetated with a combination of tree privet and English ivy (both included on the Cal-IPC inventory of invasive plants).

The severity of impacts to Valley Foothill Riparian habitat and Coastal Oak Woodland could be minimized if improvements such as picnic areas and children’s play areas were established in areas of mostly non-native vegetation.

Impact #1, Riparian and Oak Woodland Habitat. Clearing of vegetation for picnic areas or children’s play areas or construction of trails, overlooks, or a small canoe/kayak launch ramp into the river may result in impacts to Valley Foothill Riparian habitat or Coastal Oak Woodland.

Mitigation Measure #1-1, Minimize Construction in Native Habitat. The Final Master Plan design should show all improvements within forested portions of the Project Site (e.g., trails, river access and overlooks, picnic areas, children’s adventure play areas, etc.) to be placed within areas specifically vegetated with an abundance of non-native vegetation. Such areas for these facilities could include areas that are currently overrun with tree privet and English ivy rather than with native trees and understory of California blackberries. Prior to finalizing the Master Plan, areas of extensive growth of non-native vegetation composed primarily of tree privet and English ivy should be defined using GPS to allow the areas to be mapped so that play areas and picnic areas, etc. can be planned in environmentally benign locations to the extent possible.

Mitigation Measure #1-2, Avoid Native Habitat During Construction. Locations within the Valley Foothill Riparian and Coastal Oak Woodland habitats with a preponderance Item 7.c
373 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
39 non-native vegetation (e.g., tree privet and English ivy) should be staked in the field prior to any vegetation removal for development of picnic areas, play areas, river access or overlooks, or trails. Locations for development of picnic area, play area, river access/overlooks, and trails should be field engineered by the architect and qualified biologist working with the construction crew so that these features can be implemented within areas of non-native vegetation, avoiding areas of native vegetation to the maximum extent possible.

Mitigation Measure #1-3, Mitigation for Unavoidable Impacts to Native Tree Removal During Construction. If loss of oak trees and other trees cannot be avoided for development of picnic area, play area, river access/overlooks, and trails, to ensure no net loss of oak trees and other trees the following replacement ratios shall be followed:
• 1:1 for removal of non-native trees;
• 1:1 for removal of native trees up to 3 inches DBH
• 3:1 for removal of native trees greater than 3 inches to 6 inches DBH; • 6:1 for removal of native trees greater than 6 inches DBH; • 1:1 for removal of oak trees up to 3 inches DBH;
• 4:1 for removal of oak trees up to 6 inches DBH;
• 8:1 for removal of oak trees greater than 6 inches to 15 inches DBH; and • 10:1 for removal of oak trees greater than 15 inches DBH.

Where invasive species are removed, Oak trees and other native trees should be used to restore functioning oak woodland of similar composition, density, structure, and function to the selected oak woodland that was impacted. Replacement tree plantings shall consist of a minimum of 5-gallon size plantings and shall be native species to the area adapted to the lighting, soil, and hydrological conditions at the replanting site.

Replacement oaks shall come from nursery stock grown from locally sourced acorns, or from acorns gathered locally, preferably from the same watershed in which they are planted. All plantings shall be certified by the source as phytophthora free.

Single tree planting should be a minimum of 30 feet from adjacent tree planting site or existing tree. Shrub planting if in groups should be a minimum 10 feet apart and a minimum of 20 feet from a tree planting site or existing tree. All plantings will occur within a soil pit dug to a minimum of 2 times diameter and depth of 5-gallon container.

A mycorrhizal inoculant and slow-release fertilizer will be added to a tree & shrub planting mix placed around each 5-gallon planting. A protective double walled grow tube (Grow Tubes — OrchardValleySupply.com4) shall be placed around each planting.

Mitigation Measure #1-4, Vegetation Success. To ensure a successful revegetation effort as required by Mitigation Measure #1.3, all plants shall be monitored and maintained as necessary for five years. At the end of the five years of monitoring, with at least three years 4 https://orchardvalleysupply.com/products/grow-tubes?variant=8041877897244&currency=USD&gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw_Na1BhAlEiwAMdm7NugMF7KKJzZjNPhIVQd6FQr2eUIOaeYqPeA0AZxer8K_zCvqa64uBoCuLsQAvD_BwE Item 7.c
374 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
40 without supplemental irrigation, each category of plantings (e.g., oaks, other trees, shrubs, etc.) shall have a minimum of 85% survival at the end of the minimum monitoring period and plantings shall attain 70% cover after 3 years and 75% cover after 5 years. Survival and cover criteria shall both be required unless the herbaceous or spreading plants cannot be differentiated by individual, in which case only cover success criteria are required.

Mitigation Measure #1-5, Oak and Other Native Mitigation Program. Prior to any Project ground-disturbing activities which remove oaks and other native trees, the applicant should develop and implement of a Native Tree Mitigation Program with the following components:

1. An inventory of all oak trees removed or encroached upon during project activities, separated by species and DBH;

2. Acres of oak habitat impacted, and density, coverage, and abundance of understory vegetation species impacted by life form (i.e., grass, forb, shrub, subshrub, vine);

3. Mitigation ratios applied and total number and/or area of replacement trees and vegetation;

4. Location of restoration areas and a discussion of the adequacy of the location(s) to serve as mitigation (e.g., would support oak trees/oak woodlands; avoid habitat type conversion);

5. The location and assessment of appropriate reference site(s) to inform the appropriate planting rate to recreate the pre-project function, density, percent basal, canopy, and vegetation cover of oak woodland impacted;

6. Scientific names [Genus and species (subspecies/variety if applicable)] of all plants being used for restoration;

7. Location(s) of propagule source. Propagules should be collected or grown from on-site sources or adjacent areas within the same watershed and should not be purchased from a supplier. Seeds must originate from plants/trees of the same species (i.e., Genus, species, subspecies, and variety) as the species impacted;

8. Species-specific planting methods (i.e., container or bulbs);

9. Planting schedule;

10. Measures to control exotic vegetation and protection from herbivory;

11. Measurable goals and success criteria for establishing self-sustaining populations (e.g., percent survival rate, absolute cover). Measurable success criteria should be based on present site/habitat conditions and/or functional local native oak woodlands as reference sites;

12. Contingency measures should the success criteria not be met;

13. Long-term monitoring for at least 10 years;

14. Adaptive management techniques, including replacement plants if necessary; and,

15. Annual reporting criteria and requirements.

5.2.2 Heritage Tree Impact
Conceptual plans developed to date suggest that several heritage trees (trees greater than 30 inches in diameter as measured 2 feet above ground) may need to be removed within the Valley Foothill Riparian habitat during construction of the river access trail. No other heritage trees will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed recreational improvements (Appendix E), including clearing of vegetation prior to the installation of picnic areas, children’s adventure play areas, or other facilities Item 7.c
375 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
41 within the Project Site (Appendix A, Figures 15 and 16). Although a particular heritage tree may not need to be removed, grading or construction activity in close proximity to a tree’s root system may impact the long-term survivability of the tree if the tree’s root system is damaged during construction.

The City’s Heritage Tree Protection and Tree Report Requirements (Land Use Code Chapter 20.24, Article II) require permits for removal of heritage trees and require the preparation of a plan for the replacement of removed trees and tree protection guidelines to “protect and preserve heritage trees to the fullest extent possible.”
Impact #2, Heritage Trees. Several heritage trees may need to be removed within the Valley Foothill Riparian habitat during construction of the river access trail. Construction may damage root systems of trees not to be removed, compromising the long-term survivability of the tree.

Mitigation Measure #2-1, Trail Construction. The alignment of the river access trail in the Final Master Plan should be designed to avoid heritage trees and their roots systems. In addition, the construction of the river access trail should be field engineered by the architect and a qualified arborist working with the construction crew so that heritage trees and their root systems can be avoided. Trail construction will be no closer than 3 feet from the base of a tree. To avoid impacts to tree root systems, trail construction will avoid ground excavation and cutting into the tree root system.

Permanent trail construction shall consist of overlaying porous engineering geotextile material on the existing ground and then overlaying with porous trail material such as gravel, decomposed granite, or coarse sand. The arborist should work with the city to prepare the Tree Replacement Plan and tree protection guidelines, as necessary to comply with City Code.

5.2.3 Sensitive Natural Communities and Wetlands
Although no CDFW-designated natural communities occur within the Project Site, aquatic resources including wetlands and tributary drainages were identified and delineated during field surveys within the forest areas of the Project Site. The wetlands and other waters are potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps, Water Board, and CDFW (Appendix A, Figures 9, 10, and 11, respectively).

Based on plans developed to date, some construction may need to be completed within wetlands/waters potentially subject to regulation by the Corps or Water Board or could involve disturbance to streams regulated by CDFW. No work will be conducted until the City, RWQCB, CDFW, and Corps provide authorizations for work in these aquatic resource areas that include wetlands and other waters.

The project as currently proposed would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.40 acres of wetlands and other waters as a result of the placement of fill material to construct a pedestrian trail system; a total of approximately 1.20 acres of temporary fill impacts to wetlands and other waters as a result of pedestrian trail and footbridge construction; and a total of 0.032 acres of permanent impact and 0.037 acres of temporary impact associated with construction of a canoe/kayak launch ramp into the river (Attachment 1, Figures 17, 18, and 19).

Impact #3, Wetland/Stream Impacts. Construction of a canoe/kayak launch ramp into the river and construction of a pedestrian trail and footbridge system would require both permanent and temporary Item 7.c
376 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
42 fill in wetlands potentially subject to regulation by the Corps or Water Board or could involve disturbance to streams regulated by CDFW.

Mitigation Measure #3-1, Avoidance of Wetlands/Streams. Consider the need to avoid Corps and/or Water Board wetlands when preparing the final Park Master Plan. In addition, to the extent the final Master Plan will allow, an undisturbed vegetated buffer should be established and maintained between ground-disturbing activities (including vegetation removal) and adjacent wetland areas. The final Master Plan must also show the top of both banks of the unnamed creek that enters the park from the north and traverses the western portion of the Project Site through the areas of Coastal Oak Woodland and Valley Foothill Riparian habitat before emptying into the Russian River. In addition to the location of the top of both banks of this unnamed creek, the final Master Plan must also show the 25-foot setback from the top of both banks of the stream (City code Section 20.24.090) where no ground disturbance or vegetation removal would be allowed.

Mitigation Measure #3-2, Field Engineering. All areas determined to be subject to regulatory jurisdiction of either Corps or the Water Board in the western and southern portions of the park should be staked in the field prior to any site disturbance necessary to implement the Master Plan, including vegetation removal for picnic areas, play areas, river access/overlooks, or trails. These areas should be avoided during vegetation removal or construction of park facilities to preserve wetlands in these areas. Locations for development of picnic area, play area, river access/overlooks, and trails should be field engineered by the architect and qualified biologist/Biological Monitor working with the construction crew so that these features can be implemented in a way that they avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands.

Mitigation Measure #3-3, Boardwalks. Where impacts to wetlands resulting from the construction of new trails or improvements to existing trails are unavoidable, minimize wetland impacts through the use of a boardwalk created by establishing decking supported by footings in wetland areas or through other measures that preserve some wetland functions.

Mitigation Measure #3-4, Free-span Pedestrian Bridges. Where pedestrian crossings of the unnamed stream are planned as part of Master Plan improvements, these crossings should be accomplished through the construction of a free-span pedestrian bridge over the stream with no footings for the bridge placed between or on the banks of the stream.

Mitigation Measure #3-5, Obtain Necessary Agency Permits. The applicant (City of Healdsburg) will need to apply for and obtain necessary authorizations for placement of fill material within WOTUS and WOTS. Such authorizations could include federal CWA Section 404 nationwide permits from the Corps, CWA 401 water quality certification and Porter-Cologne Act Waste Discharge Requirements from the Water Board, and one or more Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreements from CDFW. A Mitigation and Monitoring Plan may need to be prepared and submitted to these agencies for review as part of the process for Item 7.c
377 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
43 obtaining project authorization. At a minimum the applicant will ensure there is no net loss of wetland or stream habitat areal extent and associated function(s). There may be opportunities for onsite mitigation of wetland impacts to include wetland restoration and enhancement (i.e., removal of exotic/invasive vegetation). Onsite mitigation should be a priority.

5.3 Special-Status Species

5.3.1 Special Status Plant
The Project Site was found to have potential habitat for 14 special status plant species that could potentially occur in the onsite riparian/wetland habitats within the floodplain of the Russian River. The only way to know if these special status flora species are present on the site is to conduct rare plant surveys according to protocols established by state and federal agencies. Once presence or absence of these species has been determined, final plans can be developed to avoid construction within these areas when implementing elements of the project within the riparian/marsh habitats that require removal of understory vegetation (e.g. development of picnic areas, play areas, river access or overlooks, and trails). If populations of rare plants are found, either these populations would need to be avoided or alternative measures such as the transplanting of individual plants may be necessary.

Impact #4, Special Status Plant Species. Development of picnic areas, play areas, river access or overlooks, and trails could potentially impact populations of special status plant species if such populations were found to be present within the Valley Foothill Riparian or Coastal Oak Woodland portions of the site.

Mitigation Measure #4-1, Conduct Protocol Rare Plant Surveys. A qualified biologist should conduct protocol rare plant surveys within the forested riparian scrub and marsh areas of the site within the floodplain of the Russian River. Surveys should be conducted pursuant to Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018). These surveys will determine if special status plant species occur within that portion of the property and vegetation clearing or construction of passive recreational uses could impact populations of these rare species. To span the varying flowering periods of multiple rare plant species that could potentially be found in onsite habitats, protocol surveys shall include a series of three survey dates between April and July of the survey year. Survey dates depend on dates at which target species are shown to be flowering, but most likely will include surveys in mid-April, mid-to-late May, and late June/early July of the survey year.

Rare plant surveys should be conducted within wetlands and within a zone of approximately 100 feet in adjacent uplands to determine if rare plants may be present that could be indirectly impacted by construction activity. Rare plant surveys within these areas of wetlands should consider the following special status plant species:
• Sonoma alopecurus (Alopercurus aequalis var. sonomensis), federally listed as endangered and CRPR 1B.1
• Thurber’s reed grass (Calamagrostis crassiglumis), CRPR 2B.1 Item 7.c
378 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
44 • Bristly sedge (Carex comosa), CRPR 2B.1
• Pitkin Marsh paintbrush (Castilleja uliginosa), state listed and endangered and CRPR 1A (may be extinct)
• Peruvian dodder (Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa), CRPR 2B.2 • Swamp harebell (Eastwoodia californica), CRPR 1B.2
• Bogg’s Lake hedge-hyssop (Gratiola heterosepala), state listed endangered, CRPR 1B.2
• Pitkin Marsh lily (Lilium pardalinum spp. pitkinense), state and federally listed endangered, CRPR 1B.1
• White-beaked rush (Rhynchospora alba), CRPR 2B.2
• California beaked rush (Rhynchospora californica), CRPR 1B.1 • Brownish beaked rush (Rhynchospora capitellata), CRPR 2B.2 • Round-headed beaked rush (Rhynchospora globularis), CRPR 2B.1 • Kenwood Marsh checkerbloom (Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida), state and federally listed endangered, CRPR 1B.1
• Northern slender pondweed (Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina), CRPR 2B.2 Mitigation Measure #4-2, Avoid Rare Plant Populations. If any of the rare plants are found during protocol surveys, areas planned for clearing of vegetation or construction of passive recreational uses should avoid locations with growth of any of these species. Adjustment(s) to areas of proposed construction may be warranted to avoid populations of rare plants. If populations cannot be avoided, then transplantation is recommended as a mitigation strategy to avoid impact to any of these plant species. If any special-status plant species are observed, the applicant will coordinate with the City of Healdsburg, CDFW and USFWS, as appropriate, to prepare a plant salvage and mitigation plan on-site. No work will be conducted until the City, CDFW and USFWS provide written approval of the plan.

5.3.2 Special Status Animals
Coho Salmon, Steelhead, and Russian River Tule Perch
The Russian River, which forms the southern boundary of the property, is a documented spawning stream for coho salmon and steelhead. Russian River tule perch may also be present within the portion of the Russian River adjacent to the Project Site. Direct impacts to listed salmonids are possible if inwater work is conducted during months when these fish are moving through the Russian River during spawning season (generally between November and April). Offsite migration of soil leading to possible siltation of salmon streams is an important consideration as excessive siltation can result in covering of spawning gravels, a decreased respiratory function in fish, increasing turbidity levels and diminishing light penetration to submergent vegetation, and raising of water temperature, all potentially resulting in adverse impacts to fish populations. Disruption of the soil will be required within the floodplain of the Russian River during vegetation clearing activities (primarily involving the removal of highly and moderately non-native invasive plant species, Appendix B, Table 1) and the construction/installation of recreational facilities such as play equipment or picnic facilities, facilities for river access or overlooks, or trails. To ensure that no sediment-laden runoff runs into the Russian River during construction activities, the applicant has committed to implement a construction plan that includes suitable erosion control measures to protect the stream environment, including special status species of anadromous Item 7.c
379 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
45 fish that spawn in the river. During all activities involving soil disturbance, the applicant will require the contractor to follow all applicable Best Management Practices from the California Stormwater Quality Best Management Practices Handbook for Construction Activities. Other sources of water pollution are a concern, including equipment storage, construction staging areas, and refueling of vehicles. With the implementation of Best Management Practices, including the use of straw wattles, covering of stockpile areas and other practices, there would be little possibility of siltation within stormwater runoff that could adversely affect the water quality of the Russian River or special status fish species (including populations of state or federally listed anadromous salmonids that are known to spawn there).

Impact #5, Special Status Fish Species. Disruption of the soil required within the floodplain of the Russian River during vegetation clearing and the construction of recreational facilities (e.g., play equipment, picnic facilities, facilities for river access or overlooks, or trails) could result in migration of sediment-laden runoff into the Russian River and impacts to special status fish species (coho salmon, steelhead, Russian River tule perch).

Mitigation Measure #5-1, Work Window for In-water Work. In-water work in the Russian River associated with construction of kayak/boat access at both the southwest and southeast corners of the site should be scheduled when water levels are low during the dry season between July 1 and September 15 to avoid impacts to immigrating and emigrating salmonids (especially steelhead and coho salmon) that spawn in the river.

Mitigation Measure #5-2, Erosion Control. The applicant should implement the following mitigation measures to minimize temporary construction impacts and consequent erosion and sedimentation impacts to habitat for special status fish species (including listed species of salmonids) in the Russian River:

1. Ground disturbing work to be conducted during dry or low-flow periods; if water happens to be present during the period of construction, temporary coffer dams will be used to redirect any surface water flows around the construction work area with any water from the interior of the coffer dam area discharged through a filter bag or straw bale siltation basin located in uplands.

2. Equipment working in streams will work from wood or steel mats to minimize soil disturbance.

3. Post-construction temporarily filled areas will be restored to the original ground surface elevation with fill material off-hauled and disposed of at a suitable upland location.

4. To prevent erosion and sediment transport coir (coconut), jute, or sterile straw erosion control blankets and logs, and/ or loose sterile straw, will be used as appropriate following seed bed preparation of bare soil areas.

5. The project will not use erosion control materials containing plastic monofilament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material containing Item 7.c
380 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
46 netting within the Project area due to documented evidence of birds, amphibians, and reptiles becoming entangled or trapped in such material.

Acceptable substitutes include erosion materials contained with burlap netting, burlap tubes filled with natural fiber material, rolls of coconut coir matting or similar.

6. Hydroseeding will follow the installation of natural fiber matting, rolls, and/or loose straw BMPs.

Hydroseed mix will include native grass seed that produce dense fibrous root system, organic mulch, slow-release fertilizer, mycorrhiza, and organic tackifier.

Mitigation Measure #5-3. Coho Salmon, Steelhead, Russian River Tule Perch. Sites for construction of boat access to the river will be demarcated with orange construction flagging, and no areas beyond the defined work limits shall be disturbed. Staging and storage areas for equipment, materials, fuels, lubricants, and solvents shall be located outside of the high-water mark of the river. No refueling of vehicles will be allowed in areas adjacent to the river. Where feasible, construction of boat ramps shall occur with equipment positioned on the bank of the river. During all activities associated with boat access construction, all trash shall be properly contained and disposed of on a regular basis.

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog
The Freshwater marsh and riparian scrub on the Project Site within the floodplain of Russian River may be suitable aquatic habitat for foothill yellow-legged frog. As foothill yellow-legged frog is known to occur within about 2.2 miles from Badger Park, foothill yellow-legged frog presence on the Project Site is possible. Avoidance of all aquatic areas of wetlands and riparian habitats within the Russian River floodplain would avoid impacts to aquatic habitat for foothill yellow-legged frog. Some clearing of vegetation is planned within this general area to prepare the area for construction of picnic areas, play areas, river access, overlooks, or trails. Implementation of these activities could have a direct impact on any foothill yellow-legged frogs if they were present on the property at the time. Therefore, prior to initiation of the project, a survey of all proposed areas of vegetation clearing within the forested floodplain for foothill yellow-legged frog is warranted.

Impact #6, Foothill Yellow-legged Frog. Clearing of vegetation and the construction of recreational facilities (e.g., play equipment, picnic facilities, facilities for river access or overlooks, or trails) could have a direct impact on any foothill yellow-legged frogs if they were present on the property at the time.

Mitigation Measure #6-1: Foothill yellow-legged Frog Survey. Prior to initiation of construction activities, a qualified biologist should conduct a survey following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Wildlife guidance for foothill yellowlegged frog within all areas slated for clearing of vegetation within the forested areas of the Russian River floodplain and the Coastal Oak Woodland. The qualified biologist will remain onsite to serve as a Biological Monitor and to monitor any ground disturbing work necessary to establish recreational uses within this area to ensure that no foothill Item 7.c
381 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
47 yellow-legged frogs are harmed. If a foothill yellow-legged frog is found on the site within an area slated for removal of vegetation, the work will be halted until the frog either leaves the area of its own volition or can be relocated by the Biological Monitor to a safe environment.

Western Pond Turtle
Western pond turtle is known from the stretch along the Russian River extending from Alexander Valley Road east of Healdsburg downstream to about one mile downstream of Wohler Bridge, an area that encompasses the stretch of the Russian River adjacent to Badger Park. Ponded areas within the forested floodplain area within the western and southern portions of Badger Park could potentially provide suitable breeding habitat for western pond turtle and suitable upland habitat for this species may be present within the Coastal Oak Woodland that is continuous with the riparian habitat.

Avoidance of all forested habitats within the Russian River floodplain and Coastal Oak Woodland would avoid impacts to habitat for western pond turtle, however, as some clearing of vegetation is planned within this area, implementation of these activities could have a direct impact on any western pond turtles if they were present on the property at the time. Therefore, prior to initiation of the project, a survey of all proposed areas of construction within the forested floodplain and Coastal Oak Woodland for western pond turtle is warranted.

Impact #7, Western Pond Turtle. Clearing of vegetation and the construction of recreational facilities (e.g., play equipment, picnic facilities, facilities for river access or overlooks, or trails) could have a direct impact on any western pond turtles if they were present on the property at the time.

Mitigation Measure #7-1: Western Pond Turtle Survey: A qualified biologist shall conduct a survey of all areas proposed for installation of recreational facilities within 325 feet of permanently ponded areas for western pond turtles and their nests within 48 hours of the commencement of vegetation clearing or construction activities. The qualified biologist will remain onsite to serve as a Biological Monitor and to monitor any ground disturbing work necessary to establish recreational uses within 325 feet of permanently ponded areas to ensure that no western pond turtles are harmed. If western pond turtles or their nests are detected at any time on the site within an area slated for removal of vegetation, the work will be halted until the turtle either leaves the area of its own volition or can be relocated by the Biological Monitor to a safe environment.

Osprey
Osprey has been noted in the vicinity of the Project Site in the past according to the CNDDB and an osprey was noted flying over the Project Site during the March 21, 2024, field survey of the site. In addition, suitable nest trees are present either on the Project Site or in the project vicinity. If osprey were found to be nesting on or near the Project Site during the construction period, potential impacts to this species from the proposed project could occur, including disturbance to nesting birds and possible mortality of adults and/or young. Disturbances to nest sites for these special status species are possible during vegetation removal for project construction within the proposed development area of the project site. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment or loss of nest productivity (e.g., killing or Item 7.c
382 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
48 abandonment of eggs or young) would be a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code.

Impact #8, Osprey Nest. If osprey were found to be nesting on or near the Project Site during the construction period, potential impacts to this species from the proposed project could occur, including disturbance to nesting birds and possible mortality of adults and/or young.

Mitigation Measure #8-1: Osprey Nesting Survey: A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey of Badger Park and adjacent areas for osprey nests if vegetation removal or construction of recreational facilities is scheduled during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Surveys shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to ground disturbance or vegetation removal by walking transects through all suitable habitat within the Project Site (especially the Valley Foothill Riparian habitat along the Russian River). If an active osprey nest is detected during the surveys, the nest site shall be protected by implementing a minimum 500-foot radius buffer zone around the nest marked with orange construction fencing. If an active nest is located outside of the Project Site, the buffer shall be extended onto the project site and demarcated where it intersects the project site. The qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW, may modify the size of buffer zone based on the type of construction activity that may occur, physical barriers between the construction site and active nest, behavioral factors, and the extent that osprey may have acclimated to disturbance. No construction or ground disturbance activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by the qualified biologist that the young have fledged or that the nesting cycle is otherwise determined to be complete based on monitoring of the active nest by a qualified biologist/Biological Monitor.

5.4 Animal Populations

5.4.1 Wildlife Movement/Corridors
As stated in Section 4.2.4, Wildlife use and wildlife movements through the Project is expected. The Valley Foothill Riparian in the southern portion of the Project Site is part of a wildlife corridor extending along the Russian River. The unnamed creek traversing the northern end of the site before passing through the Coastal Oak Woodland and Valley Foothill Riparian habitats before emptying into the Russian River at the southwest corner of the site near the willow island is also a wildlife corridor at a smaller scale. These areas provide a movement corridor for local insects, and amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal species. The Master Plan provides for protection of the area adjacent to the Russian River and the length of the unnamed creek in the western portion of the Project Site terminating at the willow island (including a 25-foot setback), so the integrity of these wildlife corridors will be maintained and impacts to use of the corridors by wildlife would not be significant.

Wildlife species were observed on the Project Site during winter/early spring and summer season field reviews by an HBG wildlife biologist (including 50 bird species), and significant impacts to wildlife species would be possible in the absence of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures herein that will protect wildlife species include mitigation to minimize impacts to riparian areas, wetlands, native vegetation, and heritage trees (Mitigation Measures #1 through #3), mitigation measures to protect Item 7.c
383 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
49 any populations of special status plant and animal species (Mitigation Measures #4. 5. 6. 7 and 8), and measures to protect any onsite populations of nesting birds (Mitigation Measure #10) or bats (Mitigation Measure #11). Even with implementation of these mitigation measures some impacts to wildlife in the forested portions of the Project Site are possible, therefore, additional mitigation is described below requiring a qualified biologist to serve as a Biological Monitor to conduct preconstruction surveys for special status species, nesting birds and roosting bats; provide environmental training to the work crew; and monitor the construction activities during periods of ground disturbance or vegetation removal.

Impact #9, Wildlife Populations. Impacts to wildlife species within onsite animal migration and movement corridors would be possible during the clearing of vegetation and the construction of recreational facilities (e.g., play equipment, picnic facilities, facilities for river access or overlooks, or trails).

Mitigation Measure #9-1. Biological Monitor: A qualified biologist shall be retained to serve as a Biological Monitor and to conduct preconstruction surveys for special status species, nesting birds, and bats; provide environmental training to the work crew; and monitor the construction activities during periods of ground disturbance or vegetation removal.

The Biological Monitor will conduct an education program for all persons employed on the Project prior to performing ground-disturbing activities or vegetation removal.

Instruction shall include a discussion of the biology and general behavior of any sensitive species that may be in the area, how they may be encountered within the work area, and procedures to follow when they are encountered. Training will include such information about coho salmon, steelhead, Russian River tule perch, foothill yellowlegged frog, western pond turtle, and osprey. Interpretation shall be provided for nonEnglish speaking workers, and the same instruction shall be provided for any new workers prior to on-site Project activity. The Biological Monitor shall prepare and distribute wallet-sized cards or a factsheet handout containing this information for workers to carry on-site. Upon completion of the program, employees shall sign an affidavit stating they attended the program and office and be available to the City upon request.

The qualified biologist/Biological Monitor shall remain on-site during work involving vegetation clearing and ground disturbance within the Valley Foothill Riparian and Coastal Oak and Valley Oak Woodland portions of the Project Site, including areas adjacent to the Russian River or along the unnamed drainage through the northern and western portions of the Project Site to provide biological monitoring. The Biological Monitor will (1) assist in demarcation of buffer zones to protect habitats or sensitive species (including active bird nests), (2) to ensure impacts to sensitive animal species do not occur, (3) to ensure the relocation of any sensitive animal species encountered according to agency protocols, and (4) to help ensure facilities are implemented in the least environmentally sensitive locations.

Item 7.c
384 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
50 5.4.2 Birds Protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Habitats within the project site were shown to support a number of bird species during field surveys conducted by HBG. If active nests were present in vegetation or other areas of the site during construction operations on the project site, direct or indirect impacts could occur to nesting bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the California Fish and Game Code as a result of construction activity. CDFW generally considers the nesting season to be from February 1 to August 31 for most bird species. Work-related to construction, especially involving the removal of vegetation during the February 1 to August 31 breeding season of birds, could result in the mortality of nesting avian species if they are present. Many species of raptors (birds of prey) are sensitive to human incursion and construction activities, and it is necessary to ensure that nesting raptor species are not present in the vicinity of construction sites.

To ensure compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish and Game Code, bird nesting surveys are generally required if construction work requires vegetation removal during the bird nesting season.

Required setbacks to protect active nests from construction activity are usually about 500 feet for large raptors such as buteos, 250 feet for small raptors such as accipiters, and 100 feet for passerines (songbirds) and other bird species.

Impact #10, Nesting Bird Species. Clearing of vegetation and the construction of recreational facilities (e.g., play equipment, picnic facilities, facilities for river access or overlooks, or trails) could result in disruption of active nests of bird species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code.

Mitigation Measure #10-1: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Survey A preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist if construction occurs during the bird nesting season (February 1-August 31). The survey should be conducted within 5 days prior to the start of work. The survey should include the entire project footprint and areas immediately adjacent to the project work area. The survey should include the trees and shrubs on and immediately adjacent to the project work area.

Other large trees in the project vicinity are on the opposite sides of major roads; birds nesting in these trees are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed project; however, the qualified biologist conducting surveys shall determine the appropriate survey area.

If the survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, a buffer should be placed around the nest and marked with orange construction fencing within which no work will be allowed until the young have successfully fledged or the nest has otherwise become inactive. The size of the nest buffer will be determined by the qualified biologist and will be based to a large extent on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, and the context of the nest location. In general, typical buffer widths range from 500 feet for large raptors such as buteos, 250 feet for small raptors such as accipiters, and 100 feet for passerines (songbirds) and other bird species. Buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, with approval from CDFW. No construction or earth-moving activity shall occur within the established buffer zone until it is determined by the biologist that the young have fledged or that the nesting cycle is otherwise determined Item 7.c
385 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
51 to be complete based on monitoring of the active nest. A copy of the nesting bird survey report shall be provided to the County prior to construction.

5.4.3 Bats Protected by the California Fish and Game Code Under California Fish and Game Code Section 4150, destruction of an occupied, nonbreeding, bat roost, resulting in the death of bats, or disturbance that causes the loss of a maternity colony of bats (resulting in the death of young), is prohibited. The proposed project could affect special status and common roosting bat species during either the removal of trees or demolition of existing structures.

Bats have the potential to roost in existing vacant or underutilized buildings, other man-made structures, and could be present within structures. Mature trees may show evidence of cavities and/or exfoliating bark that could serve as roost sites for populations of bats or could harbor solitary bats.

Significant impacts to bats prohibited under the Fish and Game Code could result from disruption of an occupied non-breeding bat roost or the loss of a maternity colony of bats. This may occur through direct disturbance from destruction of a roost site during removal or pruning of trees or an indirect disturbance causing behavioral alterations due to construction noise or vibration, or by increased human activity in the area. A bat habitat assessment conducted by a bat biologist prior to construction could determine if suitable habitat for bats is found in trees to be removed or trimmed and allow development of mitigation strategies to achieve humane removal of bat populations if present.

Impact #11, Bat Populations. Clearing of vegetation and the construction of recreational facilities (e.g., play equipment, picnic facilities, facilities for river access or overlooks, or trails) could result in disruption of bat roosts protected by the California Fish and Game Code.

Mitigation Measure #11-1: Preconstruction Bat Measures. Prior to any tree removal, a qualified bat biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats. The habitat assessment shall be conducted a minimum of 30 days prior to tree removal and shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (e.g., cavities, crevices in wood and bark, or exfoliating bark for colonial species, and suitable canopy for foliageroosting species). Trees without suitable habitat for bats can be removed. If suitable habitat trees are found, they shall be flagged or otherwise clearly marked and tree trimming or removal shall not proceed without approval in writing from CDFW. These trees with suitable habitat may be removed only if: a) presence of bats is presumed or documented during the surveys described below, 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 bat biologist, under prior written approval of the proposed survey methods by CDFW, conducts night emergence surveys or complete visual examination of roost features that establish absence of roosting bats.

If a two-step removal is used, two-step tree removal shall be conducted over two consecutive days, as follows: 1) the first day (in the afternoon), under direct supervision and instruction by a qualified bat biologist with experience conducting a two-step methodology, limbs and branches shall be removed by a tree cutter using chainsaws Item 7.c
386 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
52 only; limbs with cavities, crevices or deep bark fissures shall be avoided, and 2) the second day the entire tree shall be removed.

5.5 Postconstruction Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Light, noise, traffic, sedimentation, and event activity impacts resulting from project operations may result from general recreation use at Badger Park. Mitigation measures are designed to prevent harm to the sensitive animal species including western pond turtle, foothill yellow-legged frog, and osprey, as well as other animal species.

Impact #11. Postconstruction. Impacts to animal populations, potentially including special status species, could result from light, noise, traffic, and sedimentation resulting from project operations associated with general recreation use at Badger Park.

Item 7.c
387 of 697

5.0 PROJECT IMAPCTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
53 Mitigation Measure #12-1, Post Construction.

Light. Artificial light causes disruption of the behavior of insects, amphibians, mammals, and invertebrates. Unnecessary outdoor lighting should be turned off from dusk to dawn. If outdoor lighting is necessary, amber lighting along all outdoor areas including roadways should be used (Amber/Orange nm range 587 - 592 Peak Wavelength 590).

Where practicable, fixtures should be used that shield lamps or glowing lenses from being directly visible.

Traffic. No off-road event vehicle parking and driving is allowed. All parking will be within established parking lots. No oil or mineral salts will be applied to roadway or parking areas for dust control. Maximum vehicle speed limits are restricted to 10 mph. A mowed 30-foot margin, where feasible, will be maintained along both sides of the access road for visibility and fire control. Vehicles will stop if animals are observed until the animal clears the area. Speed limit and informational species protection signs will be posted along roadways.

Noise. Where feasible, electric power-driven equipment and vehicles should be used.

Maximum vehicle speed should be restricted to 10 mph on all roads.

Sedimentation. To avoid the potential for sediment being transported into aquatic resource areas, including the Russian River, Mitigation Measure #11 intended to protect special status fish species in the river should be implemented. Any areas that are barren of vegetation resulting from construction, pedestrian or vehicle access, or animal use shall be restored by seeding with a blend of native erosion control grass seed. Seeded areas shall be mulched. Landscape fabric shall not be used. Revegetation shall be completed as soon as possible bare soil area(s) are discovered. Seeding placed after October 15 must be covered with broadcast straw, jute netting, coconut fiber blanket or similar erosion control blanket.

Protect Habitat Area. Because the onsite stream flows on either side of the willow island before emptying into the Russian River and the willow island portion of the site has been identified as an area of generally high species diversity, proposed land uses in the vicinity of the willow island should be limited to the proposed willow walk trail/river access (Project Description items 17 and 19 in Master Plan as shown in Figure 12), and the remainder of the willow island portion of the Project Site should be treated as a protected habitat area set aside for conservation purposes which visitors should not access.

Item 7.c
388 of 697
54 6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY AUTHORIZATIONS
The proposed Project as described will require authorizations from federal, state, and local agencies which are listed in the table below which provides a summary of these agencies' regulatory authority, geographical reach of Jurisdiction, and types of impacts requiring authorization.

Table 4. Regulatory Authorizations Potentially Required for the Badger Park Project Agency Regulatory Authority Geographical Reach of
Jurisdiction
Impacts Requiring
Authorization
Department of the Army Corps of
Engineers, San Francisco District
CWA Section 404 Wetlands & Other Waters of the
United States
All ground disturbance
North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board
CWA Section 401 and PorterCologne ActWetlands & Other Waters of the State
All ground disturbance and
overhead disturbance
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Section 1602 of the California Fish
and Game Code
Stream channel bed, bank, and
dependent adjacent vegetation
within the stream zone.

All ground and overhead
disturbance
County of Sonoma Stream Setbacks for Structures
(SCC §7-14.5)
Stream habitat All activities which may disturb the
current nature of Stream Corridor.

County of Sonoma Stream Setbacks for Riparian
Corridors (SCC §26.65.030)
Stream habitat All activities which may disturb the
current nature of riparian habitat
along and adjacent to stream
boundaries.

County of Sonoma Stream Setbacks for Septic Systems
and Water Wells
Stream habitat All ground-disturbing activities
which may discharge pollutants to
streams in Sonoma County
County of Sonoma Stream and Water Feature
Setbacks for Grading Work
Stream habitat All ground-disturbing activities
which may discharge pollutants to
streams in Sonoma County
County of Sonoma Tree Protection Ordinance (Sec.
26-88-010 (m))
Protected tree species All ground-disturbing activities which may impact protected trees
in Sonoma County
City of Healdsburg Heritage Tree Ordinance Protected tree species All ground-disturbing activities which may impact protected trees
in the City of Healdsburg
Item 7.c
389 of 697

7.0 REFERENCES
55 7.0 REFERENCES
16 USC 703-712 Migratory Bird Treaty Act. https://www.fws.gov/law/migratory-bird-treaty-act-1918 33 U.S.C. 403. Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899. 33 U.S.C. 1344. Permits for Dredged or Fill Material.
33 CFR, Title 33, Part 328. Definition of Waters of the United States. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=pt33.3.328&rgn=div5 33 CFR Part 329. Definition of Navigable Waters of the United States. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-33/chapter-II/part-329 40 CFR Part 230. Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr230_main_02.tpl California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607 California Fish and Game Code. Environmental Services Division.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch, 2024. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System, Version 10.1.29. Sacramento, CA. access date: Jan. 2024 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations.

Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. September. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. March 20. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959&inline California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. List of California terrestrial natural communities recognized by the Natural Diversity Data Base. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/NaturalCommunities#sensitive%20natural%20communities California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. Accessed February 202.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. Special Animals List for State of California. Produced by Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. Accessed January 2024.

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org Item 7.c
390 of 697

7.0 REFERENCES
56 Dedrick, K. 1993. San Francisco Bay tidal marshland acreages: recent and historic values. In: O.T.

Magoon, ed. Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management (Coastal Zone '89). Charleston, South Carolina, July 11-14, 1989. Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2023. Jepson eFlora, https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/ [accessed on Dec 30, 2023].

Lichvar, Robert and Shawn M. McColley. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual. (2008).

Mayer, E. Kenneth and William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., (Eds.) 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California.

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. Expanded and Revised. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. 2002.

National Geographic Society. 2017. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. Seventh edition. National Geographic Society. Washington, D.C.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Second Edition.

In cooperation with The Nature Conservancy and the California Department of Fish and Game.

California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California.

Sea Grant California. 2024. https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/russian-river-salmon-steelhead/russian-riverlearning-center/russian-river-native-fish/steelhead Sibley, David A. 2014. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Second Edition. National Audubon Society. Chanticleer Press, Inc. New York, N.Y. 624 pp.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Apil 2, 2019. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/2021/procedures.pdf Stebbins, R.C. 2003. Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Peterson Field Guides. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. Third edition.

Tricolored Blackbird Working Group. 2007. Conservation Plan for Tricolored Blackbird.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. Prepared by the Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble.

ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

Item 7.c
391 of 697

7.0 REFERENCES
57 US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2023. Custom Soil Resource Report for the Project Site. Web Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed March 2023.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Listings and occurrences for California. Federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species in California. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/specieslistings-by-state?stateAbbrev=CA&stateName=California&statusCategory=Listed Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California’s Wildlife, Volume II:

Birds. State of California, the Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Item 7.c
392 of 697

APPENDIX A

FIGURES
Item 7.c
393 of 697
Kelley Creek
Norton Rd
on
Rd
Heal
dsburg Ave
Dry Creek Rd
Lytton Springs Rd
101
Dry Creek
Felta Creek
Wes
tside
Rd
Big Ridge Rd
101
Healdsburg
ek
Powell Ave
W Soda Rock Ln
Passalacqua Rd
Alexander Valley Rd
128
Del Rio Woods
Windsor Creek
Starr Rd
Estate Ln
Brooks Rd S
Limerick Ln
Perinoli Rd
Eastside Rd
Arata Ln
101
Grant
Bailhache
0 2,000 4,000 8,000
US Feet ¯
Project Site
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Basemap:California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, EPA, USFWS, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
Figure 1. Project Site Location
Project Site

C A L I F O R N I A
Fresno
Carson City
San Francisco
San Jose
Sacramento
Project Site
Path: D:\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:50,000
Date Map Created: 3/5/2024
HBG GIS Analyst: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG PM: Terry Huffman, PhD; Greg Huffman
Path: D:\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx
Item 7.c
394 of 697
Russian River
Tucker St 2nd St Badger Park Access Path Electrical Substation USGS 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle: Healdsburg, Map Date 1993 0 1,000 2,000 4,000
US Feet ¯
Project Site
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Basemap: Historical Topographic Map Collection courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey, EsriSource: Historical Topographic Map Collection courtesy of the U.S. Geological Survey, Esri, Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA, Sources: Esri, USGS Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
Figure 2a. USGS Topographic Map of the Project Site
Project Site
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:24,000
Date Map Created: 5/1/2024
HBG GIS Analyst: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG PM: Terry Huffman, PhD; Greg Huffman
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx Item 7.c
395 of 697
Russian River
2nd St
Badger Park Access Path
Electrical
Substation
121
1 20
1 91
1 8 1
711
8 1
8 0
84 83
102
1 0
1 99
98 82
79 1
60 103
93 91
1041
00 97
9 6
120
118
11 7
116
115
114
112
111
122
121
119
85 83
82 10 5
10 4
103
1 02
10 0
99 87
84 6 9
9 4
1 2
3 1
2 2
99 9 8
79 96
96 95
78 77
1 0
3 1
02 1 01
01 0
97 96
96 95
19 90
0 9
98 9
0 89
89 8 8
98 88
83 28
77 76
77 76
116
115
114
113
9 4
112
92 86
85 8
7 11
0 108
109
107
105
111
11 3
110
106
104
105
109 1
0 8
107
88 86
84 78
102
101
1 0 6
10 3
98 88
78 103
1 20
99 79
9 5
95 9 6
12 3
122
122
11 8
116
103
102
103
98 99
99 9 8
79 98
97 96
97 96
96 9 6
9 6
59 59
94 19
9 0
89 88
86 8 6
8 1
08 7 9
78 7
7 76
76 76
76 76
118
1 03
1 0
3 0 75 150 300
US Feet ¯
Project Site
Elevation Contour NAVD88 FT
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Basemap:Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Sources: Esri, USGS, Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA,CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap and the GIS user community; Elevation Contour Data: Sonoma County VegMap derived from 2013 LiDAR data Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
Figure 2b. Project Site with Elevation Contours
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:2,000
Date Map Created: 5/1/2024
HBG GIS Analyst: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG PM: Terry Huffman, PhD; Greg Huffman
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx Item 7.c
396 of 697
2nd St
Two
Heron Dr
S Fitch Mountain Rd
Falcon Way

BADGER PARK
RUS
Russian River
2nd St
Badger Park Access Path
Electrical
Substation
0 100 200 300
US Feet ¯
Project Site
Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
Figure 3a. Aerial Image of the Project Site
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Basemap:© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:2,500
Date Map Created: 5/1/2024
HBG GIS Analyst: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG PM: Terry Huffman, PhD; Greg Huffman
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx Item 7.c
397 of 697
2nd St
Alley Two
Heron Dr
S Fitch Mountain Rd
Falcon Way
Greens
D
Canary Ct

BADGER PARK
Raven Ct Hummingbird Ct

RUSSIAN RIVER
Russian River
Tucker St
2nd St
Badger Park Access Path
Electrical
Substation
120
117
11 9
11 8
1 12
111
116
1 02
114
107
80 78
81 79
96 9 3
121
94 110
109
97 92
115
113
120
118
11 7
116
115
114
112
111
122
121
119
85 84
38 10 5
10 4
103
102
10 1
104
103
10 2
101
89 88
8 88
6 69
49 122
121
102
101
1 00
9 9
99 9 8
99 9 8
79 96
96 95
78 77
77 7 6
77 76
109
108
103
102
97 96
96 95
90 89
89 8 8
89 88
83 28
10 0
10 6
83 82
103
98 7 8
91 86
58 101
77 105
104
113
109
105
104
11 0
10 8
106
107
88 86
87 82
1 06
100
9 1
87 90
123
122
103
99 98
79 69
59 78
21 3
221
122
122
11 8
103
1 03
103
201
103
103
102
103
103
98 99
99 9 8
97 98
89 97
96 97
96 9 6
9 6
59 95
94 91
90 89
90 9 0
90 88
86 86
81 08
79 76
76 76
76 76
76 118
103
77 0 130 260 390
US Feet ¯
Project Site
Elevation Contour NAVD88 FT
Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
Figure 3b. Aerial Image of the Project Site
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Basemap:© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:3,000
Date Map Created: 5/1/2024
HBG GIS Analyst: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG PM: Terry Huffman, PhD; Greg Huffman
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx Item 7.c
398 of 697
2nd St
Alley Two
Heron Dr
S Fitch Mountain R
Falcon W

BADGER PARK
Barren
Barren
Annual Grasses and
Forbs, Perennial Grasses
and Forbs
Urban or
Developed
N/A
N/A
Coast
Live Oak
Valley Oak
Riparian
Mixed
Hardwood
Riparian
Mixed
Hardwood
Riparian
Mixed Shrub
Urban or
Developed
River/Stream/Canal,
Reservoir, Bay or
Estuary, Ocean
Non-native/Ornamental
Shrub
Riparian
Mixed
Hardwood
Urban or
Developed
Urban or
Developed
Riparian
Mixed
Hardwood
0 100 200 300 400 500
US Feet ¯
Project Site
Vegetation:

CalVeg Name (acreage within Project Site)
Annual Grasses and Forbs, Perennial
Grasses and Forbs
Barren
Coast Live Oak
Unclassified Forest
Non-native/Ornamental Shrub
Riparian Mixed Hardwood
Riparian Mixed Shrub
River/Stream/Canal, Reservoir, Bay or
Estuary, Ocean
Urban or Developed
Valley Oak
Figure 4. Vegetation Map
Project Data: HBG; Enhanced Lifeform Data: San Mateo County Resource Conservation District, CALFIRE, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Santa Cruz Mountains Stewardship Network, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, County of Santa Cruz, County of Santa Clara, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, Santa Clara Valley Water District, TukmanGeospatial LLC; Basemap: Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Pictometry International, Maxar Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:2,500
Date Map Created: 8/7/2024
HBG GIS Analyst: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG PM: Terry Huffman, PhD; Greg Huffman
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx (0.73 ac)
(0.00 ac)
(1.21 ac)
(0.11 ac)
(0.12 ac)
(8.55 ac)
(0.72 ac)
(0.87 ac)
(5.95 ac)
(0.38 ac)
Item 7.c
399 of 697
Riverwash
Riverwash
Yolo sandy loam, Gravel pits
overwash, 0 to 5
percent slopes
Yolo sandy
loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes Pleasanton loam,
0 to 2 percent
slopes, MLRA 14
Water
Pleasanton gravelly
loam, 2 to 5
percent slopes
Project Site
NRCS Soil Type:

Mapunit Name:

Gravel pits
Pleasanton gravelly loam, 2 to 5
percent slopes
Pleasanton loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, MLRA 14
Riverwash
Water
Yolo sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
Yolo sandy loam, overwash, 0 to 5
percent slopes
0 30 60 120 180 240 300 US Feet ¯
Figure 5. NRCS Soils Map
Project Data: HBG; Soil Data: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Esri; Basemap: Pictometry International, Maxar, Microsoft Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:2,500
Date Map Created: 4/25/2024
HBG GIS Analyst: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG PM: Terry Huffman, PhD; Greg Huffman
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx Item 7.c
400 of 697
HUC ID:
1802016202
Name: Pope Creek
HUC ID: 1802016203
Name: Upper
Putah Creek
HUC ID: 1805000202
Name: Napa
River
HUC ID: 1805000203
Name: Sonoma Creek-Frontal
San Pablo Bay Estuaries
HUC ID: 1805000206
Name: Petaluma River-Frontal
HUC ID: 1805000504 San Pablo Bay Estuaries
Name: Abbotts Lagoon-Frontal Pacific Ocean
HUC ID: 1805000503
Name: Tomales
Bay-Bodega Bay
HUC ID: 1801010804
Name: Navarro River
HUC ID: 1801010901
Name: Gualala
River
HUC ID: 1801010902
Name: Salmon Creek-Frontal
Pacific Ocean
HUC ID: 1801011003
Name: Big
Sulphur Creek
HUC ID: 1801011004
Name: Upper
Russian River
HUC ID: 1801011005
Name: Dry Creek
HUC ID: 1801011006
Name: Middle
Russian River
HUC ID: 1801011007
Name: Mark
West Creek
HUC ID: 1801011008
Name: Austin Creek
HUC ID: 1801011009
Name: Lower
Russian River
HUC ID: 1802011603
Name: Kelsey
Creek-Clear Lake
HUC ID: 1802011606
Name: Upper
Cache Creek
Project Data: HBG; Hydrology Data: USGS The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD); Basemap: Earthstar Geographics 0 2.5 5 10
Miles ¯
USGS NHD HUC 10 Boundary
Project Site
Figure 6. USGS NHD HUC 10 Watershed Boundaries
Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet
Scale: 1:300,001
Date Map Created: 3/5/2024
HBG GIS Analyst: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG PM: Terry Huffman, PhD; Greg Huffman
Path: D:\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx
Project Site
Item 7.c
401 of 697
HUC ID: 180201620301
Name: Saint
Helena Creek
HUC ID: 180201620302
Name: Dry
Creek-Putah Creek
HUC ID: 180201620303
Name: Big Canyon
Creek-Putah Creek
HUC ID: 180201620307
Name:

Crazy Creek-Putah Creek
HUC ID: 180500020201
Name: Upper
Napa River
HUC ID: 180101100703
Name: Lower
Santa Rosa Creek
HUC ID: 180101100704
Name: Lower Laguna
De Santa Rosa
HUC ID: 180101100705
Name: Windsor Creek
HUC ID: 180101100706
Name: Porter
Creek-Mark West Creek
HUC ID: 180101100801
Name: East
Austin Creek
HUC ID: 180101100802
Name: Ward
Creek-Austin Creek
HUC ID: 180101100901
Name: Green
Valley Creek
HUC ID: 180101100902
Name: Porter
Creek-Russian River
HUC ID: 180101100903
Name: Dutch Bill
Creek-Russian River
HUC ID: 180101100904
Name: Willow
Creek-Russian River
HUC ID: 180201160303
Name: Kelsey
Creek
HUC ID:
180101090201
Name: Salmon Creek
HUC ID: 180101090203
Name: Bodega
Harbor-Frontal
Pacific Ocean
HUC ID: 180101100301
Name: Little
Sulphur Creek
HUC ID: 180101100302
Name: Alder Creek-Big
Sulphur Creek
HUC ID: 180101100411
Name: Oat Valley
Creek-Russian River
HUC ID: 180101100503
Name: Warm
Springs Creek
HUC ID: 180101100504
Name: Lake
Sonoma-Dry Creek
HUC ID:
180101100505
Name: Pena Creek
HUC ID:
180101100506
Name: Mill Creek
HUC ID: 180101100507
Name: West
Slough-Dry Creek
HUC ID: 180101100601
Name: Gill
Creek-Russian River
HUC ID: 180101100602
Name: Sausal
Creek-Russian River
HUC ID: 180101100603
Name: Franz
Creek
HUC ID: 180101100604
Name: Maacama
Creek
HUC ID: 180101100605
Name: Brooks
Creek-Russian River
HUC ID: 180101100701
Name: Upper Laguna
De Santa Rosa
HUC ID: 180101100702
Name: Upper
Santa Rosa Creek
Project Data: HBG; Hydrology Data: USGS The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD); Basemap: Pictometry International, Earthstar Geographics 0 1.5 3 6
Miles ¯
USGS NHD HUC 12 Boundary
Project Site
Figure 7. USGS NHD HUC 12 Watershed Boundaries
Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet
Scale: 1:200,001
Date Map Created: 3/5/2024
HBG GIS Analyst: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG PM: Terry Huffman, PhD; Greg Huffman
Path: D:\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx
Project Site
Item 7.c
402 of 697
eson St
University St
rth St
Ce
me
2 1st St
nd St
per St
Tucker St
ley 1
ydon St
Bro
Alley 2

HEALDSBURG

RECREATION
PARK

HEALDSBURG

ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
Kennedy Ln
Front St
Mason St
Ward St

RAILROAD
PARK
Heron Dr
Orchard St
S Fitch Mountain Rd
S Fitch
Mount ain
Rd
Almond Way
Prune Tree Dr
Falcon Way
Greens Dr
Tee
Dr
Raven Ct
Mou
ntain View Dr

BADGER PARK
Bumpy Rd
Bailhache Ave
Bunin Rd
Healdsb
urg
Ave
Bailhache
FIRM Panel:
06097C0551E
Eff. Date: 12-2-2008
0 640 1,280
US Feet ¯
Project Site
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels
(with Panel ID and Effective Date)
Flood Hazard Zones
1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard

0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
Figure 8. FEMA Flood Zone Mapping
Project Data: HBG; Basemap Imagery Credits: Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Pictometry International, Maxar; Flood Zone Data: FEMA National Flood Hazard Project Site
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:6,400
Date Map Created: 4/26/2024
HBG GIS Analyst: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG PM: Terry Huffman, PhD; Greg Huffman
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx Item 7.c
403 of 697
W2
W1
W3
W4
OHW Width 5'
OHW Width 1'
OHW Width 1.5'
OHW Width 3.5'
OHW Width 8'
R5
R6
R4
R3
R2
R1
S07
S08
S10
S01
S02
S09 S05
S06
S13
S03
S04
S12
S11
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
SP19
122.8557678°W

38.6080285°N
122.8568810°W

38.6107297°N
122.8594633°W

38.6100656°N
OHW Width 3.5'
OHW Width 3.5'
R7
cker St 2nd St
Russian River
Badger Park Access Path
Electrical
Substation
U3
U4
U5
U1
U1
U2
U1
0 50 100 200 300
US Feet
¯
Aquatic Resources Subject to CWA Jurisdiction:

Other Waters:

Riverine Intermittent (CWA Section 404 WOTUS)
Riverine Lower Perennial (CWA Section 404 WOTUS)
Upland Areas Below Ordinary High Water (OHW) 94 ft. NAVD88 Wetlands:

Palustrine Forrested (CWA Section 404, WOTUS Jurisdiction Extends to Edge of Uplands)
Sample Point
Project Site
Ordinary High Water (OHW) 94 ft.

NAVD88
Upland Areas Above Ordinary High
Water (OHW) 94 ft. NAVD88
|
|
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Basemap:© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA; Aerial Imagery: Google Earth, AirBus, Imagery date 4/20/2023 Figure 9. CWA Aquatic Resource Delineation
Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:2,000
Date Map Created: 5/9/2024
HBG GIS Analyst: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG PM: Terry Huffman, PhD; Greg Huffman
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx (0.14 ac) (18.64 ac)
(1.51 ac)
(4.79 ac)
(1.42 ac)
Item 7.c
404 of 697
Figure 10. North Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board Aquatic Resources Delineation
Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California 2nd St
Mathe
Heron Dr
Heron Dr
Badger Park
W2
W1
W3
W4
OHW Width 5'
OHW Width 1'
OHW Width 1.5'
OHW Width 3.5'
OHW Width 8'
R5
R6
R4
R3
R2
R1
S07
S08
S10
S01
S02
S09 S05
S06
S13
S03
S04
S12
S11
S14
S15
S16
S17
S18
SP19
OHW Width 3.5'
OHW Width 3.5'
R7
Russian River
ucker St 2nd St
Badger Park Access Path
Electrical
Substation
Project Data: HBG; Basemap Imagery Credits: © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS; Google Earth 4/1/2022 0 100 200 400 600 800 1,000
US Feet ¯
Waters of the State
Other Waters:

Riverine Intermittent Emergent (CWA Section 404 & Porter-Cologne Act Jurisdiction Extends to TOB)
Riverine Lower Perennial (CWA Section 404 & Porter-Cologne Act Jurisdiction Extends to TOB)
Upland Areas Below Top of Bank and (TOB) and Ordinary High Water (OHW) Upland Areas Above TOB and Below OHW
Upland Areas Above OHW and Below TOB
Wetlands:

Palustrine Emergent (CWA Section 404 & Porter-Cologne Act Jurisdiction Extends to Edge of Uplands)
Project Site
Top of Bank (TOB)
Ordinary High Water (OHW) 94 ft.

NAVD88
Upland Areas Above Top of Bank
(TOB)
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:2,000
Date Map Created: 5/9/2024
HBG GIS Analyst: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG PM: Terry Huffman, PhD; Greg Huffman
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx (0.14 ac)
(18.64 ac)
(1.51 ac)
(1.42 ac)
(4.39 ac)
(0.43 ac)
(0.84 ac)
Item 7.c
405 of 697
Figure 11. California Department of Fish and
Wildlife Jurisdictional Determination
Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
2nd St
S Fitch Mou
Matheson St
Heron Dr
Heron Dr
Badger Park
Russian River
2nd St
Badger Park Access Path
Electrical
Substation
Project Data: HBG; Basemap Imagery Credits: Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS; Microsoft (UC-G) image captured on Oct 25, 2010 0 75 150 300
US Feet ¯
Project Site (18.64 ac)
Top of Bank (TOB)
Potenial CDFW Streambed Alteration
Agreement Program Jurisdition
CDFW Streambed (Channel & bank /
stream zone)
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:2,000
Date Map Created: 5/1/2024
HBG GIS Analyst: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG PM: Terry Huffman, PhD; Greg Huffman
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx (8.28 ac)
Item 7.c
406 of 697
100 90 80 95 95 95 90 90 85 85 80 85 95 90 90 90 95 95 90 100 RUSSIAN RIVER HERON DR 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 15 15 15 14 16 16 16 16 17 17 19 18 19 20 21 20 19 LEGEND KEY DESCRIPTION PROPERTY LINE LIMIT OF WORK CENTRAL LAWN PROMENADE RIVER OVERKOOKS PLAY AREA ADVENTURE PLAY COMMUNITY GARDEN DOG PLAY AREA RESTROOMS SPORTS COURTS PARKING GAME COURTS LOOP TRAIL PLAZA RIVER ACCESS DROP-OFF PICNIC AREA RIVERWALK TRAIL (E) [APPROX., TO BE RENOVATED] RIVER WALK TRAIL (N) WILLOW ISLAND RIVER ACCESS UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE PATH 123456789101112131415161718192021 SHEET NO: DATE 02.14.24 NO. DRAWN: 19-012 NM CHD: DF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: BADGER PARK 750 HERON DRIVE HEALDSBURG, CA 95448 CEQA REVISION DESCRIPTION DATE 2325 3rd street, suite 323 san francisco ca 94107 p 415.323.0850 e [email protected] NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NORTH 0 30' 60' 120' DRAWING TITLE: Figure 12. Proposed Badger Park Master Plan L0.00 Item 7.c 407 of 697
2n
2nd St
S Fitch Mountain Rd
Matheson St
Heron Dr
Heron Dr

BADGER PARK
Russian River
2nd St
Badger Park Access Path
Electrical
Substation
10 7
13 9
9 13
2 13
15 12
12 5
15 12
5 16
17 17
16 16
19 3
3 13
2 4
15 8
10 6
14 20
21 20
11 1
Figure 13. Proposed Development and Aquatic Resources
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet (2011) Scale: 1:2,000
Map Created Date: 5/2/2024
GIS Specialists: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG Project Manager: Greg Huffman
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Basemap:© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS; Aerial Imagery:Google Earth, AirBus Image Date 5/13/2023 0 50 100 200 300 400 500
US Feet ¯
Aquatic Resources Review
Area /Project Site
Aquatic Resources:

Riverine Intermittent (CWA
Section 404 WOTUS)
Riverine Lower Perennial (CWA
Section 404 WOTUS)
Palustrine Emergent (Non-CWA
Section 404 WOTUS)
Upland Areas Below Ordinary
High Water (OHW) 94 ft.

NAVD88
Proposed Development:

Boardwalk
Bridge
Graded
Lawn / Landscaping
Paved
Stairs
Trail
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
1 CENTRAL LAWN 6 COMMUNITY GARDEN 11 GAME COURTS
2 PROMENADE 7 DOG PLAY AREA 12 LOOP TRAIL
3 RIVER OVERKOOKS 8 RESTROOMS 13 PLAZA
4 PLAY AREA 9 SPORTS COURTS 14 RIVER ACCESS DROP-OFF
5 ADVENTURE PLAY 10 PARKING 15 PICNIC AREA
16 RIVERWALK TRAIL (E)
[APPROX., TO BE RENOVATED]
17 RIVER WALK TRAIL (N)
18 WILLOW ISLAND
19 RIVER ACCESS
20 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
21 MAINTENANCE PATH
Item 7.c
408 of 697
2nd St
S Fitch Mountain Rd
Matheson St
Heron Dr
Heron Dr

BADGER PARK
Russian River
Badger Park Access Path
Electrical
Substation
10 7
13 9
9 13
2 13
15 12
12 5
15 12
5 16
17 17
16 16
19 3
3 13
2 4
15 8
10 6
14 20
21 20
11 1
Figure 14. Proposed Development with
FEMA Flood Hazard Zones
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet (2011) Scale: 1:2,000
Map Created Date: 5/2/2024
GIS Specialists: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG Project Manager: Greg Huffman
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Basemap:© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land 0 50 100 200 300 400 500
US Feet ¯
Aquatic Resources Review
Area /Project Site
Aquatic Resources:

Riverine Intermittent (CWA
Section 404 WOTUS)
Riverine Lower Perennial (CWA
Section 404 WOTUS)
Palustrine Emergent (Non-CWA
Section 404 WOTUS)
Upland Areas Below Ordinary
High Water (OHW) 94 ft.

NAVD88
Proposed Development:

Boardwalk
Bridge
Graded
Lawn / Landscaping
Paved
Stairs
Trail
Flood Hazard Zones:
1% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard

0.2% Annual Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
1 CENTRAL LAWN 6 COMMUNITY GARDEN 11 GAME COURTS
2 PROMENADE 7 DOG PLAY AREA 12 LOOP TRAIL
3 RIVER OVERKOOKS 8 RESTROOMS 13 PLAZA
4 PLAY AREA 9 SPORTS COURTS 14 RIVER ACCESS DROP-OFF
5 ADVENTURE PLAY 10 PARKING 15 PICNIC AREA
16 RIVERWALK TRAIL (E)
[APPROX., TO BE RENOVATED]
17 RIVER WALK TRAIL (N)
18 WILLOW ISLAND
19 RIVER ACCESS
20 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
21 MAINTENANCE PATH
Item 7.c
409 of 697
2n
2nd St
S Fitch Mountain Rd
Matheson St
Heron Dr
Heron Dr

BADGER PARK
Russian River
2nd St
Badger Park Access Path
Electrical
Substation
N/A
Non-native/Ornamental
Shrub
Coast
Live
Oak
Valley Oak
Riparian Mixed
Hardwood
Riparian
Mixed Shrub
Riparian
Mixed
Hardwood
10 7
13 9
9 13
2 13
15 12
12 5
15 12
5 16
17 17
19 16
16 19
3 3
13 2
4 15
8 10
6 14
20 21
20 11
1 18
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
15 14 13
17 16
18 19
20 21
22 23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
Figure 15. Vegetation Impacts as Result of Project Ground Disturbing Activities
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet (2011) Scale: 1:2,000
Map Created Date: 6/25/2024
GIS Specialists: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG Project Manager: Greg Huffman
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Basemap:© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS; Aerial Imagery:Google Earth, AirBus Image Date 5/13/2023 0 50 100 200 300 400 500
US Feet ¯
Surveyed Tree
Aquatic Resources Review Area /Project
Site
Upland Areas Below Ordinary High Water
(OHW) 94 ft. NAVD88
Project Site Areas Permanently Impacted
(6.25 ac)
Upland Temporary Impact
Vegetation Habitat (impacted acreage):

Coastal Oak Woodland
Coast Live Oak ( 0.17 ac)
Valley Foothill Riparian
Non-native/Ornamental Shrub (0.01 ac)
Riparian Mixed Hardwood (0.99 ac)
Riparian Mixed Shrub (0.06 ac)
Unclassified Forest (0.04 ac)
Valley Oak Woodland
Valley Oak ( 0.11 ac)
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
1 CENTRAL LAWN 6 COMMUNITY GARDEN 11 GAME COURTS
2 PROMENADE 7 DOG PLAY AREA 12 LOOP TRAIL
3 RIVER OVERKOOKS 8 RESTROOMS 13 PLAZA
4 PLAY AREA 9 SPORTS COURTS 14 RIVER ACCESS DROP-OFF
5 ADVENTURE PLAY 10 PARKING 15 PICNIC AREA
16 RIVERWALK TRAIL (E)
[APPROX., TO BE RENOVATED]
17 RIVER WALK TRAIL (N)
18 WILLOW ISLAND
19 RIVER ACCESS
20 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
21 MAINTENANCE PATH
(1.02 ac)
Item 7.c
410 of 697
2n
2nd St
S Fitch Mountain Rd
Matheson St
Heron Dr
Heron Dr

BADGER PARK
Russian River
2nd St
Badger Park Access Path
Electrical
Substation
10 7
13 9
9 13
2 13
15 12
12 5
15 12
5 16
17 17
16 16
19 3
3 13
2 4
15 8
10 6
14 20
21 20
11 1
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet (2011) Scale: 1:2,000
Map Created Date: 5/8/2024
GIS Specialists: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG Project Manager: Greg Huffman
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Basemap:© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS; Aerial Imagery:Google Earth, AirBus Image Date 5/13/2023 0 50 100 200 300 400 500
US Feet ¯
Aquatic Resources Review
Area /Project Site
Limit of Work
Vegetation & Soil Management
Area
Project Site Areas Permanently
Impacted
Upland Temporary Impact
Aquatic Resources:

Riverine Intermittent (CWA
Section 404 WOTUS)
Riverine Lower Perennial (CWA
Section 404 WOTUS)
Palustrine Emergent (Non-CWA
Section 404 WOTUS)
Upland Areas Below Ordinary
High Water (OHW) 94 ft.

NAVD88
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx Figure 16. Vegetation & Soil Management Area
Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
1 CENTRAL LAWN 6 COMMUNITY GARDEN 11 GAME COURTS
2 PROMENADE 7 DOG PLAY AREA 12 LOOP TRAIL
3 RIVER OVERKOOKS 8 RESTROOMS 13 PLAZA
4 PLAY AREA 9 SPORTS COURTS 14 RIVER ACCESS DROP-OFF
5 ADVENTURE PLAY 10 PARKING 15 PICNIC AREA
16 RIVERWALK TRAIL (E)
[APPROX., TO BE RENOVATED]
17 RIVER WALK TRAIL (N)
18 WILLOW ISLAND
19 RIVER ACCESS
20 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
21 MAINTENANCE PATH
(11.51 ac)
(5.67 ac)
Item 7.c
411 of 697
U2 U3
U4
U5
U1
U1
W2
W3
W4
W1
W1
R1
R7
R3
R4
R5
R2
R6
Russian River
2nd St
Badger Park Access Path
Electrical
Substation
2n
2nd St
S Fitch Mountain Rd
Matheson St
Heron Dr
Heron Dr

BADGER PARK
10 7
13 9
9 13
2 13
15 12
12 5
15 12
5 16
17 17
16 16
19 3
3 13
2 4
15 8
10 6
14 20
21 20
11 1
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Basemap:© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of LandManagement, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS; Aerial Imagery: Google Earth, AirBus, Imagery date 5/13/2023 Aquatic Resources Review Area /Project Site
(57.65 ac)
Ordinary High Water (OHW)
Upland Areas Above Ordinary High Water (OHW)
94 ft. NAVD88
Aquatic Resources Subject to CWA Jurisdiction:

Riverine Intermittent (CWA Section 404 WOTUS)
(R2-R7)
Riverine Lower Perennial (CWA Section 404
WOTUS) (R1)
Palustrine Emergent (Non-CWA Section 404
WOTUS) (W1-W4)
Upland Areas Below Ordinary High Water (OHW)
94 ft. NAVD88
Project Site Areas Permanently Impacted:

Boardwalk
Bridge
Graded
Lawn / Landscaping
Paved
Stairs
Trail
Impact Areas
Riverine Permanent Impact
Riverine Temporary Impact
Palustrine Permanent Impact
Palustrine Temporary Impact
Upland Permanent Impact
Upland Temporary Impact
0 50 100 200 300 400 500
US Feet ¯
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet (2011) Scale: 1:2,000
Map Created Date: 5/3/2024
GIS Specialists: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG Project Manager: Greg Huffman
(0.09 ac)
(1.48 ac)
(1.30 ac)
(3.57 ac)
Figure 17. Impacts to Existing Land Use/Cover and Aquatic Resources Subject to Corps/USEPA Clean Water Act Section 404 Jurisdiction Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
1 CENTRAL LAWN 6 COMMUNITY GARDEN 11 GAME COURTS
2 PROMENADE 7 DOG PLAY AREA 12 LOOP TRAIL
3 RIVER OVERKOOKS 8 RESTROOMS 13 PLAZA
4 PLAY AREA 9 SPORTS COURTS 14 RIVER ACCESS DROP-OFF
5 ADVENTURE PLAY 10 PARKING 15 PICNIC AREA
16 RIVERWALK TRAIL (E)
[APPROX., TO BE RENOVATED]
17 RIVER WALK TRAIL (N)
18 WILLOW ISLAND
19 RIVER ACCESS
20 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
21 MAINTENANCE PATH
(0.011 ac)
(0.063 ac)
(0.115 ac)
(0.003 ac)
(0.997 ac)
(0.253 ac)
Item 7.c
412 of 697
U2 U3
U4
U5
U1
U1
W2
W3
W4
W1
W1
R1
R7
R3
R4
R5
R2
R6
2nd St
S Fitch Mountain Rd
Matheson St
Heron Dr
Heron Dr

BADGER PARK
Russian River
2nd St
Badger Park Access Path
Electrical
Substation
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Basemap:© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of LandManagement, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS; Aerial Imagery: Google Earth, AirBus, Imagery date 5/13/2023 Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet (2011) Scale: 1:2,000
Map Created Date: 5/15/2024
GIS Specialists: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG Project Manager: Greg Huffman
Figure 18. Impacts to Existing Land Use/Cover and Aquatic Resources Subject to North Coast Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
1 CENTRAL LAWN 6 COMMUNITY GARDEN 11 GAME COURTS
2 PROMENADE 7 DOG PLAY AREA 12 LOOP TRAIL
3 RIVER OVERKOOKS 8 RESTROOMS 13 PLAZA
4 PLAY AREA 9 SPORTS COURTS 14 RIVER ACCESS DROP-OFF
5 ADVENTURE PLAY 10 PARKING 15 PICNIC AREA
16 RIVERWALK TRAIL (E)
[APPROX., TO BE RENOVATED]
17 RIVER WALK TRAIL (N)
18 WILLOW ISLAND
19 RIVER ACCESS
20 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
21 MAINTENANCE PATH
Aquatic Resources Review Area /Project Site
(57.65 ac)
Ordinary High Water (OHW)
Top of Bank (TOB)
Upland Areas Above Top of Bank (TOB) and
Ordinary High Water (OHW)
Aquatic Resources Subject to RWQCB Jurisdiction:

Riverine Intermittent (CWA Section 404 WOTUS)
(R2-R7)
Riverine Lower Perennial (CWA Section 404
WOTUS) (R1)
Palustrine Emergent (Non-CWA Section 404
WOTUS) (W1-W4)
Upland Areas Below Top of Bank and (TOB) and
Ordinary High Water (OHW)
Upland Areas Above TOB and Below OHW
Upland Areas Above OHW and Below TOB
Project Site Areas Permanently Impacted:

Boardwalk
Bridge
Graded
Lawn / Landscaping
Paved
Stairs
Trail
Impact Areas
Riverine Permanent Impact
Riverine Temporary Impact
Palustrine Permanent Impact
Palustrine Temporary Impact
Below OHW Upland Permanent Impact
Below OHW Upland Temporary Impact
Above OHW and Below TOB Upland Permanent
Impact
Above OHW and Below TOB Upland Temporary
Impact
0 50 100 200 300 400 500
US Feet ¯
(0.14 ac)
(1.51 ac)
(1.30 ac)
(0.01 ac)
(0.06 ac)
(0.12 ac)
(0.003 ac)
(0.97 ac)
(0.25 ac)
(4.39 ac)
(0.43 ac)
(0.84 ac)
(0.13 ac)
(0.05 ac)
Item 7.c
413 of 697
R1
R7
R3
R4
R5
R2
R6
Russian River
2nd St
Badger Park Access Path
Electrical
Substation
2n
2nd St
S Fitch Mountain Rd
Matheson St
Heron Dr
Heron Dr

BADGER PARK
10 7
13 9
9 13
2 13
15 12
12 5
15 12
5 16
17 17
16 16
19 3
3 13
2 4
15 8
10 6
14 20
21 20
11 1
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Basemap:© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of LandManagement, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS; Aerial Imagery: Google Earth, AirBus, Imagery date 5/13/2023 Aquatic Resources Review Area /
Project Site (57.65 ac)
Top of Bank (TOB)
Upland Areas Above Ordinary High
Water (OHW) 94 ft. NAVD88
Project Site Areas Permanently Impacted:

Boardwalk
Bridge
Graded
Lawn / Landscaping
Paved
Stairs
Trail
Aquatic Resources Subject to CDFW
Jurisdiction:

CDFW Streambed (Channel & bank /
stream zone) (57.99 ac)
Impact to CDFW Streambed (Channel &
bank / stream zone):

Permanent Impact
Temporary Impact
0 50 100 200 300
US Feet ¯
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\BadgerPark BA.aprx Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet (2011) Scale: 1:2,000
Map Created Date: 5/3/2024
GIS Specialists: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG Project Manager: Greg Huffman
Figure 19. Impacts to Existing Land Use/Cover and Aquatic Resources Subject to California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
(0.34 ac)
(0.96 ac)
1 CENTRAL LAWN 6 COMMUNITY GARDEN 11 GAME COURTS
2 PROMENADE 7 DOG PLAY AREA 12 LOOP TRAIL
3 RIVER OVERKOOKS 8 RESTROOMS 13 PLAZA
4 PLAY AREA 9 SPORTS COURTS 14 RIVER ACCESS DROP-OFF
5 ADVENTURE PLAY 10 PARKING 15 PICNIC AREA
16 RIVERWALK TRAIL (E)
[APPROX., TO BE RENOVATED]
17 RIVER WALK TRAIL (N)
18 WILLOW ISLAND
19 RIVER ACCESS
20 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE
21 MAINTENANCE PATH
Item 7.c
414 of 697

APPENDIX B
BIOLOGICAL SPECIES TABLES AND IPaC

INFORMATION
Table 1. Vascular Plant Species Observed in the Study Site During February/March 2024 Plant Surveys
Table 2. Bird Species Observed on the Project Site February/March 2024 (eBird Checklists)
Table 3. Special Status Plants with Potential to Occur in the Vicinity of the Project Site, Sonoma County, California
Table 4. Special Status Animal Species that Have Been Reported in the Vicinity of the Project Site, Sonoma County, California
Table 5. IPaC information from the USFWS
Item 7.c
415 of 697
TABLE 1. VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED AT THE PROJECT SITE DURING 2024 PLANT SURVEYS Scientific Name Organized by Families 1 Common Name Native/Not Native
California Invasive Plant Council
Invasive Plant Rating 2
Agavaceae
Chlorogalum pomeridianum Wavyleafsoap plant Native
Anacardiaceae
Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison oak Native
Apiaceae
Conium maculatum Poison hemlock Not Native Moderate
Foeniculumvulgare Fennel Not Native Moderate
Apocynaceae
Vincamajor Greater periwinkle Not Native Moderate
Araliaceae
Hedera helix English ivy Not Native High
Arecaceae
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm Not Native Limited Asteraceae
Achillea millefolium Common yarrow Native
Cichorium intybus Chicory Not Native Not Classified
Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox‐tongue Not Native Limited Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Not Native Not Classified Leontodon saxatilis Hawkbit Not Native Not Classified
Matricaria discoidea Pineapple weed Not Native Not Classified Silybummarianum Milk thistle Not Native Limited
Sonchus asper Prickly sowthistle Not Native Not Classified Sonchus oleraceus Common sowthistle Not Native Not Classified Taraxacumofficinale Dandelion Not Native Not Classified Tragopogon porrifolius Purple salsify Not Native Not Classified Xanthium strumarium Rough cocklebur Native
Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle Not Native Moderate
Brassicaceae
Brassica nigra Black mustard Not Native Moderate
Hirschfeldia incana Shortpodmustard Not Native Moderate Lepidium didymum Wart-cress Not Native Not Classified
Raphanus sativus Wild radish Not Native Limited
Cannabaceae
Celtisreticulata Net leaf hackberry Native
Caryophyllaceae
Spergularia rubra Purple sandspurry Not Native Not Classified Convolvulaceae
Convolvulus arvensis Field bindweed Not Native Not Classified Cupressaceae
Sequoia sempervirens Coastredwood Native
Cyperaceae
Carex aquatilis Watersedge Native
Carex praegracilis Clustered field sedge Native
Cyperus eragrostis Tall flatsedge Native
Dipsacaceae
Dipsacus sativus Teasel Not Native Moderate
Fabaceae
Acmispon americanus American bird's foot trefoil Native Genista monspessulana French broom Not Native High
Lotus corniculatus Bird's foot trefoil Not Native Not Classified Lupinus bicolor Bicolored lupine Native
Medicago polymorpha Bur clover Not Native Limited
Trifolium dubium Shamrock clover Not Native Not Classified Trifolium fragiferum Strawberry clover Not Native Not Classified Trifolium hirtum Rose clover Not Native Limited
Trifolium incarnatum Crimson clover Not Native Not Classified Item 7.c
416 of 697
TABLE 1. VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED AT THE PROJECT SITE DURING 2024 PLANT SURVEYS Scientific Name Organized by Families 1 Common Name Native/Not Native
California Invasive Plant Council
Invasive Plant Rating 2
Trifolium repens White clover Not Native Not Classified Vicia benghalensis Purple vetch Not Native Not Classified Vicia sativa Spring vetch Not Native Not Classified
Fagaceae
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak Native
Quercus lobata Valley oak Native
Geraniaceae
Erodium botrys Broad leaf filaree Not Native Not Classified Geranium dissectum Cutleaf geranium Not Native Limited
Hamamelidaceae
Loropetalumchinense Chinese fringe flower Not Native Not Classified Hypericaceae
Hypericum calycinum Aaron's beard Not Native Not Classified Iridaceae
Sisyrinchium bellum Blue-eyed grass Native
Juglandaceae
Juglans hindsii Northern California black walnut Native Juncaceae
Juncus balticusssp. ater Baltic rush Native
Juncus bufonius Common toad rush Native
Juncus capitatus Capped rush Not Native Not Classified
Juncus effusus Common rush Native
Lamiaceae
Melissa officinalis Lemon balm Not Native Not Classified Mentha spicata Spearmint Not Native Not Classified
Umbellularia californica California bay Native
Lythraceae
Lythrum hyssopifolia Hyssop loosestrife Not Native Moderate Malvaceae
Malva nicaeensis Bull mallow Not Native Not Classified
Myrsinaceae
Lysimachia arvensis Scarlet pimpernel Not Native Not Classified Oleaceae
Fraxinus latifolia Oregon ash Native
Ligustrum lucidum Treeprivet Not Native Limited
Onagraceae
Epilobium brachycarpum Panicled willow-herb Native
Orobanchaceae
Parentucellia viscosa Yellow parentucellia Not Native Limited Oxalidaceae
Oxalis pes‐caprae Sourgrass Not Native Moderate
Paulowniaceae
Paulownia imperialis Empress tree Not Native Not Classified Plantaginaceae
Kickxia elatine Sharp-leaved fluellin Not Native Not Classified Plantago coronopus Cut-leaf plantain Not Native Not Classified Plantago lanceolata English plantain Not Native Limited Poaceae
Arundo donax Giant reed Not Native High
Avena fatua Wild oat Not Native Moderate
Briza maxima Rattlesnake grass Not Native Limited
Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Not Native Moderate
Bromus hordeaceus Soft brome Not Native Limited
Bromuslaevipes Woodland brome Native
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Not Native Moderate
Danthonia californica California oatgrass Native
Elymus glaucus Blue wildrye Native
Item 7.c
417 of 697
TABLE 1. VASCULAR PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED AT THE PROJECT SITE DURING 2024 PLANT SURVEYS Scientific Name Organized by Families 1 Common Name Native/Not Native
California Invasive Plant Council
Invasive Plant Rating 2
Festuca bromoides Brome fescue Not Native Not Classified Festuca californica California fescue Native
Festuca perennis Italian ryegrass Not Native Moderate
Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum Mediterranean barley Not Native Moderate Hordeum murinum sp. glaucum Foxtail barley Not Native Moderate Panicum capillare Witch grass Native
Phalaris aquatica Harding grass Not Native Moderate
Poa annua Annual bluegrass Not Native Not Classified
Poa pratensis Kentucky blue grass Not Native Limited
Polypogon monspeliensis Rabbitsfoot grass Not Native Limited Polygonaceae
Polygonum aviculare ssp. depressum Prostrate knotweed Not Native Not Classified Rumex crispus Curly dock Not Native Limited
Rumex pulcher Fiddle dock Not Native Not Classified
Rosaceae
Prunus cerasifera Cherry plum Not Native Limited
Rosa multiflora Multiflora rose Not Native Not Classified Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry Not Native High
Rubus ursinus California Blackberry Native
Rubiaceae
Galium aparine Common bedstraw Native
Salicaceae
Populus trichocarpa Black cottonwood Native
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow Native
Sapindaceae
Aesculus californica California buckeye Native
Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple Native
Acer negundo Boxelder Native
Scrophulariaceae
Scrophularia californica California bee plant Native
Viburnaceae
Sambucus mexicana Blue elderberry Native
Vitaceae
Vitis californica California wild grape Native
1 Taxonomic Source: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora ; 2 Cal-IPC Profile ratings: Invasive Plants – California Invasive Plant Council (cal-ipc.org); Cal-IPC rating categories:
• High – These species have severe ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal and establishment. Most are widely distributed ecologically.
• Moderate – These species have substantial and apparent—but generally not severe—ecological impacts on physical processes, plant and animal communities, and vegetation structure. Their reproductive biology and other attributes are conducive to moderate to high rates of dispersal, though establishment is generally dependent upon ecological disturbance. Ecological amplitude and distribution may range from limited to widespread.
• Limited – These species are invasive but their ecological impacts are minor on a statewide level or there was not enough information to justify a higher score. Their reproductive biology and other attributes result in low to moderate rates of invasiveness. Ecological amplitude and distribution are generally limited, but these species may be locally persistent and problematic.

Item 7.c
418 of 697
Item 7.c
419 of 697
Item 7.c
420 of 697
Item 7.c
421 of 697
Item 7.c
422 of 697
Item 7.c
423 of 697
Item 7.c
424 of 697
Item 7.c
425 of 697
Item 7.c
426 of 697
Item 7.c
427 of 697
TABLE 3. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE STATUS
Federal / State
Rare Plant Rank
Global / State Rank
Other State / Federal Status

SPECIES
Common Name
Scientific Name
2 Habitat/Range Potential Site Occurrence Recommended Action Conduct protocol rare plant
surveys.

Freshwater marshes and swamps, riparian scrub. Wet
areas, marshes, and riparian banks, with other wetland
species. 3-360 m.

Sonoma alopecurus Endangered / -- / 1B.1 Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. 1B.1
(Alopecurus aequalis var.
sonomensis)
G5T1 / S1
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden
Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane None
woodland. Openings in forest or woodland or in
chaparral. 30-735 m
Napa false indigo -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Amorpha californica var. napensis) G4T2 / S2
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden
Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral. Often on None
serpentine. 75-245 m.

Baker's manzanita -- / Rare / 1B.1 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.1
(Arctostaphylos bakeri ssp. bakeri) G2T1 / S1
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
Chaparral, closed-cone coniferous forest. In serpentine None chaparral and Sargent cypress woodland; typically in
canyons and on slopes. 300-365 m.

Cedars manzanita -- / Rare / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Arctostaphylos bakeri ssp. sublaevis) G2T2 / S2
BLM_S-Sensitive | SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
Vine Hill manzanita -- / Endangered / 1B.1 Chaparral. Acid marine sand. 60-75 m. No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the None Project Site. 1B.1
(Arctostaphylos densiflora) G1 / S1
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden | SB_UCBG-UC
Botanical Garden at Berkeley
Chaparral, cismontane woodland. Highly restricted None
endemic to red rhyolites in Sonoma County. 90-375 m.

Rincon Ridge manzanita -- / -- / 1B.1 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.1
(Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp.
decumbens)
G3T1 / S1
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
Vernal pools, valley and foothill grassland. Vernal pools None and swales. 10-290 m.

Sonoma sunshine Endangered / Endangered / 1B.1 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.1
(Blennosperma bakeri) G1 / S1
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden
Item 7.c
428 of 697
TABLE 3. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE STATUS
Federal / State
Rare Plant Rank
Global / State Rank
Other State / Federal Status

SPECIES
Common Name
Scientific Name
2 Habitat/Range Potential Site Occurrence Recommended Action Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane None
woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, valley and
foothill grassland. Volcanic substrates. 30-590 m.
narrow-anthered brodiaea -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Brodiaea leptandra) G3? / S3?
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden
Conduct protocol rare plant
surveys.

Coastal scrub, marshes and swamps. Usually in marshy
swales surrounded by grassland or coastal scrub. 5-50
m.

Thurber's reed grass -- / -- / 2B.1 Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. 2B.1
(Calamagrostis crassiglumis) G3Q / S2
Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral. On None
serpentine. Usually on shaded slopes, but also on
barrens and talus. 255-430 m.

Cedars fairy-lantern -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Calochortus raichei) G2 / S2
BLM_S-Sensitive | SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
Chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest, valley and None foothill grassland. On serpentine barrens, slopes, and
hillsides. 280-1010 m.

Mt. Saint Helena morning-glory -- / -- / 4.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 4.2
(Calystegia collina ssp. oxyphylla) G4T3 / S3
Conduct protocol rare plant
surveys.

Marshes and swamps, coastal prairie, valley and foothill grassland. Lake margins, wet places; site below sea
level is on a Delta island. -5-1010 m.
bristly sedge -- / -- / 2B.1 Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. 2B.1
(Carex comosa) G5 / S2
IUCN_LC-Least Concern
Conduct protocol rare plant
surveys.

Freshwater marsh. Last known remaining plant died in
1987; was known from overgrown freshwater marsh. 60
m.

Pitkin Marsh paintbrush -- / Endangered / 1A Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. 1A
(Castilleja uliginosa) GXQ / SX
Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane None woodland. Known from volcanic or serpentine soils, dry
shrubby slopes. 150-1280 m.

Rincon Ridge ceanothus -- / -- / 1B.1 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.1
(Ceanothus confusus) G1 / S1
BLM_S-Sensitive | SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara
Botanic Garden
Item 7.c
429 of 697
TABLE 3. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE STATUS
Federal / State
Rare Plant Rank
Global / State Rank
Other State / Federal Status

SPECIES
Common Name
Scientific Name
2 Habitat/Range Potential Site Occurrence Recommended Action Chaparral. Rocky, serpentine or volcanic sites. 100-950 None m.

Calistoga ceanothus -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Ceanothus divergens) G2 / S2
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
Vine Hill ceanothus -- / -- / 1B.1 Chaparral. Sandy, acidic soil in chaparral. 45-305 m. No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the None Project Site. 1B.1
(Ceanothus foliosus var. vineatus) G3T1 / S1
Chaparral, cismontane woodland. Rocky, volcanic None
slopes. 140-720 m.
holly-leaved ceanothus -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Ceanothus purpureus) G2 / S2
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara Botanic Garden
Chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, coastal None salt marsh, valley and foothill grassland. Vernally mesic, often alkaline sites. 1-500 m.
pappose tarplant -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi) G3T2 / S2
BLM_S-Sensitive
Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland. Acidic, sandy None soil. 60-80 m.

Vine Hill clarkia Endangered / Endangered / 1B.1 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.1
(Clarkia imbricata) G1 / S1
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden | SB_UCBG-UC
Botanical Garden at Berkeley
Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral. In open or None disturbed areas on serpentine within forest or chaparral. 90-215 m.

Pennell's bird's-beak Endangered / Rare / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris) G4G5T1 / S1
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden
serpentine cryptantha -- / -- / 1B.2 Chaparral. Serpentine outcrops. 135-735 m. No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the None Project Site. 1B.2
(Cryptantha dissita) G3 / S3
BLM_S-Sensitive
Item 7.c
430 of 697
TABLE 3. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE STATUS
Federal / State
Rare Plant Rank
Global / State Rank
Other State / Federal Status

SPECIES
Common Name
Scientific Name
2 Habitat/Range Potential Site Occurrence Recommended Action Conduct protocol rare plant
surveys.

Marshes and swamps (freshwater). Freshwater marsh.
15-280 m.

Peruvian dodder -- / -- / 2B.2 Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. 2B.2
(Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa) G5T4? / SH
Valley and foothill grassland (mesic sites), vernal pools. None Vernal lake and pool margins with a variety of
associates. In several types of vernal pools. 1-490 m.
dwarf downingia -- / -- / 2B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 2B.2
(Downingia pusilla) GU / S2
Conduct protocol rare plant
surveys.

Bogs and fens, closed-cone coniferous forest, coastal
prairie, meadows and seeps, freshwater marsh, north
coast coniferous forest. Bogs and marshes in a variety
of habitats; uncommon where it occurs. 1-520 m.
swamp harebell -- / -- / 1B.2 Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Eastwoodiella californica) G3 / S3
BLM_S-Sensitive | SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden Chaparral. Serpentine and volcanic substrates, None
generally in shrubby vegetation. 90-835 m.

Greene's narrow-leaved daisy -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Erigeron greenei) G3 / S3
serpentine daisy -- / -- / 1B.3 Chaparral. Serpentine seeps. 120-400 m. No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the None Project Site. 1B.3
(Erigeron serpentinus) G2 / S2
BLM_S-Sensitive | SB_CalBG/RSABGCalifornia/Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden Coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, coastal None prairie, cismontane woodland. Often on serpentine;
various soils reported though usually on clay, in
grassland. 3-385 m.
fragrant fritillary -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Fritillaria liliacea) G2 / S2
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden | USFS_S-Sensitive
Marshes and swamps (freshwater), vernal pools. Clay None soils; usually in vernal pools, sometimes on lake
margins. 4-2410 m.

Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop -- / Endangered / 1B.2 Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Gratiola heterosepala) G2 / S2
BLM_S-Sensitive
Item 7.c
431 of 697
TABLE 3. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE STATUS
Federal / State
Rare Plant Rank
Global / State Rank
Other State / Federal Status

SPECIES
Common Name
Scientific Name
2 Habitat/Range Potential Site Occurrence Recommended Action Valley and foothill grassland. Grassy valleys and hills, None often in fallow fields; sometimes along roadsides. 5-520 m.
congested-headed hayfield tarplant -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta) G5T2 / S2
SB_UCBG-UC Botanical Garden at Berkeley
Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, valley and foothill None grassland. Sandy soils; mesic openings. 45-640 m.
thin-lobed horkelia -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Horkelia tenuiloba) G2 / S2
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden
North coast coniferous forest. Open woods, shrubby None places, generally on Gaultheria shallon. 120-1435 m.
small groundcone -- / -- / 2B.3 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 2B.3
(Kopsiopsis hookeri) G4? / S1S2
Vernal pools, meadows and seeps. Most often in vernal None pools and swales. 15-580 m.

Burke's goldfields Endangered / Endangered / 1B.1 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.1
(Lasthenia burkei) G1 / S1
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden | SB_UCBG-UC
Botanical Garden at Berkeley
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill None grassland. Open to partially shaded grassy slopes. On
volcanics or the periphery of serpentine substrates.
55-855 m.

Jepson's leptosiphon -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Leptosiphon jepsonii) G2G3 / S2S3
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden | SB_USDA-US Dept of
Agriculture
Conduct protocol rare plant
surveys.

Cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, marshes
and swamps. Saturated, sandy soils with grasses and
shrubs. 45-65 m.

Pitkin Marsh lily Endangered / Endangered / 1B.1 Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. 1B.1
(Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense) G5T1 / S1
SB_BerrySB-Berry Seed Bank | SB_CalBG/
RSABG-California/Rancho Santa Ana
Botanic Garden | SB_USDA-US Dept of
Meadows and seeps, vernal pools, valley and foothill None grassland. Swales, wet meadows and marshy areas in
valley oak savanna; on poorly drained soils of clays and sandy loam. 15-115 m.

Sebastopol meadowfoam Endangered / Endangered / 1B.1 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.1
(Limnanthes vinculans) G1 / S1
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden | SB_UCBG-UC
Botanical Garden at Berkeley
Item 7.c
432 of 697
TABLE 3. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE STATUS
Federal / State
Rare Plant Rank
Global / State Rank
Other State / Federal Status

SPECIES
Common Name
Scientific Name
2 Habitat/Range Potential Site Occurrence Recommended Action Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane None
coniferous forest, broadleafed upland forest. In stands of knobcone pine-oak woodland, on open wooded
slopes in gravelly soils; sometimes on serpentine.
120-1390 m.

Cobb Mountain lupine -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Lupinus sericatus) G2? / S2?
BLM_S-Sensitive | SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
Closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, None coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. 3-610 m.
marsh microseris -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Microseris paludosa) G2 / S2
BLM_S-Sensitive | SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara
Botanic Garden | SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
Cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, vernal None
pools, valley and foothill grassland, lower montane
coniferous forest. Vernal pools and swales; adobe or
alkaline soils. 3-1680 m.

Baker's navarretia -- / -- / 1B.1 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.1
(Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri) G4T2 / S2
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden
many-flowered navarretia Endangered / Endangered / 1B.2 Vernal pools. Volcanic ash flow vernal pools. 30-915 m. No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the None Project Site. 1B.2
(Navarretia leucocephala ssp.
plieantha)
G4T1 / S1
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden
North Coast coniferous forest, lower montane None
coniferous forest, broadleafed upland forest. Sometimes on serpentine. Forest duff, mossy banks, rock outcrops, and muskeg. 20-1615 m.
white-flowered rein orchid -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Piperia candida) G3? / S3
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden
Conduct protocol rare plant
surveys.

Bogs and fens, meadows and seeps, marshes and
swamps. Freshwater marshes and sphagnum bogs.
60-1875 m.
white beaked-rush -- / -- / 2B.2 Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. 2B.2
(Rhynchospora alba) G5 / S2
IUCN_LC-Least Concern
Conduct protocol rare plant
surveys.

Bogs and fens, marshes and swamps, lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and seeps. Freshwater
seeps and open marshy areas. 45-270 m.

California beaked-rush -- / -- / 1B.1 Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. 1B.1
(Rhynchospora californica) G1 / S1
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
Item 7.c
433 of 697
TABLE 3. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE STATUS
Federal / State
Rare Plant Rank
Global / State Rank
Other State / Federal Status

SPECIES
Common Name
Scientific Name
2 Habitat/Range Potential Site Occurrence Recommended Action Conduct protocol rare plant
surveys.

Lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps,
marshes and swamps, upper montane coniferous
forest. Mesic sites. 45-1710 m.
brownish beaked-rush -- / -- / 2B.2 Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. 2B.2
(Rhynchospora capitellata) G5 / S1
IUCN_LC-Least Concern
Conduct protocol rare plant
surveys.
round-headed beaked-rush -- / -- / 2B.1 Marshes and swamps. Freshwater marsh. 45-60 m. Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. 2B.1
(Rhynchospora globularis) G5 / S1
Conduct protocol rare plant
surveys.

Marshes and swamps. Edges of freshwater marshes.
115-125 m.

Kenwood Marsh checkerbloom Endangered / Endangered / 1B.1 Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. 1B.1
(Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida) G5T1 / S1
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden | SB_UCBG-UC
Botanical Garden at Berkeley
Chaparral, cismontane woodland. Serpentine rock None
outcrops, primarily in geothermal development areas.
485-1040 m.

Freed's jewelflower -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Streptanthus brachiatus ssp.
hoffmanii)
G2T2 / S2
BLM_S-Sensitive
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill None grassland. Moist, steep rocky banks, in serpentine and
non-serpentine soil. 60-765 m.

Hoffman's bristly jewelflower -- / -- / 1B.3 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.3
(Streptanthus glandulosus ssp.
hoffmanii)
G4T2 / S2
SB_UCSC-UC Santa Cruz
Chaparral. Serpentine outcrops in the Austin Creek None area. 210-625 m.

Morrison's jewelflower -- / -- / 1B.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.2
(Streptanthus morrisonii ssp.
morrisonii)
G2T1? / S1?
BLM_S-Sensitive
Conduct protocol rare plant
surveys.

Marshes and swamps. Shallow, clear water of lakes and
drainage channels. 5-2325 m.
northern slender pondweed -- / -- / 2B.2 Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. 2B.2
(Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina) G5T5 / S2S3
Item 7.c
434 of 697
TABLE 3. SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE STATUS
Federal / State
Rare Plant Rank
Global / State Rank
Other State / Federal Status

SPECIES
Common Name
Scientific Name
2 Habitat/Range Potential Site Occurrence Recommended Action Valley and foothill grassland, coastal bluff scrub. None Sometimes on serpentine soil, open sunny sites,
swales. Most recently cited on roadside and eroding cliff face. 5-310 m.
two-fork clover Endangered / -- / 1B.1 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 1B.1
(Trifolium amoenum) G1 / S1
SB_CalBG/RSABG-California/Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden | SB_UCBG-UC
Botanical Garden at Berkeley | SB_USDA-US
North coast coniferous forest, broadleafed upland None
forest. Grows in the "redwood zone" on tree branches of a variety of trees, including big leaf maple, oaks, ash, Douglas-fir, and bay. 45-1465 m in California.

Methuselah's beard lichen -- / -- / 4.2 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 4.2
(Usnea longissima) G4 / S4
BLM_S-Sensitive
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane None
coniferous forest. 215-1400 m.
oval-leaved viburnum -- / -- / 2B.3 No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the Project Site. 2B.3
(Viburnum ellipticum) G4G5 / S3?
Item 7.c
435 of 697
Determination of Occurrence Potential. Following the desktop review and field surveys, HBG assessed the potential for the occurrence of special status species on the Project site. Biological conditions (vegetation communities, wildlife habitats, disturbances, etc.) and the habitat and life cycle requirements of special status species identified for analysis in the desktop review were considered. “Recent” occurrences are defined as observed within the past 30 years. Based on these considerations, species were assigned to the following categories:

No Potential: Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly nonpotential for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).

Unlikely: Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is nonpotential or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site.

Moderate Potential: Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is nonpotential. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.

High Potential: All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly potential. The species has a high probability of being found on the site.

Present: Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (i.e., CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently.

NOTE: The potential for bird species were further distinguished into those that may: 1) nest within or near the Project site; 2) forage within or near the Project site; and/or 3) occur on or near the Project site only as transients during migratory flights or other dispersal events.

1. Source: California Natural Diversity Data Base, Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Wildlife for the Healdsburg 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map and surrounding areas, information dated February 2024.

2. California Rare Plant Ranks
1A - Presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere 1B - Rare or Endangered in California and elsewhere
2A - Presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere 2B - Rare or Endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 - Plants for which we need more information – Review list 4 - Plants of limited distribution – Watch list

3. Threat Code Extensions:
.1 – Seriously threatened in California (over 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 threatened in California (under 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) Item 7.c
436 of 697
TABLE 4. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE STATUS
Federal / State
Global / State Rank
Other State / Federal Status

SPECIES
Taxonomic Class
Common Name
Scientific Name
Habitat/Range Potential Site Occurrence Recommended Action This bee is oligolectic on vernal pool Blennosperma. Bees nest in None the uplands around vernal pools.

Insects -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. Blennosperma vernal pool andrenid
bee
G2 / S1
(Andrena blennospermatis)
Coastal areas from Santa Barbara County north to Washington None state. Food plant genera include Baccharis, Cirsium, Lupinus, Lotus, Grindelia and Phacelia.

Insects -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. obscure bumble bee G2G3 / S1S2
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
(Bombus caliginosus)
Aquatic; found in the slow part of the Russian River. Inhabits None rocks and vegetation.

Insects -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. Giuliani's dubiraphian riffle beetle G1G3 / S1S3
(Dubiraphia giulianii)
Primarily creeks and rivers and less often lakes. Originally in most None of state, now extirpated from Central and Southern California.

Mollusks -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. western ridged mussel G3 / S2
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
(Gonidea angulata)
Seasonal pools in unplowed grasslands with old alluvial soils None underlain by hardpan or in sandstone depressions. Water in the pools has very low alkalinity, conductivity, and total dissolved solids.

Crustaceans -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. California linderiella G2G3 / S2S3
IUCN_NT-Near Threatened
(Linderiella occidentalis)
Crustaceans -- / -- Known only from a spring box in Sonoma County. No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the None site. Barr's amphipod G1 / S1
(Stygobromus cherylae)
Endemic to Marin, Napa, and Sonoma counties. Found in low None 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.

Crustaceans Endangered / Endangered No Potential. Marginally suitable habitat may be present on the Project Site, but the nearest
populations of this species are more than 8 miles
away.

California freshwater shrimp G2 / S2
IUCN_EN-Endangered
(Syncaris pacifica)
Item 7.c
437 of 697
TABLE 4. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE STATUS
Federal / State
Global / State Rank
Other State / Federal Status

SPECIES
Taxonomic Class
Common Name
Scientific Name
Habitat/Range Potential Site Occurrence Recommended Action Habitat generalists. Found generally in a wide variety of habitats None in the Navarro River and Russian River basins where there is cover (e.g. fallen trees) and where alien predators are absent.

Most abundant in tributaries with clear, well oxygenated water with dominant substrates of cobble and boulder, and shallow depths (average 10-50 cm) with pools up to 1 m deep.

Fish -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. northern coastal roach GNRT3 / S3
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern
(Hesperoleucus venustus
navarroensis)
Implement erosion control
measures to control
sedimentation in runoff into the
river.

Low elevation streams of the Russian River system. Requires clear, flowing water with abundant cover. They also require deep (> 1 m) pool habitat.

Fish -- / -- Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat present in the Russian River adjacent to the Project. Russian River tule perch G5T4 / S4 AFS_VU-Vulnerable | CDFW_SSC-Species
(Hysterocarpus traskii pomo) of Special Concern
Low to mid-elevation streams in the Sacramento-San Joaquin None drainage. Also present in the Russian River. Clear, deep pools with sand-gravel-boulder bottoms and slow water velocity. Not found where exotic centrarchids predominate.

Fish -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. hardhead G3 / S3
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least Concern | USFS_SSensitive
(Mylopharodon conocephalus)
Implement erosion control
measures to control
sedimentation in runoff into the
river.

Federal listing = pops between Punta Gorda and San Lorenzo River. State listing = pops south of Punta Gorda. Require beds of loose, silt-free, coarse gravel for spawning. Also need cover, cool water and sufficient dissolved oxygen.

Fish Endangered / Endangered Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat present in the Russian River adjacent to the Project. coho salmon - central California coast ESU
G5T2Q / S2
AFS_EN-Endangered
(Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4)
Implement erosion control
measures to control
sedimentation in runoff into the
river.

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.

Fish Threatened / -- Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat present in the Russian River adjacent to the Project. steelhead - central California coast DPS
G5T3Q / S3
AFS_TH-Threatened
(Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8)
Known from wet coastal forests near streams and seeps from None 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.

Amphibians -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. California giant salamander G2G3 / S2S3
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern |
(Dicamptodon ensatus) IUCN_NT-Near Threatened
Conduct preconstruction survey
for this species.

Northern Coast Ranges north of San Francisco Bay Estuary, Klamath Mountains, and Cascade Range including watershed subbasins (HU 8) Lower Pit, Battle Creek, Thomes Creek, and Big Chico Creek in Lassen, Shasta, Tehama, and Butte Counties.

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 and at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis.

Amphibians -- / -- Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat may be present at the Project Site. foothill yellow-legged frog - north coast DPS
G3T4 / S4
BLM_S-Sensitive | CDFW_SSC-Species of
(Rana boylii pop. 1) Special Concern | USFS_S-Sensitive Item 7.c
438 of 697
TABLE 4. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE STATUS
Federal / State
Global / State Rank
Other State / Federal Status

SPECIES
Taxonomic Class
Common Name
Scientific Name
Habitat/Range Potential Site Occurrence Recommended Action Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep None water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation.

Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent water for larval development.

Must have access to estivation habitat.

Amphibians Threatened / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. California red-legged frog G2G3 / S2S3
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern |
(Rana draytonii) IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
Coastal drainages from Humboldt County south to Sonoma None 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.

Amphibians -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. red-bellied newt G2 / S2
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern |
(Taricha rivularis) IUCN_LC-Least Concern
Conduct preconstruction survey
for this species.

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.

Reptiles Proposed Threatened / -- Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present at the Project Site. western pond turtle G3G4 / S3
BLM_S-Sensitive | CDFW_SSC-Species of
Special Concern | IUCN_VU-Vulnerable |
USFS_S-Sensitive
(Emys marmorata)
Colonial nester in tall trees, cliffsides, and sequestered spots on None marshes. Rookery sites in close proximity to foraging areas:
marshes, lake margins, tide-flats, rivers and streams, wet meadows.

Birds -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. great blue heron G5 / S4
CDF_S-Sensitive | IUCN_LC-Least
(Ardea herodias) Concern
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts, and None scrublands characterized by low-growing vegetation.

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

Birds -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. burrowing owl G4 / S2
BLM_S-Sensitive | CDFW_SSC-Species of
Special Concern | IUCN_LC-Least Concern
| USFWS_BCC-Birds of Conservation
Concern
(Athene cunicularia)
Rolling foothills and valley margins with scattered oaks and river None bottomlands or marshes next to deciduous woodland. Open grasslands, meadows, or marshes for foraging close to isolated, dense-topped trees for nesting and perching.

Birds -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. white-tailed kite G5 / S3S4
BLM_S-Sensitive | CDFW_FP-Fully
(Elanus leucurus) Protected | IUCN_LC-Least Concern
Conduct preconstruction survey
for nesting by this species if
construction is scheduled during
the nesting season.

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.

Birds -- / -- Moderate Potential. Suitable nesting habitat may be present on the Project Site or the immediate
vicinity. A single osprey was observed flying over
the site during a field review conducted on March
21, 2024.”
osprey G5 / S4
CDF_S-Sensitive | CDFW_WL-Watch List |
(Pandion haliaetus) IUCN_LC-Least Concern
Item 7.c
439 of 697
TABLE 4. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE STATUS
Federal / State
Global / State Rank
Other State / Federal Status

SPECIES
Taxonomic Class
Common Name
Scientific Name
Habitat/Range Potential Site Occurrence Recommended Action Deserts, grasslands, shrublands, woodlands and forests. Most None common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting.

Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures. Very sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites.

Mammals -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. pallid bat G4 / S3
BLM_S-Sensitive | CDFW_SSC-Species of
Special Concern | IUCN_LC-Least Concern
| USFS_S-Sensitive
(Antrozous pallidus)
North coast fog belt from Oregon border to Somona County. In None Douglas-fir, redwood and montane hardwood-conifer forests.

Feeds almost exclusively on Douglas-fir needles. Will occasionaly take needles of grand fir, hemlock or spruce.

Mammals -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. Sonoma tree vole G3 / S3
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern |
(Arborimus pomo) IUCN_NT-Near Threatened
Throughout California in a wide variety of habitats. Most common None in mesic sites. Roosts in the open, hanging from walls and ceilings. Roosting sites limiting. Extremely sensitive to human disturbance.

Mammals -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. Townsend's big-eared bat G4 / S2
BLM_S-Sensitive | CDFW_SSC-Species of
Special Concern | IUCN_LC-Least Concern
| USFS_S-Sensitive
(Corynorhinus townsendii)
Forested habitats in the Sierra Nevada, Cascade, and Coast None ranges, with scattered observations from forested areas in the Transverse Ranges. Wide variety of coniferous and mixed woodland habitat.

Mammals -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. North American porcupine G5 / S3
IUCN_LC-Least Concern
(Erethizon dorsatum)
Prefers open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access to trees for None cover and open areas or habitat edges for feeding. Roosts in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Feeds primarily on moths.

Requires water.

Mammals -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. hoary bat G3G4 / S4
IUCN_LC-Least Concern
(Lasiurus cinereus)
Roosts primarily in trees, 2-40 ft above ground, from sea level up None through mixed conifer forests. Prefers habitat edges and mosaics with trees that are protected from above and open below with open areas for foraging.

Mammals -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. western red bat G4 / S3
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern |
(Lasiurus frantzii) IUCN_LC-Least Concern
In a wide variety of habitats, optimal habitats are pinyon-juniper, None valley foothill hardwood and hardwood-conifer. Uses caves, mines, buildings or crevices for maternity colonies and roosts.

Mammals -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. fringed myotis G4 / S3
BLM_S-Sensitive | IUCN_LC-Least
(Myotis thysanodes) Concern | USFS_S-Sensitive
Item 7.c
440 of 697
TABLE 4. SPECIAL STATUS ANIMALS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE STATUS
Federal / State
Global / State Rank
Other State / Federal Status

SPECIES
Taxonomic Class
Common Name
Scientific Name
Habitat/Range Potential Site Occurrence Recommended Action Most abundant in drier open stages of most shrub, forest, and None herbaceous habitats, with friable soils. Needs sufficient food, friable soils and open, uncultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents. Digs burrows.

Mammals -- / -- No Potential. Suitable habitat is not present at the site. American badger G5 / S3
CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern |
(Taxidea taxus) IUCN_LC-Least Concern
Determination of Occurrence Potential. Following the desktop review and field surveys, HBG assessed the potential for the occurrence of special status species on the Project site. Biological conditions (vegetation communities, wildlife habitats, disturbances, etc.) and the habitat and life cycle requirements of special status species identified for analysis in the desktop review were considered. “Recent” occurrences are defined as observed within the past 30 years. Based on these considerations, species were assigned to the following categories:

No Potential: Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly nonpotential for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).

Unlikely: Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is nonpotential or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site.

Moderate Potential: Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is nonpotential. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.

High Potential: All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly potential. The species has a high probability of being found on the site.

Present: Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (i.e., CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently.

NOTE: The potential for bird species were further distinguished into those that may: 1) nest within or near the Project site; 2) forage within or near the Project site; and/or 3) occur on or near the Project site only as transients during migratory flights or other dispersal events.

1. Source: California Natural Diversity Data Base, Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Wildlife for the Healdsburg 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map and surrounding areas, information dated February 2024.

2. Status Codes:

Federal
FE = Federally listed Endangered
FT = Federally listed Threatened
FPE = Federally Proposed Endangered
FPT = Federally Proposed Threatened
FC = Federal Candidate Species
BCC = USFWS Bird Species of Conservation
Concern
State
SE = California State-listed Endangered
ST = California State-listed Threatened
SR = California State Rare
SCE = California State Candidate Endangered
SCT = California State Candidate Threatened
CFP = California Fully Protected
SSC = CDFW Species of Special Concern
WL = CDFW Watch List Species
Item 7.c
441 of 697

LAKE SONOMA

RECREATIONAL
AREA
Duncans Mills
Camp Thayer
Asti
Chianti
Cozzens
Corner
Omus
Venado
Healdsburg
Guerneville
Sheridan
Rio Nido
Ross
Grant
Del Rio Woods
Bailhache
Mark West
Springs
Jimtown
CHARLES M.

SCHULZ -
SONOMA
COUNTY

AIRPORT
Larkfi eld-Wikiup
Windsor
Kellogg

CLOVERDALE

WARM SPRINGS DAM
ASTI
THE
ASTI

GEYSERS

GEYSERVILLE
THE

GEYSERS

WHISPERING
PINES

THE GEYSERS

JIMTOWN

WARM SPRINGS DAM

GEYSERVILLE

WARM SPRINGS DAM

CAZADERO

GEYSERVILLE

JIMTOWN

GEYSERVILLE

GUERNEVILLE

JIMTOWN

HEALDSBURG

CAZADERO

GUERNEVILLE

CAZADERO

DUNCANS MILLS

GUERNEVILLE

HEALDSBURG

HEALDSBURG

MARK WEST SPRINGS

HEALDSBURG

SEBASTOPOL

MARK WEST SPRINGS

SANTA ROSA

DUNCANS MILLS

CAMP MEEKER

SEBASTOPOL

SANTA ROSA
34 31
67 37
54 28
29 67
67 8
8 8
75 53
77 73
75 29
75 71
17 12
6 14
11 82
81 67
67 68
4 8
36 33
60 17
33 54
63 6
82 67
54 22
14 54
54 4
32 1
53 75
38 49
14 52
51 76
54 56
56 35
7 54
54 14
54 65
6 54
82 54
54 29
25 33
37 54
3 59
57 30
50 32
38 82
82 29
29 54
53 53
54 33
82 69
54 43
70 53
54 54
63 53
72 16
4 52
10 53
10 56
53 53
32 14
82 39
54 67
65 44
42 19
53 64
64 2
54 54
54 30
54 54
53 74
6 56
23 32
53 53
79 66
38 67
29 23
61 54
18 68
2 2
35 45
48 2
54 35
32 46
82 32
54 7
82 30
73 33
82 13
5 2
20 26
65 65
2 82
82 2
40 53
2 58
54 56
21 54
54 60
82 56
47 54
56 54
54 56
75 47
54 56
56 54
54 73
82 73
73 54
54 82
29 2
11 59
39 60
53 82
27 68
53 32
33 53
82 82
73 78
80 53
82 82
82 82
58 33
15 53 62
53 23
38 32
41 9
24 35
38 29
2 19
32 2
55 2
51 52
7 2
2 2
32 USGS 7.5 Quad
Project Boundary With 10
Mile Buffer
CNDDB All (Join Tables Here)
Plant (80m)
Plant (specific)
Plant (non-specific)
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
Animal (specific)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Terrestrial Comm.
(specific)
Multiple (80m)
Multiple (specific)
Multiple (non-specific)
Multiple (circular)
Sensitive EO's
(Commercial only)
Badger Park CNDDB Elements Intersecting 10 Mile: Plants, Animals, and Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Plant, Animal & Community Data: CDFW CNDDB 2/3/2024; Basemap:

Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS Scale: 1:130,000
¯
Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:130,000
Date Exported: 2/28/2024
GIS Analyst: Deland Wing
HBG PM: Greg Huffman
Project Site
0 5 10 15
Miles
ID SciName ComName
69 Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool ID SciName ComName
82 Emys marmorata western pond turtle
ID SciName ComName
81 Gonidea angulata western ridged mussel
ID SciName ComName
73 Antrozous pallidus pallid bat
74 Arborimus pomo Sonoma tree vole
75 Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat
76 Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine
77 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat
78 Lasiurus frantzii western red bat
79 Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis
80 Taxidea taxus American badger
ID SciName ComName
70 Andrena blennospermatis Blennosperma vernal pool andrenid bee 71 Bombus caliginosus obscure bumble bee
72 Dubiraphia giulianii Giuliani's dubiraphian riffle beetle ID SciName ComName
64 Hesperoleucus venustus navarroensis northern coastal roach 65 Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Russian River tule perch
66 Mylopharodon conocephalus hardhead
67 Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4 coho salmon - central California coast ESU
68 Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 steelhead - central California coast DPS ID SciName ComName
61 Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella
62 Stygobromus cherylae Barr's amphipod
63 Syncaris pacifica California freshwater shrimp
ID SciName ComName
57 Ardea herodias great blue heron
58 Athene cunicularia burrowing owl
59 Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite
60 Pandion haliaetus osprey
ID SciName ComName
53 Dicamptodon ensatus California giant salamander
54 Rana boylii pop. 1 foothill yellow-legged frog - north coast DPS 55 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
56 Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt
TableID SciName ComName
1 Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis Sonoma alopecurus 2 Amorpha californica var. napensis Napa false indigo
3 Arctostaphylos bakeri ssp. bakeri Baker's manzanita
4 Arctostaphylos bakeri ssp. sublaevis Cedars manzanita 5 Arctostaphylos densiflora Vine Hill manzanita
6 Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. decumbens Rincon Ridge manzanita 7 Blennosperma bakeri Sonoma sunshine
8 Brodiaea leptandra narrow-anthered brodiaea
9 Calamagrostis crassiglumis Thurber's reed grass
10 Calochortus raichei Cedars fairy-lantern
11 Calystegia collina ssp. oxyphylla Mt. Saint Helena morning-glory 12 Carex comosa bristly sedge
13 Castilleja uliginosa Pitkin Marsh paintbrush
14 Ceanothus confusus Rincon Ridge ceanothus
15 Ceanothus divergens Calistoga ceanothus
16 Ceanothus foliosus var. vineatus Vine Hill ceanothus 17 Ceanothus purpureus holly-leaved ceanothus
18 Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi pappose tarplant
19 Clarkia imbricata Vine Hill clarkia
20 Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris Pennell's bird's-beak 21 Cryptantha dissita serpentine cryptantha
22 Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa Peruvian dodder
23 Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
24 Eastwoodiella californica swamp harebell
25 Erigeron greenei Greene's narrow-leaved daisy
26 Erigeron serpentinus serpentine daisy
27 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary
28 Gratiola heterosepala Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
29 Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta congested-headed hayfield tarplant 30 Horkelia tenuiloba thin-lobed horkelia
31 Kopsiopsis hookeri small groundcone
32 Lasthenia burkei Burke's goldfields
33 Leptosiphon jepsonii Jepson's leptosiphon
34 Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Pitkin Marsh lily
35 Limnanthes vinculans Sebastopol meadowfoam
36 Lupinus sericatus Cobb Mountain lupine
37 Microseris paludosa marsh microseris
38 Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Baker's navarretia 39 Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha many-flowered navarretia 40 Piperia candida white-flowered rein orchid
41 Rhynchospora alba white beaked-rush
42 Rhynchospora californica California beaked-rush
43 Rhynchospora capitellata brownish beaked-rush
44 Rhynchospora globularis round-headed beaked-rush
45 Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida Kenwood Marsh checkerbloom 46 Streptanthus brachiatus ssp. hoffmanii Freed's jewelflower 47 Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. hoffmanii Hoffman's bristly jewelflower 48 Streptanthus morrisonii ssp. morrisonii Morrison's jewelflower 49 Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina northern slender pondweed 50 Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover
51 Usnea longissima Methuselah's beard lichen
52 Viburnum ellipticum oval-leaved viburnum
Herbaceous
Reptiles
Mollusks
Mammals
Insects
Fish
Crustaceans
Birds
Plants Amphibians
Item 7.c
442 of 697

LAKE SONOMA

RECREATIONAL
AREA
Duncans Mills
Camp Thayer
Asti
Chianti
Cozzens
Corner
Omus
Venado
Healdsburg
Guerneville
Sheridan
Rio Nido
Ross
Grant
Del Rio Woods
Bailhache
Mark West
Springs
Jimtown
CHARLES M.

SCHULZ -
SONOMA
COUNTY

AIRPORT
Larkfi eld-Wikiup
Windsor
Kellogg

CLOVERDALE

WARM SPRINGS DAM
ASTI
THE
ASTI

GEYSERS

GEYSERVILLE
THE

GEYSERS

WHISPERING
PINES

THE GEYSERS

JIMTOWN

WARM SPRINGS DAM

GEYSERVILLE

WARM SPRINGS DAM

CAZADERO

GEYSERVILLE

JIMTOWN

GEYSERVILLE

GUERNEVILLE

JIMTOWN

HEALDSBURG

CAZADERO

GUERNEVILLE

CAZADERO

DUNCANS MILLS

GUERNEVILLE

HEALDSBURG

GUERNEVILLE

CAMP MEEKER

HEALDSBURG

MARK WEST SPRINGS

HEALDSBURG

SEBASTOPOL

MARK WEST SPRINGS

SANTA ROSA

DUNCANS MILLS

CAMP MEEKER

CAMP MEEKER

SEBASTOPOL

SEBASTOPOL

SANTA ROSA
69 USGS 7.5 Quad
Project Boundary With 10
Mile Buffer
Terestrial and Aqautic
Communities
Herbaceous
Badger Park CNDDB Elements Intersecting 10 Mile:

Terestrial and Aqautic Communities
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Plant, Animal & Community Data: CDFW CNDDB 2/3/2024; Basemap:

Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS Scale: 1:130,000
¯
Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:130,000
Date Exported: 2/28/2024
GIS Analyst: Deland Wing
HBG PM: Greg Huffman
Project Site
0 5 10 15
Miles
ID SciName ComName
69 Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool ID SciName ComName
82 Emys marmorata western pond turtle
ID SciName ComName
81 Gonidea angulata western ridged mussel
ID SciName ComName
73 Antrozous pallidus pallid bat
74 Arborimus pomo Sonoma tree vole
75 Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat
76 Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine
77 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat
78 Lasiurus frantzii western red bat
79 Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis
80 Taxidea taxus American badger
ID SciName ComName
70 Andrena blennospermatis Blennosperma vernal pool andrenid bee 71 Bombus caliginosus obscure bumble bee
72 Dubiraphia giulianii Giuliani's dubiraphian riffle beetle ID SciName ComName
64 Hesperoleucus venustus navarroensis northern coastal roach 65 Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Russian River tule perch
66 Mylopharodon conocephalus hardhead
67 Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4 coho salmon - central California coast ESU
68 Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 steelhead - central California coast DPS ID SciName ComName
61 Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella
62 Stygobromus cherylae Barr's amphipod
63 Syncaris pacifica California freshwater shrimp
ID SciName ComName
57 Ardea herodias great blue heron
58 Athene cunicularia burrowing owl
59 Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite
60 Pandion haliaetus osprey
ID SciName ComName
53 Dicamptodon ensatus California giant salamander
54 Rana boylii pop. 1 foothill yellow-legged frog - north coast DPS 55 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
56 Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt
TableID SciName ComName
1 Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis Sonoma alopecurus 2 Amorpha californica var. napensis Napa false indigo
3 Arctostaphylos bakeri ssp. bakeri Baker's manzanita
4 Arctostaphylos bakeri ssp. sublaevis Cedars manzanita 5 Arctostaphylos densiflora Vine Hill manzanita
6 Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. decumbens Rincon Ridge manzanita 7 Blennosperma bakeri Sonoma sunshine
8 Brodiaea leptandra narrow-anthered brodiaea
9 Calamagrostis crassiglumis Thurber's reed grass
10 Calochortus raichei Cedars fairy-lantern
11 Calystegia collina ssp. oxyphylla Mt. Saint Helena morning-glory 12 Carex comosa bristly sedge
13 Castilleja uliginosa Pitkin Marsh paintbrush
14 Ceanothus confusus Rincon Ridge ceanothus
15 Ceanothus divergens Calistoga ceanothus
16 Ceanothus foliosus var. vineatus Vine Hill ceanothus 17 Ceanothus purpureus holly-leaved ceanothus
18 Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi pappose tarplant
19 Clarkia imbricata Vine Hill clarkia
20 Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris Pennell's bird's-beak 21 Cryptantha dissita serpentine cryptantha
22 Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa Peruvian dodder
23 Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
24 Eastwoodiella californica swamp harebell
25 Erigeron greenei Greene's narrow-leaved daisy
26 Erigeron serpentinus serpentine daisy
27 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary
28 Gratiola heterosepala Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
29 Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta congested-headed hayfield tarplant 30 Horkelia tenuiloba thin-lobed horkelia
31 Kopsiopsis hookeri small groundcone
32 Lasthenia burkei Burke's goldfields
33 Leptosiphon jepsonii Jepson's leptosiphon
34 Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Pitkin Marsh lily
35 Limnanthes vinculans Sebastopol meadowfoam
36 Lupinus sericatus Cobb Mountain lupine
37 Microseris paludosa marsh microseris
38 Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Baker's navarretia 39 Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha many-flowered navarretia 40 Piperia candida white-flowered rein orchid
41 Rhynchospora alba white beaked-rush
42 Rhynchospora californica California beaked-rush
43 Rhynchospora capitellata brownish beaked-rush
44 Rhynchospora globularis round-headed beaked-rush
45 Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida Kenwood Marsh checkerbloom 46 Streptanthus brachiatus ssp. hoffmanii Freed's jewelflower 47 Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. hoffmanii Hoffman's bristly jewelflower 48 Streptanthus morrisonii ssp. morrisonii Morrison's jewelflower 49 Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina northern slender pondweed 50 Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover
51 Usnea longissima Methuselah's beard lichen
52 Viburnum ellipticum oval-leaved viburnum
Herbaceous
Reptiles
Mollusks
Mammals
Insects
Fish
Crustaceans
Birds
Plants Amphibians
Item 7.c
443 of 697

LAKE SONOMA

RECREATIONAL
AREA
Duncans Mills
Camp Thayer
Asti
Chianti
Cozzens
Corner
Omus
Venado
Healdsburg
Guerneville
Sheridan
Rio Nido
Ross
Grant
Del Rio Woods
Bailhache
Mark West
Springs
Jimtown
CHARLES M.

SCHULZ -
SONOMA
COUNTY

AIRPORT
Larkfi eld-Wikiup
Windsor
Kellogg

CLOVERDALE

WARM SPRINGS DAM
ASTI
THE
ASTI

GEYSERS

GEYSERVILLE
THE

GEYSERS

WHISPERING
PINES

THE GEYSERS

JIMTOWN

WARM SPRINGS DAM

GEYSERVILLE

WARM SPRINGS DAM

CAZADERO

GEYSERVILLE

JIMTOWN

GEYSERVILLE

GUERNEVILLE

JIMTOWN

HEALDSBURG

CAZADERO

GUERNEVILLE

CAZADERO

DUNCANS MILLS

GUERNEVILLE

HEALDSBURG

GUERNEVILLE

CAMP MEEKER

HEALDSBURG

MARK WEST SPRINGS

HEALDSBURG

SEBASTOPOL

MARK WEST SPRINGS

SANTA ROSA

DUNCANS MILLS

CAMP MEEKER

CAMP MEEKER

SEBASTOPOL

SEBASTOPOL

SANTA ROSA
34 31
37 28
29 8
8 8
29 17
12 6
14 11
4 8
36 33
17 33
6 22
14 4
32 1
38 49
14 52
51 35
7 14 6
29 25
33 2
37 3
50 32
38 29
29 33
43 16
4 52
10 32
14 39
44 42
2 30
6 23 32
52 38
29 23
18 2
2 35
45 48
2 2
35 32
46 32
2 7
30 33
13 5
2 20
26 2
40 2
21 47
47 11
39 27
32 33
33 15
23 38
32 41
9 24
35 38
29 2
19 32
30 2
51 52
7 2
2 2
32 USGS 7.5 Quad
Project Boundary With 10
Mile Buffer
Federal Status, California Status
Endangered,Endangered
Endangered,Rare
Endangered,None
None,Endangered
None,Rare
None,None
Plant
Rare Plant Rank
1A
1B.1
1B.2
1B.3
2B.1
2B.2
2B.3

4.2 Badger Park CNDDB Elements Intersecting 10 Mile: Plants Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Plant, Animal & Community Data: CDFW CNDDB 2/3/2024; Basemap:

Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS Scale: 1:130,000
¯
Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:130,000
Date Exported: 2/28/2024
GIS Analyst: Deland Wing
HBG PM: Greg Huffman
Project Site
0 5 10 15
Miles
ID SciName ComName
69 Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool ID SciName ComName
82 Emys marmorata western pond turtle
ID SciName ComName
81 Gonidea angulata western ridged mussel
ID SciName ComName
73 Antrozous pallidus pallid bat
74 Arborimus pomo Sonoma tree vole
75 Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat
76 Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine
77 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat
78 Lasiurus frantzii western red bat
79 Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis
80 Taxidea taxus American badger
ID SciName ComName
70 Andrena blennospermatis Blennosperma vernal pool andrenid bee 71 Bombus caliginosus obscure bumble bee
72 Dubiraphia giulianii Giuliani's dubiraphian riffle beetle ID SciName ComName
64 Hesperoleucus venustus navarroensis northern coastal roach 65 Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Russian River tule perch
66 Mylopharodon conocephalus hardhead
67 Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4 coho salmon - central California coast ESU
68 Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 steelhead - central California coast DPS ID SciName ComName
61 Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella
62 Stygobromus cherylae Barr's amphipod
63 Syncaris pacifica California freshwater shrimp
ID SciName ComName
57 Ardea herodias great blue heron
58 Athene cunicularia burrowing owl
59 Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite
60 Pandion haliaetus osprey
ID SciName ComName
53 Dicamptodon ensatus California giant salamander
54 Rana boylii pop. 1 foothill yellow-legged frog - north coast DPS 55 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
56 Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt
TableID SciName ComName
1 Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis Sonoma alopecurus 2 Amorpha californica var. napensis Napa false indigo
3 Arctostaphylos bakeri ssp. bakeri Baker's manzanita
4 Arctostaphylos bakeri ssp. sublaevis Cedars manzanita 5 Arctostaphylos densiflora Vine Hill manzanita
6 Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. decumbens Rincon Ridge manzanita 7 Blennosperma bakeri Sonoma sunshine
8 Brodiaea leptandra narrow-anthered brodiaea
9 Calamagrostis crassiglumis Thurber's reed grass
10 Calochortus raichei Cedars fairy-lantern
11 Calystegia collina ssp. oxyphylla Mt. Saint Helena morning-glory 12 Carex comosa bristly sedge
13 Castilleja uliginosa Pitkin Marsh paintbrush
14 Ceanothus confusus Rincon Ridge ceanothus
15 Ceanothus divergens Calistoga ceanothus
16 Ceanothus foliosus var. vineatus Vine Hill ceanothus 17 Ceanothus purpureus holly-leaved ceanothus
18 Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi pappose tarplant
19 Clarkia imbricata Vine Hill clarkia
20 Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris Pennell's bird's-beak 21 Cryptantha dissita serpentine cryptantha
22 Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa Peruvian dodder
23 Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
24 Eastwoodiella californica swamp harebell
25 Erigeron greenei Greene's narrow-leaved daisy
26 Erigeron serpentinus serpentine daisy
27 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary
28 Gratiola heterosepala Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
29 Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta congested-headed hayfield tarplant 30 Horkelia tenuiloba thin-lobed horkelia
31 Kopsiopsis hookeri small groundcone
32 Lasthenia burkei Burke's goldfields
33 Leptosiphon jepsonii Jepson's leptosiphon
34 Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Pitkin Marsh lily
35 Limnanthes vinculans Sebastopol meadowfoam
36 Lupinus sericatus Cobb Mountain lupine
37 Microseris paludosa marsh microseris
38 Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Baker's navarretia 39 Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha many-flowered navarretia 40 Piperia candida white-flowered rein orchid
41 Rhynchospora alba white beaked-rush
42 Rhynchospora californica California beaked-rush
43 Rhynchospora capitellata brownish beaked-rush
44 Rhynchospora globularis round-headed beaked-rush
45 Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida Kenwood Marsh checkerbloom 46 Streptanthus brachiatus ssp. hoffmanii Freed's jewelflower 47 Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. hoffmanii Hoffman's bristly jewelflower 48 Streptanthus morrisonii ssp. morrisonii Morrison's jewelflower 49 Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina northern slender pondweed 50 Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover
51 Usnea longissima Methuselah's beard lichen
52 Viburnum ellipticum oval-leaved viburnum
Herbaceous
Reptiles
Mollusks
Mammals
Insects
Fish
Crustaceans
Birds
Plants Amphibians
Item 7.c
444 of 697

LAKE SONOMA

RECREATIONAL
AREA
Duncans Mills
Camp Thayer
Asti
Chianti
Cozzens
Corner
Omus
Venado
Healdsburg
Guerneville
Sheridan
Rio Nido
Ross
Grant
Del Rio Woods
Bailhache
Mark West
Springs
Jimtown
CHARLES M.

SCHULZ -
SONOMA
COUNTY

AIRPORT
Larkfi eld-Wikiup
Windsor
Kellogg

CLOVERDALE

WARM SPRINGS DAM
ASTI
THE
ASTI

GEYSERS

GEYSERVILLE
THE

GEYSERS

WHISPERING
PINES

THE GEYSERS

JIMTOWN

WARM SPRINGS DAM

GEYSERVILLE

WARM SPRINGS DAM

CAZADERO

GEYSERVILLE

JIMTOWN

GEYSERVILLE

GUERNEVILLE

JIMTOWN

HEALDSBURG

CAZADERO

GUERNEVILLE

CAZADERO

DUNCANS MILLS

GUERNEVILLE

HEALDSBURG

GUERNEVILLE

CAMP MEEKER

HEALDSBURG

MARK WEST SPRINGS

HEALDSBURG

SEBASTOPOL

MARK WEST SPRINGS

SANTA ROSA

DUNCANS MILLS

CAMP MEEKER

SEBASTOPOL

SANTA ROSA
67 54
54 54
54 67
67 75
53 77
73 75
75 71
82 81
67 67
68 60
54 63
82 67
54 54
54 53
75 76
54 56
56 54
54 54
65 54
82 54
54 54
59 57
82 82
54 53
53 54
82 54
70 53
54 54
63 53
72 53
56 53
53 82
54 67
65 53
64 64
54 54
54 54
54 53
74 56
53 53
79 66
67 61
54 68
54 82
54 82
73 82
65 65
82 82
53 82
58 54
56 60
82 56
56 54 56
54 54
56 75
54 56
56 54
54 73
82 73
54 54 82
59 60
53 82
82 68
53 53
82 78
80 53
82 82
82 58
62 53
53 55
USGS 7.5 Quad
Project Boundary With 10
Mile Buffer
Animals
FED List
Endangered
Threatened
Proposed Threatened
None
CAL List
Endangered
None
Badger Park CNDDB Elements Intersecting 10 Mile: Animals Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Plant, Animal & Community Data: CDFW CNDDB 2/3/2024; Basemap:

Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, California State Parks, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/ NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, USDA, USFWS Scale: 1:130,000
¯
Badger Park Project
Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 2011 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Ft US Scale: 1:130,000
Date Exported: 2/28/2024
GIS Analyst: Deland Wing
HBG PM: Greg Huffman
Project Site
0 5 10 15
Miles
ID SciName ComName
69 Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool ID SciName ComName
82 Emys marmorata western pond turtle
ID SciName ComName
81 Gonidea angulata western ridged mussel
ID SciName ComName
73 Antrozous pallidus pallid bat
74 Arborimus pomo Sonoma tree vole
75 Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat
76 Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine
77 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat
78 Lasiurus frantzii western red bat
79 Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis
80 Taxidea taxus American badger
ID SciName ComName
70 Andrena blennospermatis Blennosperma vernal pool andrenid bee 71 Bombus caliginosus obscure bumble bee
72 Dubiraphia giulianii Giuliani's dubiraphian riffle beetle ID SciName ComName
64 Hesperoleucus venustus navarroensis northern coastal roach 65 Hysterocarpus traskii pomo Russian River tule perch
66 Mylopharodon conocephalus hardhead
67 Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4 coho salmon - central California coast ESU
68 Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 steelhead - central California coast DPS ID SciName ComName
61 Linderiella occidentalis California linderiella
62 Stygobromus cherylae Barr's amphipod
63 Syncaris pacifica California freshwater shrimp
ID SciName ComName
57 Ardea herodias great blue heron
58 Athene cunicularia burrowing owl
59 Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite
60 Pandion haliaetus osprey
ID SciName ComName
53 Dicamptodon ensatus California giant salamander
54 Rana boylii pop. 1 foothill yellow-legged frog - north coast DPS 55 Rana draytonii California red-legged frog
56 Taricha rivularis red-bellied newt
TableID SciName ComName
1 Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis Sonoma alopecurus 2 Amorpha californica var. napensis Napa false indigo
3 Arctostaphylos bakeri ssp. bakeri Baker's manzanita
4 Arctostaphylos bakeri ssp. sublaevis Cedars manzanita 5 Arctostaphylos densiflora Vine Hill manzanita
6 Arctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. decumbens Rincon Ridge manzanita 7 Blennosperma bakeri Sonoma sunshine
8 Brodiaea leptandra narrow-anthered brodiaea
9 Calamagrostis crassiglumis Thurber's reed grass
10 Calochortus raichei Cedars fairy-lantern
11 Calystegia collina ssp. oxyphylla Mt. Saint Helena morning-glory 12 Carex comosa bristly sedge
13 Castilleja uliginosa Pitkin Marsh paintbrush
14 Ceanothus confusus Rincon Ridge ceanothus
15 Ceanothus divergens Calistoga ceanothus
16 Ceanothus foliosus var. vineatus Vine Hill ceanothus 17 Ceanothus purpureus holly-leaved ceanothus
18 Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi pappose tarplant
19 Clarkia imbricata Vine Hill clarkia
20 Cordylanthus tenuis ssp. capillaris Pennell's bird's-beak 21 Cryptantha dissita serpentine cryptantha
22 Cuscuta obtusiflora var. glandulosa Peruvian dodder
23 Downingia pusilla dwarf downingia
24 Eastwoodiella californica swamp harebell
25 Erigeron greenei Greene's narrow-leaved daisy
26 Erigeron serpentinus serpentine daisy
27 Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary
28 Gratiola heterosepala Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop
29 Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta congested-headed hayfield tarplant 30 Horkelia tenuiloba thin-lobed horkelia
31 Kopsiopsis hookeri small groundcone
32 Lasthenia burkei Burke's goldfields
33 Leptosiphon jepsonii Jepson's leptosiphon
34 Lilium pardalinum ssp. pitkinense Pitkin Marsh lily
35 Limnanthes vinculans Sebastopol meadowfoam
36 Lupinus sericatus Cobb Mountain lupine
37 Microseris paludosa marsh microseris
38 Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri Baker's navarretia 39 Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha many-flowered navarretia 40 Piperia candida white-flowered rein orchid
41 Rhynchospora alba white beaked-rush
42 Rhynchospora californica California beaked-rush
43 Rhynchospora capitellata brownish beaked-rush
44 Rhynchospora globularis round-headed beaked-rush
45 Sidalcea oregana ssp. valida Kenwood Marsh checkerbloom 46 Streptanthus brachiatus ssp. hoffmanii Freed's jewelflower 47 Streptanthus glandulosus ssp. hoffmanii Hoffman's bristly jewelflower 48 Streptanthus morrisonii ssp. morrisonii Morrison's jewelflower 49 Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina northern slender pondweed 50 Trifolium amoenum two-fork clover
51 Usnea longissima Methuselah's beard lichen
52 Viburnum ellipticum oval-leaved viburnum
Herbaceous
Reptiles
Mollusks
Mammals
Insects
Fish
Crustaceans
Birds
Plants Amphibians
Item 7.c
445 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 1/17 IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area.

However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Sonoma County, California
Local office
Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Office
 (916) 414-6600
 (916) 414-6713
Federal Building
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Item 7.c
446 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 2/17 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825-1846
Item 7.c
447 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 3/17 Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 1 2
Item 7.c
448 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 4/17

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Birds
Reptiles
Insects
Flowering Plants

NAME STATUS
Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1123
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6199
Threatened
Northwestern Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1111
Proposed Threatened

NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate

NAME STATUS
Burke's Goldfields Lasthenia burkei
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4338
Endangered
Item 7.c
449 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 5/17 Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

There are no critical habitats at this location.

You are still required to determine if your project(s) may have effects on all above listed species.

Bald & Golden Eagles
Many-flowered Navarretia Navarretia leucocephala ssp.
plieantha
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2491
Endangered
Sebastopol Meadowfoam Limnanthes vinculans
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/404
Endangered
Sonoma Sunshine Blennosperma bakeri
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1260
Endangered
Bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to bald or golden eagles, or their habitats , should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below.

Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management 1 2
3 Item 7.c
450 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 6/17 There are bald and/or golden eagles in your project area.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

BREEDING SEASON
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-takemigratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds
https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservationmeasures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-andgolden-eagles-may-occur-project-action NAME
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Item 7.c
451 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 7/17 probability of presence  breeding season  survey effort  no data effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Item 7.c
452 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 8/17 Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
What does IPaC use to generate the potential presence of bald and golden eagles in my specified location?
The potential for eagle presence is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply). To see a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs of bald and golden eagles in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.

It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Please contact your local Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office if you have questions.

Migratory birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .
1 2
Item 7.c
453 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 9/17 The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

BREEDING SEASON
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described in the links below.

Specifically, please review the "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles".

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-takemigratory-birds Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-andgolden-eagles-may-occur-project-action 3 NAME
Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637
Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15
Item 7.c
454 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 10/17 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Belding's Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
beldingi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8
Breeds Apr 1 to Aug 15
Black Swift Cypseloides niger
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8878
Breeds Jun 15 to Sep 10
Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Mar 21 to Jul 25
California Gull Larus californicus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 31
California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jan 1 to Jul 31
Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084
Breeds May 20 to Jul 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31
Item 7.c
455 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 11/17 Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4- week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

Long-eared Owl asio otus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3631
Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 15
Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410
Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20
Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656
Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Item 7.c
456 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 12/17 probability of presence  breeding season  survey effort  no data

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Allen's
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Item 7.c
457 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 13/17 Belding's
Savannah
Sparrow

BCC - BCR
Black Swift
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Bullock's Oriole

BCC - BCR
California Gull
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
California
Thrasher
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Common
Yellowthroat

BCC - BCR
Golden Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Long-eared Owl
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Nuttall's
Woodpecker

BCC - BCR
Oak Titmouse
BCC Rangewide
(CON)

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Western Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Wrentit
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure.

Item 7.c
458 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 14/17 To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the list of migratory birds that potentially occur in my specified location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area.

It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the Rapid Avian Information Locator (RAIL) Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets.

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering or migrating in my area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may query your location using the RAIL Tool and look at the range maps provided for birds in your area at the bottom of the profiles provided for each bird in your results. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in Item 7.c
459 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 15/17 offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint.

On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Item 7.c
460 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 16/17 Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

There are no refuge lands at this location.

Fish hatcheries
There are no fish hatcheries at this location.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI)
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

Wetland information is not available at this time
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

Item 7.c
461 of 697
2/2/24, 12:47 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/location/KXJ2GXGDZ5EQVMSO23BN6YOYP4/resources#endangered-species 17/17 The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies.

Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate Federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities.

Item 7.c
462 of 697

APPENDIX C

BADGER PARK REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
Item 7.c
463 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

BADGER PARK REDEVELOPMENT

MASTER PLAN
Item 7.c
464 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

PDT DESIGN PROCESS

BADGER PARK MASTER PLAN
Item 7.c
465 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

THE BIRDS NEIGHBORHOOD

GRAVEL BAR

SYAR INDUSTRIES

BADGER PARK
‘WILLOW ISLAND’

RUSSIAN RIVER

BADGER PARK
Item 7.c
466 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

BADGER PARK

SUBSTATION

BADGER PARK

TILLEY GRO

SYAR INDUSTRIES
Item 7.c
467 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO 1 2
3 4
5 NATURAL GRASS / FIELDS

PLAY AREA

COMMUNITY GARDEN

DOG PLAY AREA

SPORTS COURTS

PICNIC AREAS

RIVER VIEWS

SOCCER FIELD
250’
150’
250’
170’
SIZE COMPARISON:

HEALDSBURG PLAZA

EXISTING CONDITIONS

BADGER PARK
46 PARKING SPACES
Item 7.c
468 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

BASE PLAN
FOREST AREA AS-IS 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 CENTRAL LAWN

PLAY AREA

COMMUNITY GARDEN
CREEK

REALIGNED PARKING

DROP-OFF AREA

TRAIL TO SYAR GRAVEL BAR

ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION

RUSSIAN RIVER

ACCESS TO TILLEY GROVE
1 3
5 6
8 4
9 10
7 2
Item 7.c
469 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10

CENTRAL LAWN

PLAY AREA

COMMUNITY GARDEN
CREEK

REALIGNED PARKING

DROP-OFF AREA

TRAIL TO SYAR GRAVEL BAR

WILLOW ISLAND

WILLOW BEACH

WEST FOREST (THINNED)

ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION

RUSSIAN RIVER

ACCESS TO TILLEY GROVE
11 12
13 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 10
11 12
13 9

BASE PLAN

FOREST AREA THINNED
Item 7.c
470 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

DESIGN PROCESS
ACTIVE     PASSIVE     HYBRID
Item 7.c
471 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

PARKING

ELECTRICAL

SUBSTATION

UNLOADING

FOR GARDEN

RIVER ACCESS

DROP-OFF
1 1
ENTRY/
EXIT
HERON DR.

Item 7.c
472 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

SITE UTILITIES
WELLS
50’ OFFSET

UV TREATMENT

STRUCTURE
16” WATER
MAIN
1 1
2 3
4 2 3
4 OVERHEAD POWER LINES

ELECTRICAL

SUBSTATION
Item 7.c
473 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT /
PARKS + REC COMMISSION

BADGER PARK MASTER PLAN
Item 7.c
474 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

INITIAL MASTER PLAN FOR COMMUNITY FEEDBACK
1 2
2 3
3 4 5
6 7
8 8
9 10
11 12
13 13
13 13
13 14
14 15

CENTRAL LAWN

PROMENADE

RIVER OVERLOOKS

PLAY AREA

COMMUNITY GARDEN

DOG PLAY AREA

RESTROOMS

SPORTS COURTS

BOCCE COURTS

LOOP TRAIL
PLAZA

RIVER ACCESS DROP-OFF

PICNIC AREA

RIVERWALK TRAIL

WILLOW ISLAND

POSSIBLE ART
1 2
3 4
5 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
6 *
*
*
*
*
*
*
BADGER PARK Item 7.c
475 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

COMMUNITY FEEDBACK

BADGER PARK

GARDEN SPECIFICS WILL BE

WORKED OUT DURING

DETAILED DESIGN
ENOUGH PARKING?

HALF COURT OR
YOUTH PROGRAM?

ADD SIDEWALK
& CROSSWALK

SUPPORT FOR LOOP
CLARIFY PLANTING TYPES (E.G. EXTENT OF
LAWN, LOW WATER USE PLANTINGS, ETC.)
PICNIC AREA?
● Overall positive reaction to masterplan
● Confirm proposed parking qty. is adequate to
support proposed uses (river access, games,
weekend activities)
● Support for keeping a walking loop, but with
a surface that is less slippery during winter
months.
● Equal amount of concern / support regarding
river access.
● Some preference for keeping the dog play
area in its current location, due to amount of
insects that may be at proposed location.
● To work on further during Detailed Design
phase:
○ Community garden specifics, e.g.
how beds will be phased as
gardeners vacate plots to make
room for possible parking.
○ Clarify low water use plantings,
meadows, hybrid bermuda grass
and synthetic turf areas.

EQUAL AMOUNT CONCERN /

SUPPORT FOR RIVER ACCESS
HERON DR.
2ND ST.

TUCKER ST.

RUSSIAN RIVER

SUPPORT FOR VISUAL ACCESS

SUPPORT FOR WEST

FOREST IMPROVEMENTS
Item 7.c
476 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN

PREVIOUS CENTRAL LAWN

PROMENADE

RIVER OVERLOOKS

PLAY AREA

NOT USED

COMMUNITY GARDEN

DOG PLAY AREA

RESTROOMS

SPORTS COURTS

NOT USED

GAME COURTS

LOOP TRAIL
PLAZA

RIVER ACCESS DROP-OFF

PICNIC AREA

RIVERWALK TRAIL

WILLOW ISLAND

RIVER ACCESS

POSSIBLE ART
1 2
3 4
6 8
9 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
7 *
10 18
5 1
2 2
3 3
4 6
7 8
9 9
11 12
13 14
15 15
15 15
16 16
17 *
*
*
*
*
*
13 13
18 18
Item 7.c
477 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

PRELIMINARY MASTER PLAN

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS & CONSIDERATIONS

ADD SIDEWALK
& CROSSWALK
● Overall positive reaction to masterplan
● Support for river access via Badger Park --
commissioners suggested adding direct
kayak / canoe access along eastern edge of
park
● Volleyball court incorporated along river
access connector
● Support for an adventure play experiences
within the west forest area, including natural
boulders and logs for spontaneous play
● Incorporate Public Works, Utility, and Public
Safety considerations
HERON DR.
2ND ST.

TUCKER ST.

RUSSIAN RIVER

SUPPORT FOR ADVENTURE

PLAY EXPERIENCES

VOLLEYBALL

RIVER ACCESS -

EMERGENCY
BOAT ACCESS?

NATURAL RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT AND FIRE

FUELS REDUCTION

WIDEN TRAILS FOR UTILITY

SERVICING

EV CHARGING

LOCATION FOR FUTURE SEWER

LIFT STATION RELOCATION
Item 7.c
478 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

FINAL MASTER PLAN

BADGER PARK MASTER PLAN
Item 7.c
479 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

PROPOSED MASTER PLAN

CENTRAL LAWN

PROMENADE

RIVER OVERLOOKS

PLAY AREA

ADVENTURE PLAY

COMMUNITY GARDEN

DOG PLAY AREA

RESTROOMS

SPORTS COURTS

VOLLEYBALL

GAME COURTS

LOOP TRAIL
PLAZA

RIVER ACCESS DROP-OFF

PICNIC AREA

RIVERWALK TRAIL

WILLOW ISLAND

RIVER ACCESS

POSSIBLE ART
1 2
3 4
6 8
9 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
7 *

UPDATED
10 18
5 1
2 2
3 3
4 6
7 8
9 9
11 12
13 14
15 15
15 15
16 16
17 *
*
*
*
*
*
13 13
10 18
3 18
5 5
Item 7.c
480 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

MATERIAL PALETTE

WOOD METAL STONE

MUTED COLOR PALETTE

MATCHES RIVER COLORS

MIX OF INDIGENOUS

MATERIALS AND METAL
BADGER PARK Item 7.c
481 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO ‘AT-GRADE CREEK CROSSINGS

OVERLOOKS

LANDFORMS FRAME VIEWS
‘RIVER’ NATURAL PLAY INDUSTRIAL PAVILION

COMMUNITY GARDEN

ARTISTIC FENCE

MULTI-SPORT COURTS
Item 7.c
482 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10

CENTRAL LAWN

PROMENADE

PLAY AREA
PLAZA
STAIRS

RESTROOMS

SPORT COURTS

COMMUNITY GARDEN

DOG PLAY AREA

PARKING AREA

OVERLOOK
1 2
5 4
9 6
8 11
2 10

AERIAL LOOKING WEST
11 7
4 3
Item 7.c
483 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO 2 1
4 PROMENADE
1 2
3 PROMENADE

GRASSY LANDFORMS

PLAY AREA BEYOND
4 PLANTING AREA
3 Item 7.c
484 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

LANDFORMS
Item 7.c
485 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

LANDFORMS
Item 7.c
486 of 697
HEALDSBURG PARKS DESIGN + RIVER ACCESS | CITY OF HEALDSBURG COMMUNITY SERVICES | FLETCHER STUDIO

PROPOSED MASTER PLAN

UPDATED CENTRAL LAWN

PROMENADE

RIVER OVERLOOKS

PLAY AREA

ADVENTURE PLAY

COMMUNITY GARDEN

DOG PLAY AREA

RESTROOMS

SPORTS COURTS

VOLLEYBALL

GAME COURTS / PLAY

LOOP TRAIL
PLAZA

RIVER ACCESS DROP-OFF

PICNIC AREA

RIVERWALK TRAIL

WILLOW ISLAND

RIVER ACCESS

POSSIBLE ART
1 2
3 4
6 8
9 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
7 *
10 18
5 1
2 2
3 3
4 6
7 8
9 9
11 12
13 14
15 15
15 15
16 16
17 *
*
*
*
*
*
13 13
10 18
18 5
5 3
Item 7.c
487 of 697

APPENDIX D

AQUATIC RESOURCES DELINEATION REPORT

BADGER PARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

HEALDSBURG, CALIFORNIA
Item 7.c
488 of 697

APPENDIX E

TREE SURVEY

BADGER PARK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

HEALDSBURG, CALIFORNIA
Item 7.c
489 of 697
APPENDIX 5. TREE SURVEY

ON-SITE PHOTO DOCUMENTATION OF HERITAGE TREES
Item 7.c
490 of 697
2n
2nd St
S Fitch Mountain Rd
Matheson St
Heron Dr
Heron Dr

BADGER PARK
Russian River
2nd St
Badger Park Access Path
Electrical
Substation
Coast
Live
Oak
Valley Oak
Riparian Mixed Hardwood
Riparian
Mixed Shrub
Riparian
Mixed
Hardwood
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 15 14
17 16
18 20 19
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
Figure 1. Tree Survey Overview
Spatial Reference:

Name: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet (2011) Scale: 1:2,000
Map Created Date: 5/10/2024
GIS Specialists: Agie Gilmore & Deland Wing
HBG Project Manager: Greg Huffman
Project Data: Huffman Broadway Group; Basemap:© OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA, Esri Community Maps Contributors, Sonoma County, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS; Aerial Imagery:Google Earth, AirBus Image Date 5/13/2023 0 50 100 200 300 400 500
US Feet ¯
Surveyed Tree
Aquatic Resources Review
Area /Project Site
Tree Habitat:

Coast Live Oak
Riparian Mixed Hardwood
Riparian Mixed Shrub
Valley Oak
Path: Z:\Shared\H&A GIS Projects\GIS Projects\Badger Park\ArcGIS\Badger Park Tree Survey.aprx Badger Park Project Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California
Item 7.c
491 of 697
Photo ID: 1
Species: Coast Redwood
Sequoia sempervirens
Measured 24” from the Ground: Diameter = 31
Badger Park
Tree Location
&
1:1,000
Photo ID: 2
Species: Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
Measured 24” from the Ground: Diameter = 37
Badger Park
Tree Location
&
1:1,000