Agenda — St. Helena City Council, June 26, 2023 (part 14 of 22)

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 9 of 13 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Annual

0.0000 11.9162 11.9162 1.2200e0032.0000e0044.3400e- 12.0060 003

4.3400e0034.3400e0034.3400e003Unmitigated 0.6096 0.0168 0.6494 9.0000e005

0.0000 11.9162 11.9162 1.2200e0032.0000e0044.3400e- 12.0060 003

4.3400e0034.3400e0034.3400e003Mitigated 0.6096 0.0168 0.6494 9.0000e005 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2

55.3899

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Total 54.7223 7.7100e0031.5900e003

11.9181
Single Family
Housing
411955 38.4930 5.4200e0031.1200e00338.9626
Condo/Townhous
e
126011 11.7745 1.6600e0033.4000e004

4.5092
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use kWh/yr t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
47675.9 4.4548 6.3000e0041.3000e004
Mitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Page 2066 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 10 of 13 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Annual

0.0000 11.9162 11.9162 1.2200e0032.0000e0044.3400e- 12.0060 003

4.3400e0034.3400e0034.3400e003Total 0.6096 0.0168 0.6494 9.0000e005

0.0000 1.0552 1.0552 1.0100e0033.5800e- 0.0000 1.0805
003

3.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e003Landscaping 0.0194 7.4300e0030.6454 3.0000e005

0.0000 10.8610 10.8610 2.1000e0042.0000e0047.6000e- 10.9256 004

7.6000e0047.6000e0047.6000e004Hearth 1.1000e0039.3800e0033.9900e0036.0000e005 Consumer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

0.4992
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

0.0900
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 11.9162 11.9162 1.2200e0032.0000e0044.3400e- 12.0060 003

4.3400e0034.3400e0034.3400e003Total 0.6096 0.0168 0.6494 9.0000e005

0.0000 1.0552 1.0552 1.0100e0033.5800e- 0.0000 1.0805
003

3.5800e0033.5800e0033.5800e003Landscaping 0.0194 7.4300e0030.6454 3.0000e005

0.0000 10.8610 10.8610 2.1000e0042.0000e0047.6000e- 10.9256 004

7.6000e0047.6000e0047.6000e004Hearth 1.1000e0039.3800e0033.9900e0036.0000e005 Consumer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products

0.4992
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

0.0900
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

Page 2067 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 11 of 13 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Annual Total 6.5001 0.2117 5.1200e- 13.3179
003

2.7285
Single Family
Housing

3.49203 /

2.09484

3.5585 0.1141 2.7600e0037.2338
Condo/Townhous
e

1.27531 /

1.02688

1.3852 0.0417 1.0100e003

3.3556
City Park 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

1.71178 /

0.451829

1.5563 0.0559 1.3500e003

7.2 Water by Land Use
Unmitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Unmitigated 6.5001 0.2118 5.1100e00313.3179
Category t
o
n
MT/yr
Mitigated 5.2001 0.1694 4.0900e00310.6543

7.0 Water Detail

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Apply Water Conservation Strategy
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Page 2068 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 12 of 13 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Annual Unmitigated 14.1058 0.8336 0.0000 34.9466
t
o
n
MT/yr
Mitigated 14.1058 0.8336 0.0000 34.9466

10.6543

8.0 Waste Detail

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
Category/Year
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 5.2001 0.1694 4.1000e003

2.1828
Single Family
Housing

2.79362 /

1.67588

2.8468 0.0913 2.2100e0035.7870
Condo/Townhous
e

1.02025 /

0.821507

1.1082 0.0334 8.1000e004

2.6845
City Park 0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Land Use Mgal t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

1.36942 /

0.361463

1.2451 0.0447 1.0800e003
Mitigated
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Page 2069 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 13 of 13 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Annual Total 14.1058 0.8336 0.0000 34.9466

5.7834
Single Family
Housing

52.92 10.7423 0.6349 0.0000 26.6136
Condo/Townhous
e

11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000

2.5447
City Park 0.01 2.0300e0031.2000e0040.0000 5.0300e003 Land Use tons t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

5.06 1.0271 0.0607 0.0000

34.9466
Mitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Total 14.1058 0.8336 0.0000

5.7834
Single Family
Housing

52.92 10.7423 0.6349 0.0000 26.6136
Condo/Townhous
e

11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000

2.5447
City Park 0.01 2.0300e0031.2000e0040.0000 5.0300e003 Land Use tons t
o
n
MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

5.06 1.0271 0.0607 0.0000

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Page 2070 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 1 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Summer Architectural Coating - Vehicle Trips - Updated trip generation per traffic report (Dudek).

Woodstoves - No woodstoves or hearths.

Energy Use - Adjusted T24 energy intensities to meet 2019 T24 standards. Single-family savings are 4% of electricity and 9% of gas. MF savings are 2% and 5%.

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Hunter Subdivision Project. BAAQMD. Adjusted intensity factors based on PG&E 2020 Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Report, 206 lb CO2/MWh.

Land Use - 87 units including 51 single family homes, 11 granny flats, and 25 multi family residential units. Updated population per City of St Helna avg household size from BayAreaCensus.

CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
206 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006
64 Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2029
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 3.6 Precipitation Freq (Days) Single Family Housing 51.00 Dwelling Unit 13.40 91,800.00 126 Condo/Townhouse 25.00 Dwelling Unit 3.40 25,000.00 62
Apartments Low Rise 11.00 Dwelling Unit 0.00 11,000.00 27 Floor Surface Area Population
City Park 0.06 Acre 0.06 2,613.60 0

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/3/2021 4:09 PM
Hunter Subdivision Project
Napa County, Summer

Page 2071 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Summer tblLandUse LotAcreage 16.56 13.40
tblLandUse Population 31.00 27.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.69 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.56 3.40
tblFireplaces NumberWood 4.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 21.93 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 4.08 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.87 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 0.44 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 1.00 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 3.75 25.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 12.75 51.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 228.80 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 1.65 11.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 228.80 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 228.80 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 15,568.01 14,789.61
tblEnergyUse T24NG 25,910.09 23,578.18
tblEnergyUse T24E 325.76 312.73
tblEnergyUse T24NG 7,043.85 6,409.90
tblEnergyUse T24E 365.68 351.05
tblEnergyUse T24E 249.32 244.33
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 261.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 65.00
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Solid Waste - Default rates used.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Implement fugitive dust reduction measures - water twice daily.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Project would implement a pedestrian network on and off-site, project site is approximately 0.4 mi from VINE transit.

Water Mitigation - 20% indoor/outdoor reduction in water assumed for CALGreen compliance.

Water And Wastewater - Indoor water consumption updated per Preliminary Water Calculations Technical Memorandum (RSA). Page 2072 of 4069 Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 3 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Summer tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 956.80 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 582.40 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 582.40 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 14.12 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 21.06 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 2,094,843.56 2,094,844.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 14.12 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 71,488.88 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 1,026,884.10 1,026,884.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 1,628,850.64 1,275,310.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 3,322,855.31 3,492,027.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.44
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 716,694.28 1,711,778.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.81 9.44
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 8.31
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 7.36
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.84 8.31
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 9.56
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.94
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 5.67 9.56
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 9.00 11.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 8.18
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 10.00 11.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 45.00 55.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 206 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblLandUse Population 72.00 62.00
tblLandUse Population 146.00 126.00

Page 2073 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 4 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Summer

11.80 1.10 11.19 11.80 1.04 9.83 0.00 6.31 6.31 5.15 0.00 6.29 NBio-CO2 Total
CO2
CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.72 2.97 4.93 7.86
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Bio- CO2
PM10

0.0000 6,390.278
6 6,390.278
6 0.1988 0.0507 6,410.367
5 Total 4.5672 6.7234 16.1860 0.0496 3.5327 0.2388 3.7715 0.9444 0.2372 1.1815 3,609.982
6 3,609.982
6 0.1334 3,613.317
0 Mobile 0.8702 4.4730 8.0927 0.0354 3.5327 0.0237 3.5565 0.9444 0.0221 0.9665 Energy 0.0567 0.4841 0.2060 3.0900e- 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 617.9601 617.9601 0.0118 0.0113 621.6324 003

0.0000 2,162.335
8 2,162.335
8 0.0536 0.0394 2,175.418
1 Area 3.6403 1.7663 7.8873 0.0111 0.1759 0.1759 0.1759 0.1759 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 6,820.588
8 6,820.588
8 0.2096 0.0507 6,840.947
9 Total 4.6004 6.9295 17.0245 0.0538 4.0054 0.2414 4.2468 1.0707 0.2397 1.3104 4,040.292
8 4,040.292
8 0.1442 4,043.897
4 Mobile 0.9034 4.6791 8.9312 0.0396 4.0054 0.0264 4.0317 1.0707 0.0246 1.0953 Energy 0.0567 0.4841 0.2060 3.0900e- 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 617.9601 617.9601 0.0118 0.0113 621.6324 003

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

2.0 Emissions Summary Page 2074 of 4069
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 5 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Summer

15.00 54.00 86 11 3

15.00 54.00 86 11 3
Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00

48.00 19.00 66 28 6
Condo/Townhouse 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00

15.00 54.00 86 11 3
City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00
H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or CW
Total 798.40 816.54 707.90 1,820,116 1,605,342
Single Family Housing 481.44 487.56 423.81 1,094,942 965,739 Condo/Townhouse 236.00 239.00 207.75 536,736 473,401
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 80.96 89.98 76.34 188,438 166,202
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
4,043.897
4 4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated

1.0953 4,040.292
8 4,040.292
8 0.0396 4.0054 0.0264 4.0317 1.0707 0.0246 0.1442
3,609.982
6 3,609.982
6 0.1334 3,613.317
0 Unmitigated 0.9034 4.6791 8.9312

0.0237 3.5565 0.9444 0.0221 0.9665
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.8702 4.4730 8.0927 0.0354 3.5327
Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
ROG NOx CO SO2

Page 2075 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 6 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Summer NaturalGas 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 617.9601 617.9601 0.0118 0.0113 621.6324 Unmitigated

0.0567 0.4841 0.2060 3.0900e003

0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 617.9601 617.9601 0.0118 0.0113 621.6324 CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0567 0.4841 0.2060 3.0900e003
PM2.5
Total
SO2 Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.001019 0.000688

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO
Single Family Housing 0.621482 0.031755 0.164303 0.096476 0.014320 0.004717 0.015934 0.038849 0.003869 0.001558 0.005029

0.038849 0.003869 0.001558 0.005029 0.001019 0.000688

0.001019 0.000688
Condo/Townhouse 0.621482 0.031755 0.164303 0.096476 0.014320 0.004717 0.015934 City Park 0.621482 0.031755 0.164303 0.096476 0.014320 0.004717 0.015934 0.038849 0.003869 0.001558 0.005029

0.038849 0.003869 0.001558 0.005029 0.001019 0.000688

SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.621482 0.031755 0.164303 0.096476 0.014320 0.004717 0.015934 Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY

4.4 Fleet Mix Page 2076 of 4069
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 7 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Summer Total 0.0566 0.4841 0.2060 3.0900e- 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 617.9601 617.9601 0.0118 0.0113 621.6324 003
439.4495 439.4495 8.4200e0038.0600e003Single Family 0.0278 0.0278 0.0278 0.0278 442.0610 Housing

3.73532 0.0403 0.3442 0.1465 2.2000e003
144.5980 144.5980 2.7700e0032.6500e0039.1600e- 145.4573 003

9.1600e0039.1600e0039.1600e003Condo/Townhous
e

1.22908 0.0133 0.1133 0.0482 7.2000e004
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

33.9126 33.9126 6.5000e0046.2000e0042.1500e- 34.1141
003

2.1500e0032.1500e0032.1500e003Apartments Low
Rise

0.288257 3.1100e0030.0266 0.0113 1.7000e004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
Total 0.0566 0.4841 0.2060 3.0900e- 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 617.9601 617.9601 0.0118 0.0113 621.6324 003
439.4495 439.4495 8.4200e0038.0600e003Single Family 0.0278 0.0278 0.0278 0.0278 442.0610 Housing
3735.32 0.0403 0.3442 0.1465 2.2000e003
144.5980 144.5980 2.7700e0032.6500e0039.1600e- 145.4573 003

9.1600e0039.1600e0039.1600e003Condo/Townhous
e
1229.08 0.0133 0.1133 0.0482 7.2000e004
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

33.9126 33.9126 6.5000e0046.2000e0042.1500e- 34.1141
003

2.1500e0032.1500e0032.1500e003Apartments Low
Rise
288.257 3.1100e0030.0266 0.0113 1.7000e004
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

Page 2077 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 8 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Summer

0.0000 2,162.335
8 2,162.335
8 0.0536 0.0394 2,175.418
1 Total 3.6403 1.7663 7.8873 0.0111 0.1759 0.1759 0.1759 0.1759 Landscaping 0.2153 0.0826 7.1708 3.8000e- 0.0398 0.0398 0.0398 0.0398 12.9241 12.9241 0.0124 13.2335 004

0.0000 2,149.411
8 2,149.411
8 0.0412 0.0394 2,162.184
6 Hearth 0.1970 1.6837 0.7165 0.0108 0.1361 0.1361 0.1361 0.1361 Consumer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Products

2.7351
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

0.4930
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 2,162.335
8 2,162.335
8 0.0536 0.0394 2,175.418
1 Unmitigated 3.6403 1.7663 7.8873 0.0111 0.1759 0.1759 0.1759 0.1759

0.0000 2,162.335
8 2,162.335
8 0.0536 0.0394 2,175.418
1 Mitigated 3.6403 1.7663 7.8873 0.0111 0.1759 0.1759 0.1759 0.1759 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10

Page 2078 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 9 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Summer

0.0000 2,149.411
8 2,149.411
8 0.0412 0.0394 2,162.184
6 Hearth 0.1970 1.6837 0.7165 0.0108 0.1361 0.1361 0.1361 0.1361 Consumer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Products

2.7351
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

0.4930
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

Page 2079 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 1 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Winter Vehicle Trips - Updated trip generation per traffic report (Dudek).

Woodstoves - No woodstoves or hearths.

Land Use - 87 units including 51 single family homes, 11 granny flats, and 25 multi family residential units. Updated population per City of St Helna avg household size from BayAreaCensus.

CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
206 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006
64 Climate Zone 4 Operational Year 2029
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2
Date: 3/3/2021 4:18 PM
Hunter Subdivision Project
Napa County, Winter

Page 2080 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Winter tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.69 0.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 1.56 3.40
tblFireplaces NumberWood 4.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 21.93 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 4.08 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.87 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 0.44 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberNoFireplace 1.00 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 3.75 25.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 12.75 51.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 228.80 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberGas 1.65 11.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 228.80 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 228.80 0.00
tblEnergyUse T24NG 15,568.01 14,789.61
tblEnergyUse T24NG 25,910.09 23,578.18
tblEnergyUse T24E 325.76 312.73
tblEnergyUse T24NG 7,043.85 6,409.90
tblEnergyUse T24E 365.68 351.05
tblEnergyUse T24E 249.32 244.33
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 300.00 261.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 65.00
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
Solid Waste - Default rates used.

Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Implement fugitive dust reduction measures - water twice daily.

Mobile Land Use Mitigation - Project would implement a pedestrian network on and off-site, project site is approximately 0.4 mi from VINE transit.

Water Mitigation - 20% indoor/outdoor reduction in water assumed for CALGreen compliance.

Energy Use - Adjusted T24 energy intensities to meet 2019 T24 standards. Single-family savings are 4% of electricity and 9% of gas. MF savings are 2% and 5%.

Water And Wastewater - Indoor water consumption updated per Preliminary Water Calculations Technical Memorandum (RSA). Page 2081 of 4069 Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 3 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Winter tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 582.40 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 14.12 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 21.06 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 2,094,843.56 2,094,844.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 14.12 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 71,488.88 0.00
tblWater OutdoorWaterUseRate 1,026,884.10 1,026,884.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 1,628,850.64 1,275,310.00
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 3,322,855.31 3,492,027.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 9.52 9.44
tblWater IndoorWaterUseRate 716,694.28 1,711,778.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 1.89 0.00
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 5.81 9.44
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 8.62 8.31
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 7.36
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 16.74 0.00
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 4.84 8.31
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 9.91 9.56
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.94
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 22.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 5.67 9.56
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 9.00 11.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 8.18
tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 10.00 11.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 45.00 55.00
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 206 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 2.00
tblLandUse Population 72.00 62.00
tblLandUse Population 146.00 126.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 16.56 13.40
tblLandUse Population 31.00 27.00

Page 2082 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 4 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Winter

0.0000 6,181.402
7 6,181.402
7 0.2061 0.0507 6,201.675
3 Total 4.4228 6.8552 16.4854 0.0476 3.5327 0.2389 3.7717 0.9444 0.2373 1.1817 3,401.106
7 3,401.106
7 0.1407 3,404.624
8 Mobile 0.7258 4.6049 8.3922 0.0333 3.5327 0.0239 3.5566 0.9444 0.0223 0.9666 Energy 0.0567 0.4841 0.2060 3.0900e- 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 617.9601 617.9601 0.0118 0.0113 621.6324 003

0.0000 6,589.156
9 6,589.156
9 0.2167 0.0507 6,609.692
9 Total 4.4561 7.0841 17.2462 0.0516 4.0054 0.2416 4.2469 1.0707 0.2398 1.3105 3,808.860
9 3,808.860
9 0.1513 3,812.642
4 Mobile 0.7591 4.8337 9.1529 0.0373 4.0054 0.0265 4.0319 1.0707 0.0247 1.0954 Energy 0.0567 0.4841 0.2060 3.0900e- 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 617.9601 617.9601 0.0118 0.0113 621.6324 003

2.2 Overall Operational
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 956.80 0.00

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 582.40 0.00

Page 2083 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 5 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Winter

15.00 54.00 86 11 3

15.00 54.00 86 11 3
Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00

48.00 19.00 66 28 6
Condo/Townhouse 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00

15.00 54.00 86 11 3
City Park 9.50 7.30 7.30 33.00
H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Apartments Low Rise 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00

4.3 Trip Type Information
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or CW
Total 798.40 816.54 707.90 1,820,116 1,605,342
Single Family Housing 481.44 487.56 423.81 1,094,942 965,739 Condo/Townhouse 236.00 239.00 207.75 536,736 473,401
City Park 0.00 0.00 0.00
Apartments Low Rise 80.96 89.98 76.34 188,438 166,202
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
3,812.642
4 4.2 Trip Summary Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated

1.0954 3,808.860
9 3,808.860
9 0.0373 4.0054 0.0265 4.0319 1.0707 0.0247 0.1513
3,401.106
7 3,401.106
7 0.1407 3,404.624
8 Unmitigated 0.7591 4.8337 9.1529

0.0239 3.5566 0.9444 0.0223 0.9666
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.7258 4.6049 8.3922 0.0333 3.5327
Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
Increase Transit Accessibility
Improve Pedestrian Network
ROG NOx CO SO2

11.80 1.10 11.19 11.80 1.03 9.83 0.00 6.19 6.19 4.86 0.00 6.17 NBio-CO2 Total
CO2
CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.75 3.23 4.41 7.78
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Bio- CO2
PM10

Page 2084 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 6 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Winter NaturalGas 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 617.9601 617.9601 0.0118 0.0113 621.6324 Unmitigated

0.0567 0.4841 0.2060 3.0900e003

0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 617.9601 617.9601 0.0118 0.0113 621.6324 CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0567 0.4841 0.2060 3.0900e003
PM2.5
Total
SO2 Fugitive Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5

0.001019 0.000688

5.0 Energy Detail
Historical Energy Use: N

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
ROG NOx CO
Single Family Housing 0.621482 0.031755 0.164303 0.096476 0.014320 0.004717 0.015934 0.038849 0.003869 0.001558 0.005029

0.038849 0.003869 0.001558 0.005029 0.001019 0.000688

SBUS MH
Apartments Low Rise 0.621482 0.031755 0.164303 0.096476 0.014320 0.004717 0.015934 Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY

4.4 Fleet Mix Page 2085 of 4069
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 7 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Winter Total 0.0566 0.4841 0.2060 3.0900e- 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 0.0391 617.9601 617.9601 0.0118 0.0113 621.6324 003
439.4495 439.4495 8.4200e0038.0600e003Single Family 0.0278 0.0278 0.0278 0.0278 442.0610 Housing

3.73532 0.0403 0.3442 0.1465 2.2000e003
144.5980 144.5980 2.7700e0032.6500e0039.1600e- 145.4573 003

9.1600e0039.1600e0039.1600e003Condo/Townhous
e

1.22908 0.0133 0.1133 0.0482 7.2000e004
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

33.9126 33.9126 6.5000e0046.2000e0042.1500e- 34.1141
003

2.1500e0032.1500e0032.1500e003Apartments Low
Rise

9.1600e0039.1600e0039.1600e003Condo/Townhous
e
1229.08 0.0133 0.1133 0.0482 7.2000e004
City Park 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

33.9126 33.9126 6.5000e0046.2000e0042.1500e- 34.1141
003

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

Page 2086 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 8 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Winter

0.0000 2,149.411
8 2,149.411
8 0.0412 0.0394 2,162.184
6 Hearth 0.1970 1.6837 0.7165 0.0108 0.1361 0.1361 0.1361 0.1361 Consumer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Products

2.7351
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

0.4930
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2

6.2 Area by SubCategory
Unmitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

0.0000 2,162.335
8 2,162.335
8 0.0536 0.0394 2,175.418
1 Unmitigated 3.6403 1.7663 7.8873 0.0111 0.1759 0.1759 0.1759 0.1759

6.0 Area Detail

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10

Page 2087 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 9 of 9 ends

Hunter Subdivision Project Operations - Napa County, Winter

0.0000 2,149.411
8 2,149.411
8 0.0412 0.0394 2,162.184
6 Hearth 0.1970 1.6837 0.7165 0.0108 0.1361 0.1361 0.1361 0.1361 Consumer 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Products

2.7351
Architectural 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating

0.4930
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2
Mitigated
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10

Page 2088 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Hunter Subdivision - Construction
Phase 1
Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment
Phase Equipment Type
Number of
Equipment
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4
Grading Excavators 2
Grading Graders 1
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1
Grading Scrapers 2
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2
Paving Pavers 2
Paving Paving Equipment 2
Paving Rollers 2
Building Construction Cranes 1
Building Construction Forklifts 3
Building Construction Generator Sets 1
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3
Building Construction Welders 1
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1
Construction Equipment Diesel Demand
Phase
Pieces of
Equipment
Equipment
CO2 (MT)
Site Preparation 7 16.73
Grading 8 26.06
Paving 6 20.03
Building Construction 9 173.85
Architectural Coating 1 2.55
Construction Worker Gasoline Demand
Phase Trips
Vehicle
CO2 (MT)
Site Preparation 180 0.55
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2089 of 4069 ends

Grading 400 1.22
Paving 300 0.92
Building Construction 8,250 25.18
Architectural Coating 220 0.65
Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand
Phase Trips
Vehicle
CO2 (MT)
Site Preparation 0 0.00
Grading 40 0.50
Paving 0 0.00
Building Construction 1,650 20.47
Architectural Coating 0 0.00
Construction Haul Truck Diesel Demand
Phase Trips
Vehicle
CO2 (MT)
Site Preparation 0 0.00
Grading 0 0.00
Paving 0 0.00
Building Construction 0 0.00
Architectural Coating 0 0.00
Phase 2
Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment
Phase Equipment Type
Number of
Equipment
Building Construction Cranes 1
Building Construction Forklifts 3
Building Construction Generator Sets 1
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3
Building Construction Welders 1
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2090 of 4069 ends

Construction Equipment Diesel Demand
Phase
Pieces of
Equipment
Equipment
CO2 (MT)
Building Construction 9 173.89
Architectural Coating 1 2.55
Construction Worker Gasoline Demand
Phase Trips
Vehicle
CO2 (MT)
Building Construction 8,250 24.17
Architectural Coating 220 0.64
Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand
Phase Trips
Vehicle
CO2 (MT)
Building Construction 1,650 20.35
Architectural Coating 0 0.00
Phase 3
Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment
Phase Equipment Type
Number of
Equipment
Building Construction Cranes 1
Building Construction Forklifts 3
Building Construction Generator Sets 1
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3
Building Construction Welders 1
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1
Construction Equipment Diesel Demand
Phase
Pieces of
Equipment
Equipment
CO2 (MT)
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2091 of 4069 ends

Building Construction 9 266.71
Architectural Coating 1 2.30
Construction Worker Gasoline Demand
Phase Trips
Vehicle
CO2 (MT)
Building Construction 12,650 35.42
Architectural Coating 198 0.54
Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand
Phase Trips
Vehicle
CO2 (MT)
Building Construction 2,530 31.02
Architectural Coating 0 0.00
Phase 4
Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment
Phase Equipment Type
Number of
Equipment
Building Construction Cranes 1
Building Construction Forklifts 3
Building Construction Generator Sets 1
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3
Building Construction Welders 1
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1
Construction Equipment Diesel Demand
Phase
Pieces of
Equipment
Equipment
CO2 (MT)
Building Construction 9 173.94
Architectural Coating 1 2.30
Construction Worker Gasoline Demand
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2092 of 4069 ends

Phase Trips
Vehicle
CO2 (MT)
Building Construction 8,250 22.30
Architectural Coating 198 0.54
Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand
Phase Trips
Vehicle
CO2 (MT)
Building Construction 1,650 20.14
Architectural Coating 0 0.00
Phase 5
Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment
Phase Equipment Type
Number of
Equipment
Building Construction Cranes 1
Building Construction Forklifts 3
Building Construction Generator Sets 1
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3
Building Construction Welders 1
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1
Construction Equipment Diesel Demand
Phase
Pieces of
Equipment
Equipment
CO2 (MT)
Building Construction 9 173.94
Architectural Coating 1 2.30
Construction Worker Gasoline Demand
Phase Trips
Vehicle
CO2 (MT)
Building Construction 8,250 21.52
Architectural Coating 198 0.52
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2093 of 4069 ends

Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand
Phase Trips
Vehicle
CO2 (MT)
Building Construction 1,650 20.04
Architectural Coating 0 0.00
Phase 6
Hours of Operation for Construction Equipment
Phase Equipment Type
Number of
Equipment
Building Construction Cranes 1
Building Construction Forklifts 2
Building Construction Generator Sets 1
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1
Building Construction Welders 3
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1
Construction Equipment Diesel Demand
Phase
Pieces of
Equipment
Equipment
CO2 (MT)
Building Construction 8 155.80
Architectural Coating 1 2.30
Construction Worker Gasoline Demand
Phase Trips
Vehicle
CO2 (MT)
Building Construction 8,250 20.84
Architectural Coating 198 0.50
Construction Vendor Truck Diesel Demand
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2094 of 4069 ends

Phase Trips
Vehicle
CO2 (MT)
Building Construction 1,650 19.95
Architectural Coating 0 0.00
Total For All Phases
Hours of
Equipmment Use
Equipment
CO2 (MT)
Site Preparation 560 16.73
Grading 1,280 26.06
Paving 960 20.03
Building Construction 65,440 1,118.13
Architectural Coating 672 12.54
Total 68,912 1,193
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2095 of 4069 ends

Hours/day
Phase
Duration
Hours of
Equipmment
Use
Phase Hours
Subtotals
8 10 240
8 10 320 560
8 20 320
8 20 160
8 20 160
8 20 320
8 20 320 1,280
8 20 320
8 20 320
8 20 320 960
7 150 1,050
8 150 3,600
8 150 1,200
7 150 3,150
8 150 1,200 10,200
6 20 120 120
Total 13,120
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

10.21 1,638.13

10.21 2,552.46

10.21 1,961.49

10.21 17,027.76

10.21 250.07
Total 23,429.90
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

8.78 62.57
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2096 of 4069 ends

8.78 139.04

8.78 104.28

8.78 2,867.69

8.78 74.19
Total 3,247.78
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

10.21 0.00

10.21 48.60

10.21 0.00

10.21 2,004.57

10.21 0.00
Total 2,053.17
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

10.21 0.00

10.21 0.00
Total 0.00
Hours/day
Phase
Duration
Hours of
Equipmment
Use
Phase Hours
Subtotals
7 150 1,050
8 150 3,600
8 150 1,200
7 150 3,150
8 150 1,200 10,200
6 20 120 120
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2097 of 4069 ends

Total 10,320
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

10.21 17,031.03

10.21 250.08
Total 17,281.11
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

8.78 2,753.29

8.78 73.42
Total 2,826.71
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

10.21 1,993.38

10.21 0.00
Total 1,993.38
Hours/day
Phase
Duration
Hours of
Equipmment
Use
Phase Hours
Subtotals
7 230 1,610
8 230 5,520
8 230 1,840
7 230 4,830
8 230 1,840 15,640
6 18 108 108
Total 15,748
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2098 of 4069 ends

10.21 26,122.14

10.21 225.06
Total 26,347.20
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

8.78 4,033.69

8.78 60.97
Total 4,094.66
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

10.21 3,038.25

10.21 0.00
Total 3,038.25
Hours/day
Phase
Duration
Hours of
Equipmment
Use
Phase Hours
Subtotals
7 150 1,050
8 150 3,600
8 150 1,200
7 150 3,150
8 150 1,200 10,200
6 18 108 108
Total 10,308
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

10.21 17,036.18

10.21 225.06
Total 17,261.24
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2099 of 4069 ends

Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

8.78 2,540.40

8.78 60.97
Total 2,601.37
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

10.21 1,972.22

10.21 0.00
Total 1,972.22
Hours/day
Phase
Duration
Hours of
Equipmment
Use
Phase Hours
Subtotals
7 150 1,050
8 150 3,600
8 150 1,200
7 150 3,150
8 150 1,200 10,200
6 18 108 108
Total 10,308
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

10.21 17,036.18

10.21 225.06
Total 17,261.24
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

8.78 2,451.58

8.78 58.84
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2100 of 4069 ends

Total 2,510.42
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

10.21 1,962.44

10.21 0.00
Total 1,962.44
Hours/day
Phase
Duration
Hours of
Equipmment
Use
Phase Hours
Subtotals
8 150 1,200
7 150 2,100
8 150 1,200
6 150 900
8 150 3,600 9,000
6 18 108 108
Total 9,108
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

10.21 15,259.70

10.21 225.06
Total 15,484.76
Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

8.78 2,373.22

8.78 56.96
Total 2,430.18
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2101 of 4069 ends

Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons

10.21 1,954.39

10.21 0.00
Total 1,954.39
Equipment
Gallons
Worker
Trips
Worker
CO2 (MT)
Worker
Gallons
Vendor
Trips
Vendor
CO2 (MT)
1,638.13 180 0.55 62.57 0 0.00
2,552.46 400 1.22 139.04 40 0.50
1,961.49 300 0.92 104.28 0 0.00
109,512.98 53,900 149.43 17,019.87 10,780 131.97
1,400.40 1,232 3.38 385.34 0 0.00
117,065.46 56,012 156 17,711.12 10,820 132
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2102 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2103 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2104 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2105 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2106 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2107 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2108 of 4069 ends

Vendor
Gallons

0.00 48.60

0.00 12,925.25

0.00 12,973.85
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2109 of 4069 ends

Hunter Subdivision - Operations
Natural Gas Consumption
Land Use kBTU/yr Therms
Apartment Low Rise 105,214.00 1,052.14
Condo/Townhouse 448,615.00 4,486.15
Single-Family Housing 1,363,390.00 13,633.90
Total kBTU 1,917,219.00 19,172.19 1,917,219,000.00 BTU
1 Therm 100,000 BTU
Total Therms 19,172.19 19,172.19 Total Therms
lda ldt1 ldt2 mdv ldh1 ldh2 mhd hhd obus ubus mcy sbus mh

0.609162 0.038894 0.1786 0.101308 0.013823 0.005356 0.016956 0.024628 0.001928 0.001823 0.005807 0.000764 0.00095

0.928914

0.071086
Mobile Source Fuel Consumption - Operation
Fuel
Vehicle
CO2 (MT) Kg/CO2/Gallon Gallons
Gasoline 510.16 8.78 58,104.81
Diesel 39.04 10.21 3,823.75
Total 61,928.56
California's Consumption of Petroleum Over Construction Period 78,600,000 gallons per day
89,761,200,000.00

0.09%
Site Preparation 3/20/2023 3/31/2023 10 days
Grading 4/1/2023 4/28/2023 20 days
Paving 4/29/2023 5/26/2023 20 days
Building Construction 5/27/2023 12/22/2023 150 days
Architectural Coating 12/23/2023 1/19/2024 20 days
Building Construction 3/18/2024 10/11/2024 150 days
Architectural Coating 10/12/2024 11/8/2024 20 days
Building Construction 3/17/2025 1/30/2026 230 days
Architectural Coating 1/31/2026 2/25/2026 18 days
Building Construction 3/23/2026 10/16/2026 150 days
Architectural Coating 10/17/2026 11/11/2026 18 days
Building Construction 3/22/2027 10/15/2027 150 days
Architectural Coating 10/16/2027 11/10/2027 18 days
Building Construction 3/20/2028 10/13/2028 150 days
Architectural Coating 10/14/2028 11/8/2028 18 days
1142
Phase 6
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
Agenda Item #6.4.

Page 2110 of 4069 ends

WETLAND DELINEATION

FOR THE
±16-ACRE HUNTER-ST. HELENA PROPERTY
ST. HELENA, NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared on behalf of:

Blackman Consulting
1224 St. Helen Avenue
Santa Rosa, California 95404
Contact: Ken Blackman
Prepared by:
110 Maple Street, Auburn, California 95603
(530) 887-8500
September 12, 2006
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2111 of 4069 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................1 Contact Information...................................................................................................................................1 Methods.......................................................................................................................................................4 Results..........................................................................................................................................................4 Climate and Weather.............................................................................................................................4 Soils ..........................................................................................................................................................4 Hydrology...............................................................................................................................................6 Vegetation ...............................................................................................................................................6 Waters of the United States ..................................................................................................................6 Ditch.....................................................................................................................................................8 References and other Sources...................................................................................................................8

FIGURES
Figure 1. Site and Vicinity Map............................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Aerial Photograph .................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3. Soil Map ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4. Site Photos ................................................................................................................................. 7 TABLES
Table 1. Waters of the United States....................................................................................................... 8

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Wetland Data Sheets
Appendix B. Wetland Status of Plant Species Observed During Survey July 2006 Appendix C. Wetland Delineation Map
Appendix D. GIS Files
ii
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2112 of 4069 ends

WETLAND DELINEATION

FOR THE
±16-ACRE HUNTER-ST. HELENA PROJECT

INTRODUCTION
North Fork Associates conducted a wetland delineation for the approximately 16-acre HunterSt. Helena project site. The project site is located west of Pope Street between State Highway 29 and the Silverado Trail in St. Helena, Napa County, California. The project site is situated within the Carne Humana land grant, Township 8 north, and Range 5 west (Figure 1).

Approximate coordinates of the center of the site are 38°30’40.44” north and 122°27’50.55” west.

Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 009-030-020-000 comprises the project site.

The property sits in the Napa Valley, approximately 800 feet southwest of the Napa River, at approximately 220 feet in elevation. The site is essentially flat with a very slight slope down to the north. Active grape production occurs on the majority of the property and a dirt road runs along the western boundary. The property is surrounded by agricultural (grapes) and residential land uses (Figure 2).

Directions: From San Francisco, take Interstate 80 east towards Oakland. After approximately 31 miles, take the State Highway 37 exit towards Napa. After approximately 2 miles, take State Highway 29 towards Downtown Vallejo/Napa. Continue on State Highway 29 north for approximately 28 miles to St. Helena. Take a right on Pope Street and a left on Starr Avenue.

Starr Avenue dead-ends. The project site is to the west (approximately 100 feet from the end of Starr Avenue).

CONTACT INFORMATION
Property Owner: Delineator:

Dennis R. Hunter North Fork Associates
P.O. Box 9069 110 Maple Street, Suite 100
Santa Rosa, California 95405 Auburn, California 95603
Phone: (707) 579-1007 Phone: (530) 887-8500
Mobile: (707) 481-7801 Fax: (530) 887-1250
Contact: Erin Gottschalk
1 Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2113 of 4069 ends

a Drive
Interstate 80
Project Site
NOTES:

Base map: St. Helena, CA, USGS

7.5 minute topographic quadrangle
Figure 1

SITE & VICINITY MAP
Hunter-St. Helena
St. Helena, Napa County, California
0 1000 2000
Approximate scale in feet
Project Site
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2114 of 4069 ends

Aerial Map
Figure 2
Hunter-St. Helena
St. Helena, Napa County, California
Monte Vista Ct
Star Ave
0 50 100 200
±
Scale in Feet
NOTES: Date of Photo: August 29, 2006
Project Site
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2115 of 4069 ends

METHODS
Waters of the United States were delineated on July 17, 2006 by Erin Gottschalk (Associate Biologist). The delineation was conducted according to the 1987 Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Several soil pits were dug, and information about vegetation, soils, and hydrology was recorded on four of them. Data sheets are located in Appendix A.

Information on soils was taken from the Napa County soil survey (USDA, NRCS 1978). In the field, a Munsell Color (2000) chart was used to determine moist soil colors.

Common plant names are used in this document. Appendix B is a list of plants observed during the delineation, along with the scientific name and wetland status of each species.

Scientific names follow The Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993), as updated by the Jepson Interchange, an online database maintained by the University of California and the Jepson Herbaria. The wetland status for species observed was taken from Reed (1988).

A Trimble GeoXT global positioning system (GPS) was used to obtain location information about data points, wetland areas, and other pertinent features. The GPS data were corrected in the office using the nearest available base station. The GPS data was then overlaid on a 2002 aerial photograph in ArcGIS to create the wetland delineation map in Appendix C. Appendix D contains a CD ROM with the electronic files in ArcView shape format.

RESULTS
Climate and Weather
Roughly 35 inches of rain fall annually in St. Helena, and most falls between October and April.

The late winter and early spring of 2006 produced substantially above normal rainfall; however, June and July were relatively dry with below normal rainfall. The average maximum temperature for St. Helena in July is 89.7°F. During the field survey for this wetland delineation, the temperatures rose over 100°F.

Soils
Four soil units have been mapped on the project site (Figure 3):
• Bale clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
• Bale clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
• Cole silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
• Cortina very gravely loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Bale soils are Cumulic Ultic Haploxerolls formed in stratified, gravelly, and sandy alluvium from mixed sources. They are on nearly level to gently sloping alluvial fans and terraces. Moist A-horizon chromas are between 1 and 2. Bale soils are somewhat poorly drained with moderate permeability. Some areas supporting Bale soils have a water table within four feet of the surface and are ponded for short periods in the winter. Bale clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is considered a hydric soil by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. 4 Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2116 of 4069 ends

Soil Map
Figure 3
Hunter-St. Helena
St. Helena, Napa County, California
105
118
124
104
0 50 100 200
±
Scale in Feet
104 - Bale clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
105 - Bale clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
118 - Cole silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
124 - Cortina very gravelly loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes NOTES: Date of Photo: August 29, 2006
Project Site
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2117 of 4069 ends

Cole soils are Pachic Argixerolls formed in alluvium from mixed sources. These soils are on river terraces, basins, flood plains, or on alluvial fans. Moist A-horizon chromas are between 1 and 3. Cole soils are somewhat poorly drained with slow permeability. Many areas supporting Cole soils have been artificially drained or have drainage altered by gullying. Cole silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is considered a hydric soil by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Cortina soils are Typic Xerofluvents formed in gravelly alluvium from mixed rock sources.

They are very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils on alluvial fans and floodplains. Moist A-horizon chromas range between 1 and 3. Cortina soils have rapid permeability. Cortina very gravely loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes, is considered a hydric soil by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Hydrology
Hydrology within the study area is driven by precipitation and storm water and irrigation runoff. The site is essentially flat with a very slight slope down to the north. Two vegetated ditches occur along the north and northeastern property boundaries. These ditches carry storm water and irrigation runoff. The ditches likely tie in with the existing storm drainage system and/or drain into Sulphur Creek (a tributary to the Napa River) or the Napa River. The Napa River is located approximately 800 feet northeast of the property. Sulphur Creek is located approximately 900 feet southeast. The Napa River travels south through the Napa Valley and in Vallejo it empties into the San Pablo Bay.

Vegetation
The property supports a vineyard in active agricultural production. The dominant plant species on the property is cultivated grape. Other than the grapes, the ground supports mostly no vegetation due to the regular disking and weed removal. Sparse ruderal vegetation adapted to disturbance occurs scattered throughout the property. Species include field hedge-parsley, bindweed, spotted spurge, alkali mallow, fluellin, and prickly lettuce. Scattered hyssop loosestrife occurs under the grape vines.

The very northern portion of the property does not support rows of grapes. Currently the majority of this area supports disked fields (refer to Figure 4 for a photograph of this area); only a small area adjacent to the dirt road is not regularly disked. According to the vineyard manager, this small area is the grape loading area and is not disked in order to maintain a firm level ground for the grape bins and trucks.

Please note that the northeastern corner of the property used to support a detention feature (which was used for irrigation); however, the detention feature has since been removed as part of the onsite agricultural activities as it was no longer needed for irrigation. This area is now part of the disked field.

A large valley oak occurs in the very northwestern corner of the property. A few smaller valley oaks and red and arroyo willows occur along the eastern property boundary. The vegetation within the ditches is described in the following section.

Waters of the United States
One category of waters of the United States has been mapped on the project site: ditch. Table 1 is an acreage summary of the ditches on the property, and Figure 4 shows representative examples. The wetland delineation map is included in Appendix C. 6 Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2118 of 4069 ends

Photo Date: July 16, 2006
Figure 4

SITE PHOTOS
Hunter-St.Helena
St. Helena, Napa County, California
Ditch - 2
Looking east from northwest corner of property.

Close-up of vegetaton in Ditch-1.

Ditch-1
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2119 of 4069 ends

Table 1
Waters of the United States
Type Acreage
Other Waters:

Ditch
Ditch-1
Ditch-2

0.10 (0.08)
(0.02)
Total Waters of the United States 0.10
Ditch
Ditch-1 travels along the northern site boundary, from the northwest to the northeast property corners. A portion of the ditch is located within a 30-foot long 36-inch culvert as it travels under the dirt road. Ditch-1 is seven feet wide at ordinary high water mark. This larger ditch is visible on aerial photos and apparently carries irrigation and storm water runoff from the surrounding properties and drains into Sulphur Creek or the Napa River. Vegetation within Ditch-1 includes cattail, pennyroyal, curly dock, annual beard grass, water plantain, and narrow-leaved willow.

Ditch-2 is located along the eastern property boundary. It is a smaller ditch, 1 to 3 feet wide at ordinary high water mark. Ditch-2 may be receiving the majority of its water as runoff from the irrigated soccer field located just to the east of the property. Ditch-1 connects with Ditch-2 and with a 24-inch drop-culvert and may drain into both of these features. Vegetation within Ditch1 includes tall flatsedge, curlydock, bristly ox-tongue, pennyroyal, blackberry, bindweed, and hyssop loosestrife.

REFERENCES AND OTHER SOURCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1.

Hickman, J. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson Manual. U.C. Press. Berkeley, CA Holland, V.L. and David J. Keil. 1995. California Vegetation. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA.

Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York, NY.

Munsell Color. 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. GretagMacbeth. New Windsor, NY.

Reed, P.B. 1988. National List of Species that Occur in Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Richardson, J.L. and M.J. Vepraskas (eds.). Wetland Soils: Genesis, Hydrology, Landscapes, and Classification. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.

Sprecher, S. 1999. Using the NRCS Hydric Soil Indicators with Soils with Thick A Horizons.

WRP Technical Notes Collection (TN WRP SG-DE-4.1). Vicksburg, MS.

Soil Survey Staff. 1992. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 5th Edition. SMSS Technical Monograph No.

19. Pocahontas Press, Blacksburg, VA.

University of California. 2004. The Jepson Interchange. University and Jepson Herbaria. 8 Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2120 of 4069 ends

USDA, NRCS. 1978. Soils Survey of Napa County, California.

USDA, NRCS. 2003. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 4.01. G.W.

Hurt, P.M. Whited, and R.F. Pringle (eds.) USDA, NRCS in cooperation with the National Technical Committed for Hydric Soils, Fort Worth, TX.

Vepraskas, M.J. 1999. Redoximorphic Features for Identifying Aquic Conditions. North Carolina Agricultural Research Service, Technical Bulletin 301. Raleigh, NC. 9 Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2121 of 4069 ends

Appendix A
Wetland Data Sheets
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2122 of 4069 ends

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
Project/Site: Hunter-St. Helena Sample Point: 1
Applicant/Owner: Ken Blackman/Dennis Hunter State: California Investigator: E. Gottschalk County: Napa
Date: July 16, 2006 S/T/R: Carne Humana land grant/T8N/ R5W
Quad: St. Helena
Veg Type: vegetated ditch

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site substantially disturbed (atypical situation)? Yes No Is the site a potential problem area? (Explain) Yes No

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species % Cover Status Non-Dominant Plant Species % Cover Status Polypogon monspeliensis 35 FACW+ Rumex crispus 10 FACWCyperus eragrostis 20 FACW Xanthium strumarium 5 FAC+ Typha sp. 20 OBL Lolium multiflorum 5 FAC*
Mentha pulegium 10 OBL
Alisma plantago-aquatica 5 OBL

Percentage of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% Remarks: Vegetated ditch. Apparently water remains in the ditch for a period of time after it flows through.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: YES NO

HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? Yes No
Inundated? Yes No Saturated? Yes No Depth of standing or flowing water:

Depth to standing water in pit:

Dept to saturation:

Primary Indicators: Secondary Indicators
Inundated Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12"
Saturated in Upper 12" Water-Stained Leaves
Water Marks/Drift Lines Local Soil Survey Data
Sediment Deposit Fac Neutral test
Algal Matting Other
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Remarks: Ordinary high water mark is 7 feet.

Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2123 of 4069 ends

SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series/Phase): Cole silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): _Pachic Argixerolls
Drainage: _somewhat poor Permeability: slow
Redoximorphic Features
Horizon
Depth
Inches
Matrix
Color Texture
Abundance/
Size/Contrast Type Color
A 10 10 YR 2/1.5 loamy Faint mottles

Matches soil description: Yes No
Hydric soil indicators:

Hydric Soils Present? YES NO
WATERS OF THE U.S. DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: Vegetated ditch
Is the point in a wetland? Yes No
Is the point in other waters? Yes No
Redoximorphic Feature Abbreviations:

Abundance Size: Contrast
F - few 1 - fine (<2 mm) f - faint
C - common 2 – medium (2-5 mm) d - distinct
M – many 3 – coarse (5-20 mm) p - prominent
4 – very coarse (20-75 mm)
5 – extremely coarse >76 mm)
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2124 of 4069 ends

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
Project/Site: Hunter-St. Helena Sample Point: 2
Applicant/Owner: Ken Blackman/Dennis Hunter State: California Investigator: E. Gottschalk County: Napa
Date: July 16, 2006 S/T/R: Carne Humana land grant/T8N/R5W Quad: St. Helena
Veg Type: disked

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site substantially disturbed (atypical situation)? Yes No Is the site a potential problem area? (Explain) Yes No

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species % Cover Status Non-Dominant Plant Species % Cover Status

Percentage of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0% Remarks: Atypical situation: Disked as part of the ongoing agricultural production on the property and vegetation not present.

Pieces of vegetation found appear to be Vicia sativa (FACU) and Bromus hordeaceus (FACU-) (upland vegetation).

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: YES NO

HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? Yes No
Inundated? Yes No Saturated? Yes No Depth of standing or flowing water:

Depth to standing water in pit:

Dept to saturation:

Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2125 of 4069 ends

Matches soil description: Yes No
Hydric soil indicators:

Histosol Mn or Fe concretions or nodules
Sulfur odor Redox depletions
Aquic moisture regime High organic content on surface of sandy soils Reducing conditions Organic streaking in sandy soils
Gleyed or low-chroma (1 or less) matrix Listed on a Hydric soils list Matrix chroma of 2 or less with redox features Other
Remarks: Mottles and concretions present. Datapoint is in location of former detention feature. Soil is likely relic of this former detention feature that was used for irrigation purposes. It was removed because no longer needed for irrigation as part of normal agricultural practices.

Hydric Soils Present? YES NO
WATERS OF THE U.S. DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: Upland comparison point.

Is the point in a wetland? Yes No
Is the point in other waters? Yes No
Redoximorphic Feature Abbreviations:

Page 2126 of 4069 ends

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
Project/Site: Hunter-St. Helena Sample Point: 3
Applicant/Owner: Ken Blackman/Dennis Hunter State: California Investigator: E. Gottschalk County: Napa
Date: July 16, 2006 S/T/R: Carne Humana land grant/T8N/R5W Quad: St. Helena
Veg Type: vegetated ditch

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site substantially disturbed (atypical situation)? Yes No Is the site a potential problem area? (Explain) Yes No

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species % Cover Status Non-Dominant Plant Species % Cover Status Cyperus eragrostis 50 FACW Picris echioides 10 FAC
Rumex crispus 50 FACW- Mentha pulegium 10 OBL
Epilobium ciliatum 5 FACW
Rubus discolor 5 FACW*
Polypogon monspeliensis 5 FACW+
Convolvulus arvensis 5 --
Percentage of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100% Remarks: Non-dominants also include Lythrum hyssopifolium (5%).

Vegetated ditch. Apparently water remains in the ditch for a period of time after it flows through.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: YES NO

HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? Yes No
Inundated? Yes No Saturated? Yes No Depth of standing or flowing water:

Depth to standing water in pit:

Dept to saturation:

Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2127 of 4069 ends

Matches soil description: Yes No
Hydric soil indicators:

Page 2128 of 4069 ends

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORM
Project/Site: Hunter-St. Helena Sample Point: 4
Applicant/Owner: Ken Blackman/Dennis Hunter State: California Investigator: E. Gottschalk County: Napa
Date: July 16, 2006 S/T/R: Carne Humana land grant/T8N/R5W Quad: St. Helena
Veg Type: ruderal

Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site substantially disturbed (atypical situation)? Yes No Is the site a potential problem area? (Explain) Yes No

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species % Cover Status Non-Dominant Plant Species % Cover Status Picris echioides 30 FAC Polypogon monspeliensis 10 FACW+ Convolvulus arvensis 30 -- Lythrum hyssopifolium 5 FACW Bromus hordeaceus 20 FACU- Vicia sativa 5 FACU

Percentage of dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 33% Remarks: Approximately 25 to 50 percent bare ground.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present: YES NO

HYDROLOGY
Is it the growing season? Yes No
Inundated? Yes No Saturated? Yes No Depth of standing or flowing water:

Depth to standing water in pit:

Dept to saturation:

Wetland Hydrology Present? YES NO
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2129 of 4069 ends

SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series/Phase): Bale clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Taxonomy (Subgroup): Cumulic Ultic Haploxerolls
Drainage: somewhat poor Permeability: moderate
Redoximorphic Features
Horizon
Depth
Inches
Matrix
Color Texture
Abundance/
Size/Contrast Type Color
A 10 10 YR 3/2 loamy None

Matches soil description: Yes No
Hydric soil indicators:

Hydric Soils Present? YES NO
WATERS OF THE U.S. DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
Remarks: Datapoint is located within a small area that is not disked in the northern portion of the property, adjacent to the dirt road. According to the vineyard manager, this area is not disked to maintain a firm loading area for the grape trucks and bins.

Is the point in a wetland? Yes No
Is the point in other waters? Yes No
Redoximorphic Feature Abbreviations:

Page 2130 of 4069 ends

Appendix B
Wetland Status of Plant Species Observed During Surveys Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2131 of 4069 ends

Plants Observed on the Hunter-St.Helena Property July 2006 Common Name Taxon Wetland Status
Alkali mallow Malvella leprosa FAC*
Annual beard grass Polypogon monspeliensis FACW+
Arroyo willow Salix lasiolepis FACW
Bermuda grass Cynodon dactylon FAC
Bindweed Convolvulus arvensis -
Black mustard Brassica nigra -
Bristly ox-tongue Picris echioides FAC
Broad-leaf filaree Erodium botrys -
Cattail Typha sp. OBL
Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium FAC+
Common groundsel Senecio vulgaris NI*
Common purslane Portulaca oleracea FAC
Common velvet grass Holcus lanatus FAC
Common vetch Vicia sativa FACU
Coyote brush Baccharis pilularis -
Creeping spikerush Eleocharis macrostachya OBL
Cultivated grape Vitis vinifera -
Curly dock Rumex crispus FACWCut-leaf geranium Geranium dissectum - Dallis grass Paspalum dilatatum FAC
Field hedge-parsley Torilis arvensis -
Fluellin Kickxia elatine -
Foxtail barley Hordeum murinum -
Hairy crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis FACU
Himalayan blackberry Rubus discolor FACW*
Hyssop loosestrife Lythrum hyssopifolium FACW
Italian ryegrass Lolium multiflorum FAC*
Narrow-leaved willow Salix exigua OBL
Oat Avena sp. -
Pennyroyal Mentha pulegium OBL
Prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola FAC
Red willow Salix laevigata FACW+
Ripgut grass Bromus diandrus -
Ruby sand-spurrey Spergularia rubra FACSoft chess Bromus hordeaceus FACUSpiny clotbur Xanthium spinosum FAC+ Spotted spurge Chamaesyce maculata FACU*
Summer cottonweed Epilobium brachycarpum -
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2132 of 4069 ends

Common Name Taxon Wetland Status
Tall flatsedge Cyperus eragrostis FACW
Toad rush Juncus bufonius FACW+
Valley oak Quercus lobata FAC*
Velvet-leaf Abutilon theophrasti NI
Water plantain Alisma plantago-aquatica OBL
Wild radish Raphanus sativus -
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2133 of 4069 ends

Appendix C
Wetland Delineation Map
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2134 of 4069 ends

DRAWN BY: E. Douglas
DELINEATORS: E. Gottschalk
DATE OF FIELDWORK: July 16, 2006
USACE REGULATORY FILE#: TBD
VERIFIED BY: TBD
DATE OF VERIFICATION: TBD

REVISIONS

DATE BY
NOTES: 1. Aerial photograph provided by Geoimagery. Date of photo: August 29, 2006

2. The boundaries and jurisdictional status of all waters shown on this map are preliminary DESCR and subject to verification by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District. IPTION

APPENDIX C
St. Helena, Napa County, CA
September 12, 2006
Hunter-St. Helena

WETLAND DELINEATION MAP
PREPARED BY:
110 Maple St
Auburn, CA 95603
(530) 887-8500
PREPARED FOR:

Blackman Consulting
1224 St. Helen Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95404
(707) 526-2782
Contact: Ken Blackman
!@
!@
!@
!<
!<
!
!
(531' x 7')
1 3
2 DITCH- 1
DITCH- 2
Monte Vista Ct.

Paseo Grand Dr.

Star Ave.
(78' x 3')
(108' x 2')
(86' x 1')
4 ±

WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

WATERS ACREAGE
TOTAL 0.10
Ditch 0.10

0.08 0.02
Project Site Boundary ( ±16 Acres)
Wetland Data Point
Upland Data Point
Culvert
!
!<
@
0 50 100 200
Feet
Scale 1:1,200
Ditch - 1
Ditch - 2
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2135 of 4069 ends

Appendix D
GIS Files
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2136 of 4069 ends

GIS Files are provided to the Corps and are available upon request.

Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2137 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2138 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2139 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2140 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2141 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2142 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2143 of 4069 ends

September 15, 2015
Ms Carla Violet
Urban Planning Partners, Inc.
350 Frank H Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
RE: Hunter Subdivision Project, St. Helena, CA
Dear Ms Violet:

At your request, WRA, Inc. made a site visit to the proposed Hunter Subdivision Project (Subdivision) in St. Helena (Figure 1) on March 20, 2015 for the purpose of reviewing existing conditions of the property where the Subdivision is proposed to be constructed and also to review an additional site at the intersection of Silverado Trail and Pope Street (Intersection) where new signalization is proposed in association with the Subdivision project. WRA previously prepared biological resources review of the Subdivision project in 2012, and this letter report provides updated information to augment that report. Also included in this letter is biological resources information for the area at the Intersection site that may be impacted by improvements related to changes in traffic signalization at the Intersection site.

A. Updated Biological Resource Assessment Information, Hunter Subdivision Site A site visit was conducted on March 20, 2015 by WRA staff in order to observe existing conditions of the property where the Subdivision has been proposed and compare to the conditions existing at the time the biological resources were assessed in 2012. The Subdivision property was found to be in a similar condition in 2015 as it was in 2012, with only maintenance work (e.g., mowing) conducted in the interim to control fuel loading (vegetation). There was no construction or other soil disturbances detected and it was determined the site conditions were comparable to conditions observed in 2012. The project description for the subdivision has not been changed and, therefore, potential impacts and evaluation completed in 2012 were reviewed in order to determine if results and conclusions then had changed and needed revision in 2015.

A list of special-status plant and wildlife species with potential to be present on the property or in proximity to it in the surrounding area was prepared for the 2012 biological assessment. This list was compared with current 2015 species information in data bases including the California Natural Diversity Data Base and California Native Plant Society Plant Inventory in order to determine if the status of species had changed or if species should be added to or removed from the list since 2012. The following information provides special-status species updated information:

Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2144 of 4069 ends

2 A.1. Plants
A total of 30 special-status plants were included in the 2012 list that had the potential for being in the region of the Subdivision site and had basic habitat or occurrence requirements that would allow plants to potentially be present. All of the plants were rated in 2012 as being Not Present or Unlikely to be present because specific factors needed to support many of the plants were not present on the site and also because the project site had been recently graded and disturbed; therefore, the probability that any of the special-status plants would be present was very low.

In 2015 the site conditions were observed to have not changed substantially since 2012. The site had been maintained in essentially the same condition and no new habitat types had been created or lost and no soil movement was detected. A review of the most recent list of plants potentially present (May 2015, see Attachment 1) indicates that the species having the potential to be present are essentially the same as 2012, however a few changes have been reported as shown in Figure 2. Despite these changes, re-evaluation indicates that the conclusions reached in 2012 are still valid in 2015 for the Subdivision portion of the Project (see discussion for the added Intersection site of the Project below).

A.2. Wildlife
In 2012, 28 special-status species of wildlife were identified as being potentially present in the area of the Subdivision site, including in adjacent areas and in proximity to the site such that they potentially could be impacted by development. Because wildlife have the capability of moving around, they generally are evaluated within a wider area and involving habitats that may occur in surrounding areas. A review of the recent listing of special-status species potentially present indicates that the same species still have the potential to be present and that new occurrences have been reported as shown in Figure 3. Evaluation of the species and potential impacts that could be caused by development indicates that the conclusions reached in 2012 remain the same in 2015 for the Subdivision site (see discussion for the added Intersection portion of the Project below).

A.3. Biological Communities and Habitat
The Subdivision site has been maintained in the same condition as it was in 2012 in which much of it had been graded and managed to maintain grassland habitat in prior years. The western portion, in vineyard in 2012, was still in vineyard in 2015 and other features noted in 2012, such as drainage ditches, were also still present in 2015. The Project is separated from the Napa River and the riparian habitat along the river (both considered sensitive habitats) by a water treatment pond and a habitat restoration area adjacent to the river; therefore the river and riparian habitat along the river was considered to be at far enough distance away from the development (approximately 500 feet) to not be adversely affected by the Project in the 2012 assessment, and that conclusion is still valid in 2015.

With the addition of the Intersection site, the chaparral/mixed broadleaf forest habitat on the hillside to the east would not be considered a sensitive habitat but the Napa River/riparian habitat to the west would be. Stream and/or riparian habitat is regulated by various agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (the Napa River at areas below the ordinary high water mark) and the California Department of Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2145 of 4069 ends

3 Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under 1600 Fish and Game Code (the Napa River, its banks, and riparian vegetation).

B. Biological Resource Assessment Information, Silverado Trail/Pope Street Intersection Site
Concerns that the Subdivision project may cause traffic congestion have been raised which may result in needing to install traffic lights and re-configure traffic lanes at the intersection of Silverado Trail and Pope Street (Intersection site), southeast of the Subdivision site (Figure 4).

The addition of traffic light signals at the intersection will require modification of the roadway, including occupying wider areas of the existing roadway in order to maintain throughway lanes, add turn lanes, add bicycle lanes, add median strips and raised islands, and install traffic signal lights (Figure 4). As proposed, however, all of these improvements can be completed within the existing footprint of the existing roadway hardscape because of areas along the roadway that have been paved or used as pull over areas. Therefore, the Intersection work will not result in removal of any existing habitat and will only utilize existing roadway area hardscape more efficiently.

The location of the Intersection site is between the Napa River to the west and a hillside and ridge to the east, and these areas have different habitat types from what is present at the Subdivision site. These additional habitat types are stream/riparian habitat associated with the Napa River and chaparral/mixed broadleaf forest on the hillside and ridge. The special-status species that may use these habitats need to be added to the species list and evaluated for potential impacts. In order to make the list complete, the additional species have been combined into the 2012 list, and the full list containing the original 2012 list and newly added species is provided as one updated list in this report (Attachment 1). Although no habitat area will be removed in order to complete the Intersection improvement work, the potential for adverse impacts to sensitive habitat and/or special-status species was evaluated. Specialstatus species that were evaluated and ranked as having a Moderate or High potential for being present are presented below.

B.1. Special-status Species of Plants Potentially Present at Intersection Site The stream/riparian and chaparral/mixed broadleaf forest habitats at the Intersection site have the potential for a number of plant species to be present that differ from the species at the Subdivision site. Therefore, the updated list of plant species includes the additions with a total number of plants now at 63 (see Attachment 1). Many of these additional potential species were determined to be Not Present or Unlikely to be present based on factors such as elevation range, soil type, or no known occurrences within several miles. Still, one plant was ranked as having High Potential for presence and three plants were ranked as having a Moderate Potential for presence, and these species are summarized below.

Napa false indigo (Amorpha californica var. napensis), High Potential. CNPS Rank 1B.2. – Often found in broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland and in openings in forest or woodland or in chaparral. Its elevation range is below 800 m and it blooms in May through July. In addition to its habitat type being present adjacent to the Intersection site area, known occurrences have been reported within a mile of the Project.

Clara Hunt’s milk-vetch (Astragalus claranus), Moderate Potential. Federal Endangered, State Threatened, CNPS Rank 1B.1. – This plant can be found in chaparral (openings), cismontane Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2146 of 4069 ends

4 woodland, valley and foothill grassland on serpentine or volcanic, rocky, clay soil. Elevation ranges of this plant are from 250 to 900 feet (75 to 275 meters), and it blooms March through May. There are occurrences of this plant reported in the area.

Narrow anthered brodiaea (Brodiaea leptandra), Moderate Potential. CNPS Rank 1B.2. This plant is found in broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, and in valley and foothill grassland at elevation ranges from 360 to 3000 feet (110 to 915 meters). It blooms in May through July. Suitable habitat is present, however elevation range of plant is generally higher than project area. The closest known occurrence is approximately 0.75 mile to east of Intersection site.

Greene’s narrow-leaved daisy (Erigeron greenei), Moderate Potential. CNPS Rank 1B.2.

Chaparral, and especially on serpentine or volcanic soil, is the preferred habitat for this species.

Its elevation range is from 260 to 3300 feet (80 to 1005 meters) and it blooms May through September. Although no serpentine soil is present, nearby occurrence is the main factor this plant warrants a Moderate rating for being present in areas adjacent to the site.

Because no exiting habitat will be removed in order to complete the Intersection improvements, no adverse impact to special-status plants is expected. No additional surveys or mitigation measures are needed or recommended.

B.2. Special-status Species of Wildlife Potentially Present at Intersection Site A review of the special-status wildlife species indicates that the same species described for the Subdivision site have the potential to be at the Intersection site. This is because of proximity to the Subdivision site and the fact that wildlife are not stationary and have the ability to move between habitat types (e.g., from nesting habitat to foraging habitat, etc.). However, the proximity of the Intersection site to the stream/riparian habitat and the chaparral/mixed broadleaf habitat causes the rating for presence of some of the wildlife species previously given in the 2012 assessment to change to higher probability, and these are summarized below:

Silver-haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), WBWG Medium Priority. Moderate Potential.

Primarily a forest dweller, feeding over streams, ponds, and open brushy areas. It roosts in hollow trees, snags, buildings, rock crevices, caves, and under bark. Previously rated as Unlikely to be present at the Subdivision site, the proximity of the riparian and chaparral/mixed broadleaf forest habitat to the Intersection site may provide roost habitat for this species and the rating is raised to Moderate.

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes), WBWG High Priority. Moderate Potential. A bat associated with a wide variety of habitats including mixed coniferous-deciduous forest and redwood/sequoia groves. Buildings, mines and large snags are important day and night roosts.

Previously rated as Unlikely for presence at the Subdivision site, the riparian and chaparral mixed broadleaf forest habitat in proximity to the Intersection site causes the rating for this species to be raised to Moderate.

Purple Martin (Progne subis), State Species of Special Concern. High Potential. A bird that inhabits woodlands and low elevation coniferous forests. It nests in old woodpecker cavities and human-made structures, and the nest is often located in a tall isolated tree or snag.

Previously considered to be Not Present at the Subdivision site, the forest habitat and recent reported occurrences in the area gives cause to raise the rating for presence to High.

Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2147 of 4069 ends

5 Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii), State Species of Special Concern. Moderate Potential Found in or near rocky streams in a variety of habitats and prefers partly-shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate; requires at least some cobble-sized substrate for egglaying. Previously rated as Not Present at the Subdivision site, the possibility that it could be present in the Napa River adjacent to the Intersection site raises the potential for occurrence to Moderate. It is not rated High because the nearest occurrence is approximately two miles west with the urban area of St. Helena in between. Therefore, there is no direct corridor that would allow migration between the Project location and the known occurrences.

Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata ), State Species of Special Concern. Moderate Potential. A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. It requires basking sites such as partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, or open mud banks, and suitable upland habitat (sandy banks or grassy open fields) for egg-laying. Previously rated as Unlikely to be present at the Subdivision site, this species may be present in the Napa River for use as a migration corridor, and the rating for potential presence is changed to Moderate.

Steelhead, Central California Coast ESU (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Federal Threatened. High Potential. Occurs from the Russian River south to Soquel Creek and Pajaro River. Also in San Francisco and San Pablo Bay Basins. Adults migrate upstream to spawn in cool, clear, welloxygenated streams. Juveniles remain in fresh water for 1 or more years before migrating downstream to the ocean. High rating is for the Napa River. This species is known to occur in upstream tributaries and likely migrates between those tributaries and downstream habitats, including the Pacific Ocean.

Other wildlife species evaluated but not rated as Moderate or High for potential presence are listed in Attachment 1.

The work to improve the intersection with traffic light signals, lane changes, and median strips and islands will be conducted within the existing footprint of roadway hardscape and no habitat will be removed. Although the construction work and eventual increased traffic may create activity and noise, this is not likely to cause an adverse impact to wildlife because a relatively high level of activity and noise is an existing condition at the intersection. This intersection was observed to be a busy intersection during the site visit conducted on an average afternoon in March 2015. Numerous vehicles were observed either traveling through the intersection on Silverado Trail and/or coming from or turning onto Pope Street and Howell Mountain Road; often there were vehicles backed up waiting to make turns. While additional construction work and traffic may result from the Subdivision project and may cause noise and traffic congestion at the Intersection, wildlife that is present in proximity to the intersection is already acclimated to activity, noise, and traffic as the normal condition. Any increase in activity, noise, or traffic that may be caused by the Subdivision project is not likely to affect wildlife adversely in any significant way because they are acclimated. Therefore, there are no recommendations needed to mitigate for an increase in construction activity, noise, and traffic.

B.3. Sensitive Habitat Community Evaluation
With the addition of stream/riparian and chaparral/mixed broadleaf forest habitats, only the stream/riparian habitat would be considered a sensitive habitat. No work will be conducted in the Napa River and work will only involve roadway areas that are existing hardscape that are 100 to 120 feet away from the river. No habitat or vegetation will be removed, therefore, no Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2148 of 4069 ends

6 impacts to sensitive habitat is expected as a result of work that will be conducted for improvements made at the Intersection site. No permits would be expected to be needed from the Corps or CDFW. Toxic liquids, such as paint, fuel, lubricants, and un-cured concrete, used during Intersection improvement work could adversely affect sensitive Napa River and riparian habitat if spilled or leaked in these habitats. However, measures to avoid or reduce the possibility of spillage or leaks will be included in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required to be prepared for the Project. This was addressed in the Project draft EIR in Section I. Hydrology and Water Quality, such as recommending fueling and maintenance offsite as much as possible and, if onsite, no closer than 50 feet to drain inlets, drainage courses, and receiving waters. Because the project is more than 100 feet away from the Napa River, no adverse impacts would be expected and no additional mitigation measures are recommended.

This concludes the review and evaluation of biological resources. If you have questions or require additional information, please contact us.

Sincerely,
Douglas Spicher
Encl.

Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2149 of 4069 ends

Date: December 2011
Map By: Derek Chan
Base Source: ESRI
Figure 1. Project Area Location Map
Hunter BRA
Napa County, CA
01 0.5
Miles
.

Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\21000\21204\GIS\ArcMap\Fig1_LocMap_20111213.mxd Detail Area
Project Area
Adams St.

Subdivision Site
Intersection Site
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2150 of 4069 ends

5 - mile buffer from Project Area
Figure 2. Special Status Plant Species within 5 miles of the Project Area
Hunter BRA
Napa County, California
024 1
Miles
.

Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\21000\21204\GIS\ArcMap\CNDDB_Plants_20150603.mxd Calistoga ceanothus
Calistoga popcornflower *
Clara Hunt's milk-vetch
Cobb Mountain lupine
Colusa layia
Greene's narrow-leaved daisy
Jepson's leptosiphon
Napa bluecurls
Napa checkerbloom
Napa false indigo
Rincon Ridge ceanothus
Sharsmith's western flax
Sonoma ceanothus
green jewelflower
holly-leaved ceanothus
marsh checkerbloom
narrow-anthered brodiaea
Map Prepared Date: 6/3/2015
Map Prepared By: dchan
Base Source:

Data Source(s): WRA
* Detailed location withheld by CDFW
Project Area
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2151 of 4069 ends

5 - mile buffer from Project Area
Figure 3. Special Status Wildlife Species within 5 miles of the Project Area
Hunter BRA
Napa County, California
024 1
Miles
.

Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\21000\21204\GIS\ArcMap\CNDDB_Wildlife_20150603.mxd !( Spotted Owl
Townsend's big-eared bat
bald eagle
foothill yellow-legged frog
fringed myotis
pallid bat
purple martin
steelhead - central California coast DPS
western pond turtle
American peregrine falcon *
Map Prepared Date: 6/3/2015
Map Prepared By: dchan
Base Source:

Data Source(s): WRA
* Detailed location withheld by CDFW
Project Area
Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2152 of 4069 ends

DRAFTFigure 4. Intersection improvement plan for the Silverado Trail/Pope Street Intersection. All improvement work will occur within areas of the existing roadway hardscape.

Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2153 of 4069 ends

Attachment 1. Special status plant and wildlife species that may occur, or are known to occur in habitats similar to those found on the Hunter Subdivision Project Area (Subdivision) and in the added Silverado Trail/Pope Street Intersection Signalization Area (Intersection). List compiled from CNDDB (CDFW 2015) and CNPS Electronic Inventory (CNPS 2015) for the St. Helena, Yountville, Kenwood, Rutherford, Chiles Valley, Calistoga, Walter Springs, Detert Reservoir and Aetna Springs USGS 7.5” quadrangles, and USFWS Species lists (USFWS 2015) for the Project area.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Plants Franciscan onion Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Rank
1B.2
Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grasslands of clay, volcanic, or serpentine soils. 50-300 m. Blooms: May-June Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable serpentine soils habitat for this species.

Sonoma alopecurus Alopecurus aequalis var. sonomensis
FE, Rank
1B.1
Marshes and freshwater swamps and riparian scrub. 0-400 m. Blooms: MayJune Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable freshwater habitat for this species.

Napa false indigo
Amorpha californica var. napensis
Rank
1B.2
Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland; in openings in forest or woodland or in chaparral. < 800 m. Blooms: May-July.

High. Suitable habitat is present in the area of the Intersection site. Known occurrences in area of project site. bent-flowered fiddleneck Amsinckia lunaris
Rank
1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland. 50-500 m. Blooms: March - June Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable habitat for this species. alkali milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. tener
RP,
Rank
1B.2
Low ground, alkali flats, and flooded lands in annual grassland or in playas or vernal pools. 1-170 m. Blooms: March-June Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetlands habitat for this species.

Page 2154 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Konocti manzanita Rank
1B.3
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest/volcanic. Elevation ranges from 1300 to 5300 feet (395 to 1615 meters). Blooms JanuaryMay (July).

Not Present. Elevation range of plant is too high for project areas and none were observed during a site visit which included the blooming period.

Rincon Ridge manzanita Rank
1B.1
Chaparral (rhyolitic), cismontane woodland. Elevation ranges from 250 to 1210 feet (75 to 370 meters). Blooms FebruaryApril (May).

Unlikely. Suitable habitat is present at the Intersection site, however none were observed during a site visit which included the blooming period. Occurrences reported are 5 miles or greater away from project sites.

Clara Hunt's milk-vetch FE, ST,
Rank 1B.1
Chaparral (openings), cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/serpentine or volcanic, rocky, clay. Elevation ranges from 250 to 900 feet (75 to 275 meters). Blooms MarchMay.

Moderate to Unlikely. The Subdivision area is not suitable habitat because of its recent disturbance. The Intersection area could be suitable habitat, however, there are no serpentine soils in this area to which the plant has a high affinity. In addition, this plant was not observed to be present during a site visit conducted during the blooming period.

Jepson's milk-vetch Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/often serpentine. Elevation ranges from 970 to 2300 feet (295 to 700 meters). Blooms March-June.

Unlikely. Elevation range of plant is too high for project areas and none were observed during a site visit which included the blooming period.

Sonoma sunshine Blennosperma bakeri FE, SE, Rank
1B.1
Occurs in mesic soils of valley and foothill grasslands and vernal pools. 10 - 110 m. Blooms: March- May Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetlands and vernal pool habitat for this species.

Arctostaphylos manzanita ssp. elegansArctostaphylos stanfordiana ssp. decumbens
Astragalus claranusAstragalus rattanii var. jepsonianus

Page 2155 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE narrow-anthered brodiaea Rank
1B.2
Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland/volcanic. Elevation ranges from 360 to 3000 feet (110 to 915 meters). Blooms May-July.

Moderate. Suitable habitat is present, however elevation range of plant is generally higher than project area. Closest known occurrence is approximately 0.75 mile to east of Intersection site. round-leaved filaree California macrophylla
Rank
1B.1
Clay soils of cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grasslands. 15-1,200 m. Blooms: MarchMay Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable habitat for this species. small-flowered calycadenia Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, meadows and seeps (volcanic), valley and foothill grassland/roadside, rocky, talus, scree, sometimes serpentine, sparsely vegetated areas. Elevation ranges 390 to 1500 m. Blooms JuneSeptember.

Not Present. Elevation of plant is higher than project sites and no seep/serpentine soils are present.

Rincon Ridge ceanothus Rank
1B.1
Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland/volcanic or serpentine. Elevation ranges from 250 to 3490 feet (75 to 1065 meters). Blooms February-June.

Unlikely. Habitat is present although no serpentine soils are present and no individuals were observed during a site visit conducted during the blooming period.

Calistoga ceanothus Rank
1B.2
Chaparral (serpentine or volcanic, rocky). Elevation ranges from 560 to 3120 feet (170 to 950 meters). Blooms February-April.

Not Present. Elevation of plant is higher than project area and no Ceanothus species were observed during site visits which included the blooming period of this plant.

Brodiaea leptandraCalycadenia micranthaCeanothus confususCeanothus divergens

Page 2156 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE holly-leaved ceanothus Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, cismontane woodland/volcanic, rocky. Elevation ranges from 390 to 2100 feet (120 to 640 meters). Blooms FebruaryJune.

Unlikely. Elevation range of plant is generally higher than project area and none were observed during a site visit that included the blooming period.

Sonoma ceanothusCeanothus sonomensis
Rank
1B.2
Chaparral; on sandy, serpentine or volcanic soils. 210-800m. Blooms : February-April.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable habitat for this species. None were observed during site visit that was within the blooming period, serpentine soils are not present, and known occurrence is nearly 5 miles away. pappose tarplant Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps (coastal salt), valley and foothill grassland (vernally mesic)/often alkaline. Elevation ranges from 0 to 1380 feet (0 to 420 meters). Blooms MayNovember.

Not Present. No suitable habitat is present, particularly wetlands areas to which this plant has an affinity.

Point Reyes bird’s-beak Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Rank
1B.2
Coastal salt marshes and swamps. 0 - 10 m. Blooms June-October.

Not Present. The Project Area contains no salt marsh habitat. soft bird’s beak Chloropyron molle ssp. molle

FE, SR,
Rank
1B.2
Coastal salt marshes and swamps. 0-3 m. Blooms July- November.

Not Present. The Project Area contains no salt marsh habitat.

Sonoma spineflower Chorizanthe valida

FE, SE,
Rank
1B.1
Coastal prairie (sandy). 10-305 m. Blooms June –August.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable habitat for this species. serpentine cryptantha Rank
1B.2
Chaparral (serpentine). Elevation ranges from 1300 to 1900 feet (395 to 580 meters). Blooms AprilJune.

Not Present. Plant has a high affinity for serpentine soil and none is present in the project areas.

Ceanothus purpureusCentromadia parryi ssp. parryiCryptantha dissita

Page 2157 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Baker's larkspur Delphinium bakeri

FE, SE,
Rank
1B.1
Broadleafed upland forest, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. Occurs in decomposed shale and often mesic soils. 80-305 m. Blooms: March-May Not Present. No known occurrences nearby and none were observed during a site visit conducted during the blooming period. golden larkspur Delphinium luteum

FE, SR,
Rank
1B.1
Chaparral, coastal prairie, rocky coastal scrub. 0-100 m. Blooms March – May.

Not Present. No known occurrences nearby and none were observed during a site visit conducted during the blooming period. dwarf downingiaDowningia pusilla
Rank 2 In mesic areas within valley
and foothill grassland and vernal pools. Elevation range: 0 – 500 m. Blooms: March-May Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetlands-vernal pool habitat for this species.

Greene's narrow-leaved daisy Rank
1B.2
Chaparral (serpentine or volcanic). Elevation ranges from 260 to 3300 feet (80 to 1005 meters). Blooms May-September.

Moderate. Habitat type and elevation range is suitable for this plant at the Intersection site, however there is no serpentine soil present. A survey for this plant should be conducted to determine presence or absence. fragrant fritillary Fritillaria liliacea
Rank
1B.2
Cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland; typically associated with clay substrate, often serpentine. 0 – 450 m. Blooms: February-April Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable habitat for this species. None were observed during a site visit conducted during the blooming period. adobe-lily Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/often adobe. Elevation ranges from 200 to 2310 feet (60 to 705 meters). Blooms February-April.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable habitat for this species. None were observed during a site visit conducted during the blooming period.

Erigeron greeneiFritillaria pluriflora

Page 2158 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Hall’s harmonia Harmonia hallii
Rank 1B.2
Endemic to serpentine soils. 390 – 890 m. Blooms April – June.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable habitat for this species because no serpentine soil is present in project areas. sea-side tarplant Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta
Rank
1B.2
Sometimes roadsides, valley and foothill grassland with affinity for serpentine soil. 20-560 m. Blooms: April- November Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable habitat for this species because no serpentine soil is present. two-carpellate western flax Rank
1B.2
Chaparral (serpentine). Elevation ranges from 200 to 3300 feet (60 to 1005 meters). Blooms May-July.

No Present. No serpentine soils are present in the project areas.

Marin western flax Hesperolinon congestum

FT, CT,
Rank
1B.1
Chaparral, valley and foothill grassland (serpentine barrens, serpentine grassland). 30 – 365 m. Blooms: April –July Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable habitat for this species because no serpentine soil is present.

Napa western flax Hesperolinon serpentinum (bicarpellatum) Rank
1B.1
A strict endemic to serpentine soils. Blooms March to July.

Not Present. Serpentine soils required by this plant are not present in the project areas.

Sharsmith’s western flax Rank
1B.2
Chaparral/serpentine. Elevation ranges from 890 to 980 feet (270 to 300 meters). Blooms May-July.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable habitat for this species, plant elevation is higher than project sites, and no serpentine soils are present.

Santa Lucia dwarf rush Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, great basin scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 980 to 6690 feet (300 to 2040 meters). Blooms April-July.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetlands habitat for this species.

Burke's goldfieldsLasthenia burkei

FE, SE,
Rank
1B.1
Vernal pools, swales, meadows and seeps. 0 – 700 m. Blooms: April-June Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetlands habitat for this species.

Hesperolinon bicarpellatumHesperolinon sharsmithiaeJuncus luciensis

Page 2159 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Contra Costa goldfieldsLasthenia conjugens
FE, Rank
1B.1
Cismontane woodland, alkaline playas, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools; in mesic portions of wetlands. 0 – 550 m. Blooms: March-June Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetlands habitat for this species.

Colusa layia Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland/sandy, serpentine. Elevation ranges from 330 to 3590 feet (100 to 1095 meters). Blooms April-May.

Unlikely. Habitat type is present, however recent disturbance of the Subdivision site precludes its presence, the elevation range of this plant is higher than the project areas, and none were observed during a site visit during its blooming period. legenere Legenere limosa
Rank
1B.1
Vernal pools. Elevation range: 3 – 2885 feet. Blooms: April – June.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetlands habitat for this species.

Jepson's leptosiphonLeptosiphon jepsonii
List 1B Chaparral, cismontane
woodland; on open to partially shaded grassy slopes on volcanic or the periphery of serpentine substrate. 100 – 550 m. Blooms: April-May Unlikely. The project area lacks suitable habitat for this species, no serpentine soil is present.

Sebastopol meadowfoamLimnanthes vinculans

FE, SE,
Rank
1B.1
Vernal pools. 0 – 1,000 m. Blooms: April-June
Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetlands habitat for this species.

Layia septentrionalis

Page 2160 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Cobb Mountain lupine Rank
1B.2
Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 900 to 5000 feet (275 to 1525 meters). Blooms MarchJune.

Not Present. The habitat types are not suitable and elevation range of this plant is higher than the project areas. marsh microseris Microseris paludosa
Rank
1B.2
Closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland. 5 - 300 m. Blooms: April- June Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable habitat for this species.

Baker’s navarretiaNavarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri
Rank
1B.1
Cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools. 5-1740m. Blooms April-July.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetlands habitat for this species. few-flowered navarretia FE, ST,
Rank 1B.1
Vernal pools (volcanic ash flow). Elevation ranges from 1310 to 2810 feet (400 to 855 meters). Blooms May-June.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetlands habitat for this species. many-flowered navarretia FE, SE,
Rank 1B.2
Vernal pools (volcanic ash flow). Elevation ranges from 100 to 3120 feet (30 to 950 meters). Blooms May-June.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetlands habitat for this species.

Lupinus sericatusNavarretia leucocephala ssp. paucifloraNavarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha

Page 2161 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE small pincushion navarretia Rank
1B.1
Vernal pools (clay loam). Elevation ranges from 1160 to 1160 feet (355 to 355 meters). Blooms AprilMay.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetlands habitat for this species.

Marin County navarretia Rank
1B.2
Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral/serpentine, rocky. Elevation ranges from 660 to 2080 feet (200 to 635 meters). Blooms May-July.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetlands habitat for this species.

Sonoma beardtongue Penstemon newberryi var. sonomensis
Rank 1B.3
Yellow pine forest, red fir forest, lodgepole forest, subalpine forest. 360 – 3560 m. Blooms April – May.

Not Present. The project areas lack suitable habitat for this species and plant elevation range is higher than project area.

Petaluma popcorn-flower Plagiobothrys mollis var. vestitus Rank 1A Occurs in coastal salt
marshes and swamps and mesic areas within valley and foothill grasslands. 15-305 m. Blooms: June-July Not Present. This species is presumed extinct in California.

Calistoga popcorn-flower FE, ST,
Rank 1B.1
Meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools/alkaline areas near thermal springs. Elevation ranges from 300 to 520 feet (90 to 160 meters). Blooms MarchJune.

Not Present. Wetland habitat is not present in the project areas North Coast semaphore grass Pleuropogon hooverianus
List 1B.1,
ST
Broadleafed upland forest, meadows and seeps, North Coast coniferous forest, moist open areas. 10-671 m. Blooms April – June.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetland habitat for this species.

Navarretia myersii ssp. deminutaNavarretia rosulataPlagiobothrys strictus

Page 2162 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Napa blue grass FE, SE,
Rank 1B.1
Meadows and seeps, valley and foothill grassland/alkaline, near thermal springs. Elevation ranges from 330 to 660 feet (100 to 200 meters). Blooms May-August.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetland habitat for this species.

Pt. Reyes checkerbloom Sidalcea calycosa ssp. rhizomata Rank
1B.2
Freshwater marshes and swamps near coast. 3-75 m. Blooms April to September.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable freshwater habitat for this species.

Napa checkerbloom. Sidalcea hickmanii ssp napensis
Rank
1B.1
Perennial herb in chamise chaparral, rocky volcanic soil Elevation 450-500 m. Blooms April-June.

Unlikely. Elevation range is higher for this plant than the project sites. Known from only two occurrences.

Marsh checkerbloom Sidalcea oregana ssp. hydrophila
Rank 1B.2
Riparian, meadows, usually in wetlands conditions. 400-2300 m. Blooms JulyAugust.

Unlikely. Wetlands conditions are not present, plant habitat at higher elevation range than project sites, and no known occurrences within 5 miles of project sites.

Kenwood Marsh checkerbloom FE, SE,
Rank 1B.1
Marshes and swamps (freshwater). Elevation ranges from 380 to 490 feet (115 to 150 meters). Blooms June-September.

Unlikely. Wetlands conditions are not present, plant habitat at higher elevation range than project sites, and no known occurrences within 5 miles of project sites.

Tamalpais jewel-flower Rank
1B.3
Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral/serpentine. Elevation ranges from 1000 to 2130 feet (305 to 650 meters). Blooms April-July.

Not Present. Elevation of plant is higher than project sites and no serpentine soils are present.

Socrates mine jewelflower Streptanthus brachiatus ssp. brachiatus Rank 1B.2
Chaparral, close coned forest (serpentine). 740 to 980 m. Blooms May-June Unlikely. Elevation range of plant is generally higher that project sites, no serpentine soils are present, and known occurrence is more than 5 miles away.

Poa napensisSidalcea oregana ssp. validaStreptanthus batrachopus

Page 2163 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE green jewel-flower Rank
1B.2
Chaparral (openings), cismontane woodland/serpentine, rocky. Elevation ranges from 430 to 2490 feet (130 to 760 meters). Blooms May-July.

Unlikely. Elevation range of plant is generally higher that project sites, no serpentine soils are present, and known occurrence is more than 5 miles away.

Three Peaks jewel-flower Rank
1B.2
Chaparral (serpentine). Elevation ranges from 300 to 2670 feet (90 to 815 meters). Blooms JuneSeptember.

Unlikely. Elevation range of plant is generally higher that project sites, no serpentine soils are present, and known occurrence is more than 5 miles away.

Early jewelflower Streptanthus vernalis
Rank 1B.2
Affinity for serpentine gravelly soils. 600-900 m. Blooms March – May.

Unlikely. Elevation range of plant is generally higher that project sites, no serpentine soils are present, and known occurrence is more than 5 miles away.

Napa bluecurls Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest, valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 100 to 2230 feet (30 to 680 meters). Blooms June-October.

Unlikely. Subdivision habitat not suitable with recent disturbance. Plant is usually near habitat with vernal pools or saturated clay soils, therefore habitat at Intersection site also not suitable. Nearest occurrence nearly 5 miles away. showy rancheria cloverTrifolium amoenum
FE, List
1B
Valley and foothill grassland, coastal bluff scrub, swales, open sunny sites, sometimes on serpentine. 0- 450 m. Blooms: April-June.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable habitat for this species.

Streptanthus hesperidisStreptanthus morrisonii ssp. elatusTrichostema ruygtii

Page 2164 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE saline clover Rank
1B.2
Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline), vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 0 to 980 feet (0 to 300 meters). Blooms AprilJune.

Not Present. The Project Area lacks suitable wetlands habitat for this species. oval-leaved viburnum Rank
2B.3
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest. Elevation ranges from 710 to 4590 feet (215 to 1400 meters). Blooms MayJune.

Not Present. Elevation of plant is higher than project sites.

Mammals Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus
SSC,
WBWG
High
Priority
Occupies a variety of habitats at low elevation including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests. Most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting.

Unlikely. The Project Area lacks roost habitat for this species, though it may occasionally forage over the grassland.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii
SSC Lives in a wide variety of
habitats; day roosts highly associated with caves and mines. Need appropriate roosting, maternity, and hibernation sites free from human disturbance.

Unlikely. Project Area lacks suitable rocky roost
habitat for this species, though it could pass through while foraging.

Trifolium hydrophilumViburnum ellipticum

Page 2165 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Western Red Bat Lasiurus blossevillii
SSC,
WBWG
High
Priority
Typically solitary, roosting primarily in the foliage of trees or shrubs. Day roosts are commonly in edge habitats adjacent to streams or open fields, in orchards or urban areas near riparian habitat.

Moderate Potential. The Project Area contains suitable foliage for roosting on its perimeter and the vineyards, open areas, ponds, and Napa River in the vicinity provide suitable foraging habitat.

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans
WBWG
Medium
Priority
Primarily a forest dweller, feeding over streams, ponds, and open brushy areas. It roosts in hollow trees, snags, buildings, rock crevices, caves, and under bark.

Moderate Potential. Project area at Intersection site has suitable forest roost habitat for this species and it could pass through while foraging.

Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis
WBWG
Medium
Priority
Found in all brush, woodland and forest habitats from sea level to about 9000 feet. Prefers coniferous woodlands and forests. Nursery colonies in buildings, crevices, spaces under bark, and snags. Caves used primarily as night roosts.

Unlikely. Project Area lacks suitable coniferous forest roost habitat for this species, though it could pass through while foraging.

Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes
WBWG
High
Priority
Associated with a wide variety of habitats including mixed coniferousdeciduous forest and redwood/sequoia groves. Buildings, mines and large snags are important day and night roosts.

Moderate. Project area at Intersection site has suitable forest roost habitat for this species and it could pass through while foraging.

Page 2166 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Birds Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos

CFP, BCC
Rolling foothills mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, desert. Cliff-walled canyons or large trees in open areas provide nesting habitat.

Unlikely. Project Area lacks suitable nesting habitat, though this species may forage in the vicinity.

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

FD, SE,
CFP
Frequents ocean shores, lake margins, and rivers for both nesting and wintering. Most nests are located within 1 mile of water. Nests in large, old-growth, or dominant live tree with open branchwork. Roosts communally in winter Unlikely. Project Area lacks suitable nesting habitat, though this species may forage in the vicinity, along the Napa River.

White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus
CFP Year-long resident of
coastal and valley lowlands; rarely found away from agricultural areas. Nests atop oak, willow or other trees. Preys mainly on small mammals but also birds, insects, reptiles and amphibians.

Moderate Potential. Suitable nesting habitat is
present in oak, ash and willow trees at the perimeters of the Project Area, and foraging habitat is present in vineyards and grassland.

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus
BCC Inhabits dry, open terrain,
either level or hilly. Nesting sites typically located on cliffs. Forages far afield, even to marshlands and ocean shores.

Unlikely. Project Area lacks suitable nesting habitat, though the species may forage in the vicinity.

Page 2167 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum

FD, SE,
CFP,
BCC
Nests near wetlands, lakes, rivers, or other water; on cliffs, banks, dunes, mounds, buildings or bridges. Nest consists of a scrape on a depression or ledge in an open site.

Not Present. Suitable nesting habitat is not present in the vicinity of the Project Area.

Western Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia
SSC,
BCC
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands, deserts and scrublands characterized by lowgrowing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon small mammal burrows, most often dug by California ground squirrels.

Not Present. Burrows were not present and this species is most likely extirpated from Sonoma County.

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina
FT, SSC Old-growth forests or mixed
stands of old-growth and mature trees. Prefers high, multistory canopy dominated by big trees, trees with cavities or broken tops, woody debris and space under canopy.

Not Present. Suitable forest habitat is not present in the Project Area.

Black Swift Cypseloides niger
SSC,
BCC
Breeds in small colonies on cliffs behind or adjacent to waterfalls in deep canyons and sea-bluffs above surf; forages widely.

Unlikely. Project Area lacks suitable nesting habitat.

Page 2168 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Purple Martin Progne subis
SSC Inhabits woodlands and low
elevation coniferous forests. Nests in old woodpecker cavities and human-made structures. Nest is often located in tall, isolated tree or snag.

High Potential. The Project Area has suitable woodland habitat for this species. Known occurrence approximately 0.5 mile east of Intersection site.

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri
SSC Occurs primarily in riparian
zones. Prefers willows, cottonwoods, aspens, sycamores and alders for nesting and foraging.

Unlikely. The Project area at the intersection has suitable riparian woodland habitat for this species, but there are no known occurrences within 5 miles.

Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor
BCC,
SSC
Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley and vicinity. Largely endemic to California. Requires open water, protected nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect prey close to the colony.

Not Present. Project Area lacks suitable habitat to support a nesting colony.

Page 2169 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Reptiles and Amphibians Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Rana boylii SSC Found in or near rocky
streams in a variety of habitats. Prefers partlyshaded, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate; requires at least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-laying. Needs at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis. Feeds on both aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates.

Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat may be present at the Intersection site along the Napa River and there are known occurrences within 5 miles.

California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii
FT, SSC Lowlands and foothills in or
near permanent sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 10- 20 weeks of water for larval development. May disperse through upland habitats after rains to access aestivation habitat.

Unlikely. This species could potentially be present along the Napa River or in retention ponds adjoining the Project Area. However, the graded and disced fields of the Project Area would provide poor aestivation habitat for this species. There have been no known occurrences within 5 miles.

Page 2170 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Western Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata
SSC A thoroughly aquatic turtle
of ponds, marshes, rivers, streams and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. Require basking sites such as partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, or open mud banks, and suitable upland habitat (sandy banks or grassy open fields) for egg-laying.

Moderate Potential. This species may be present in the Napa River as a migration corridor or in ponds adjoining the project areas. However, the graded and disced fields of the Subdivision project area would provide poor upland nesting habitat for this species. There are known occurrences within 5 miles.

Fishes Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacificus
FT Lives in the SacramentoSan Joaquin estuary in
areas where salt and freshwater systems meet. Occurs seasonally in Suisun Bay, Carquinez Strait and San Pablo Bay. Seldom found at salinities > 10 ppt; most often at salinities < 2 ppt.

Not Present. Suitable habitat is not present for this species and upper Napa River is out of its range.

Page 2171 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Steelhead, Central California Coast ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss FT Occurs from the Russian
River south to Soquel Creek and Pajaro River. Also in San Francisco and San Pablo Bay Basins. Adults migrate upstream to spawn in cool, clear, welloxygenated streams. Juveniles remain in fresh water for 1 or more years before migrating downstream to the ocean.

High Potential. High rating is for the Napa River. This species is known to occur in upstream tributaries and likely migrate between those tributaries and downstream habitats, including the Pacific Ocean.

Steelhead, Central Valley ESU Oncorhynchus mykiss
FT Occurs in the Sacramento
and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries, excluding San Francisco and San Pablo bays. Preferred spawning habitat is in perennial streams with cool to cold water temperatures, high dissolved oxygen levels and fast flowing water. Abundant riffle areas for spawning and deeper pools with sufficient riparian cover for rearing are necessary for successful breeding.

Not Present. The Project Area is outside the range of this species.

Page 2172 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Chinook, California Coastal Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
FT California Coastal Chinook
Salmon ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from rivers and streams south of the Klamath River (exclusive) to the Russian River (inclusive). Adult numbers depend on pool depth and volume, amount of cover, and proximity to gravel. Water temps >27 degrees C lethal to adults.

Not Present. The Project Area is outside the range of this species.

Chinook, Central Valley spring run Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FT Occurs in the Feather River
and the Sacramento River and its tributaries, including Butte, Mill, Deer, Antelope and Beegum Creeks. Adults enter the Sacramento River from late March through September. Adults migrate upstream to spawn in cool, clear, welloxygenated streams from mid-August through early October. Juveniles migrate soon after emergence as young-of-the-year, or remain in freshwater and migrate as yearlings.

Not Present. The Project Area is outside the range of this species.

Page 2173 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE Chinook, Central Valley Fall/Late Fall-run ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha FC, SSC Populations spawn in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. Adults migrate upstream to spawn in cool clear, well-oxygenated streams. Juveniles remain in freshwater 1 or more years before migrating downstream to the ocean.

Unlikely. The Project Area is outside the range of this species.

Invertebrates Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus FT Occurs only in the central
valley of California, in association with blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana). Prefers to lay eggs in elderberry 2 to 8 inches in diameter.

Not Present. The Napa River riparian habitat could provide suitable habitat if the host plant, elderberry, was present, however elderberry is not present and there is no known occurrence within 5 miles.

Page 2174 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

SPECIES STATUS HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE California freshwater shrimp Syncaris pacifica
FE, SE Endemic to Marin, Napa,
and Sonoma counties. Found in low elevation, low-gradient streams where riparian cover is moderate to heavy, in shallow pools away from main stream flow..

Unlikely. Suitable stream habitat may be present in the Napa River near the Intersection site, however the nearest known occurrence is more than 5 miles away.

STATUS CODES FE Federally Endangered SE State Endangered FT Federally Threatened ST State Threatened FD Federally Delisted CFP California Fully Protected Species BCC USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern SSC California Species of Special Concern California Native Plant Society (CNPS): 1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3 Plants about which information is needed-a review list .1 - seriously threatened in California (high degree/immediacy of threat) .2 - fairly threatened in California (moderate degree/immediacy of threat) .3 - not very threatened in California (low degree/immediacy of threats or no current threats known)

Page 2175 of 4069 ends

Agenda Item #6.5.

Page 2176 of 4069 ends

CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY,
EXTENDED PHASE I and PHASE II REPORT
for the

HUNTER SUBDIVISION PROJECT

NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

City of St. Helena
1480 Main Street
St. Helena, California 94574
Prepared by:
853 Lincoln Way, Suite 208
Auburn, California 95603
Adam Giacinto, MA, RPA, William Burns, MSc, RPA,
Ross Owen, MA, RPA, and Nicholas Hanten, MA
MAY 2020

CONFIDENTIAL
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2177 of 4069 ends

Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2178 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
100839
i May 2020

NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE (NADB) INFORMATION
Authors: Adam Giacinto, MA, RPA, William Burns, Msc, RPA, Ross Owen, MA, RPA, Nicholas Hanten, MA
Firm: Dudek
Project Proponent: Ben and Kelly Vanzutphen
Report Date: March 2020
Report Title: Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
Type of Study: Archaeological Inventory, Pedestrian Survey, Extended Phase I, Phase II Resources: CA-NAP-406, CA-NAP-843, and CA-NAP-1008
USGS Quads: USGS 7.5-Minute Series Saint Helena, CA Quadrangle; Township 8N; Range 5W; Section 30
Acreage: 17 acres
Keywords: Cotati USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle; Intensive Pedestrian Survey; Extended Phase I (XPI), Phase II, CA-NAP-399, CA-NAP-406, CA-NAP413, CA-NAP-843, CA-NAP-863, CA-NAP-1007, CA-NAP-1008, and CA-NAP-1009/H
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2179 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
ii May 2020

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2180 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
iii May 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page No.

NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE (NADB) INFORMATION ....................... I MANAGEMENT SUMMARY .................................................................................................... V 1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1

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

1.2 Project Description.................................................................................................. 1

1.3 Report Structure and Key Personnel ....................................................................... 2

1.4 Regulatory Context ................................................................................................. 9

1.4.1 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) ............................................... 9

1.4.2 California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and CEQA ............... 11 2 PROJECT CONTEXT ....................................................................................................15

2.1 Environmental Context ......................................................................................... 15

2.2 Cultural Context .................................................................................................... 15

2.2.1 Prehistoric Context.................................................................................... 15

2.2.2 The Historic Period ................................................................................... 20

3. BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................23

3.1 NWIC Records Search .......................................................................................... 23

3.2 NAHC Correspondence ........................................................................................ 32

3.3 Geomorphology .................................................................................................... 33 4 RESEARCH METHODS ................................................................................................35

4.1 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 36

4.2 Pedestrian Survey.................................................................................................. 36

4.3 Subsurface Testing ................................................................................................ 37

4.3.1 Extended Phase I Testing .......................................................................... 37

4.3.2 Phase II Testing......................................................................................... 37

4.4 Ground Penetrating Radar ..................................................................................... 38 5 RESULTS .........................................................................................................................45

5.1 Survey Results ...................................................................................................... 45

5.2 Extended Phase I and Phase II Results ................................................................. 46

5.3 Ground Penetrating Radar Review ....................................................................... 54 6 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ........................................57

6.1 Summary ............................................................................................................... 57

6.2 Review of Potential Impacts ................................................................................. 57 Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2181 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
iv May 2020

6.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................. 59 7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................61

TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page No.

FIGURES
Figure 1. Regional Map ...................................................................................................................5 Figure 2. Extended Phase I/Phase II Testing Map ...........................................................................7 Figure 3. Extended Phase I and Phase II Testing Relative to 2009 Aerial Imagery ......................41 Figure 4. GPR Investigation Area ..................................................................................................43 Figure 5. Overview of Auger-1 Location, view northward ...........................................................45 Figure 6. Overview of STP-2, view westward toward levee .........................................................46 Figure 7. GPR Line 20 Anomaly ...................................................................................................55 55 Figure 8. GPR General Soil Profile (Line 5) .................................................................................55 TABLES
Table 1. Previous technical studies within a one half-mile radius of the APE ..............................23 Table 2. Cultural resources within a one half-mile radius of the APE ..........................................29 Table 3. Extended Phase I and Phase II Testing Results ...............................................................46

APPENDICES
A NWIC Records Search Results (Confidential)
B St Helena Flood Control Project SHPO Concurrence Letter C NAHC Sacred Lands File Search
D Ground Penetrating Radar Results
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2182 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
v May 2020

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
The proposed Hunter Subdivision Project (Project) is located within the northeast portion of the City of St. Helena, Napa County, California. The Project is situated at the northeastern terminus of Adams Street, northeast of State Route 29 (SR 29), and south of the Napa River. The Project intersects Public Land Survey System (PLSS) Section 30 of Township 8 North, Range 5 West; and falls on the Saint Helena 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle. The area of potential effect (APE) is represented by the boundaries of the 17-acre Project site, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 009-030-057 (APE or Project site). The vertical APE, asrepresented by the maximum depth of disturbance, is assumed to be 6 feet in depth for utility trenching.

Ben and Kelly Vanzutphen (Project applicant) are proposing to subdivide the Project site into 51 lots to accommodate single-family residences, a 3.4-acre parcel that would accommodate 25 attached residential units, and a 0.06-acre parcel that would not be developed. The City of St Helena (City) is the lead agency responsible for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is yet undetermined if the Project will require federal agency review, however the present study has been prepared to accommodate compliance with the review for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)if required.

Cultural resources Inventory efforts for this project have included a Northwestern Information Center (NWIC) records search of the project APE and a half-mile surrounding radius, intensivelevel pedestrian survey, Extended Phase I (XPI) subsurface probing, Phase II evaluation, and a ground penetrating radar (GPR) investigation. Review of reports on file with the NWIC did indicate that three prehistoric sites intersect the APE: CA-NAP-406, CA-NAP-843, and CA-NAP1008. CA-NAP-406 has been determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP). CA-NAP-843 and CANAP-1008 have been determined not to be CRHR/NRHP-eligible. A Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) search did not indicate the presence of any resources in or near the Project APE. Subsequent Native American notification for the Project was completed by the City pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52. One tribe, the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, has responded to this outreach with a request for a copy of the present report.

A complete record of this consultation is on file with the City.

As noted above, prehistoric sites CA-NAP-843 and CA-NAP-1008 fall within the APE. These were evaluated through investigations completed for the St. Helena Flood Control Project.

Previous investigations appear to have been included the full boundaries of these resources, within the present Project APE. Impacts to CA-NAP-843 and CA-NAP-1008 would not represent a significant effect to historical resources under CEQA and would represent to effect to historic properties under the NHPA.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2183 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
vi May 2020
CA-NAP-406 has been determined to be eligible for CRHR (Criterion 4) and NRHP (Criterion D) listing. However, previous investigations evaluating this resource were restricted to portions of this resource located immediately west of (largely outside) the present Project APE. The XPI and Phase II excavations were conducted to assess the level of previous disturbance to soils within the APE and determine the presence/absence of cultural deposits associated with CA-NAP-406 that could be encountered by the Project. Based on the results of archaeological excavations and a GPR investigation no intact deposits or features associated with CA-NAP-406 appear to extend to within the APE. While cultural material was identified, largely consisting of obsidian debitage concentrated within 60 cm of the surface, this was solely yielded from disturbed and redeposited soil. The exact depth, area, and severity of previous disturbances remains somewhat unclear.

Google Earth imagery from October 2009 provides some insight into the use of the Project APE during the St. Helena Flood Protection Project. This shows the area north of the proposed Starr Avenue extension to be graded and used for staging. It appears likely that cultural deposits associated with CA-NAP-406 were redistributed throughout this area. This fill was observable to depths of approximately 100 cm below the surface during Dudek’s subsurface excavation and GPR investigation. Disturbed and redeposited archaeological material within the APE is not CRHR/NRHP eligible. As such, effects to known cultural resources resulting from the Project as presently designed would be less than significant, No Historic Properties Affected.

There is the potential to encounter unanticipated significant cultural resources during Project construction activities, most notably where intact remnant deposits associated with CA-NAP-406 could be present. Based on the results of the XPI, Phase II, and GPR investigations, such deposits have the highest potential to be present beneath redeposited and disturbed fill areas located north of the planned Starr Avenue expansion. Portions of the APE to the south, presently occupied by vineyards, have a higher potential to contain intact cultural deposits at shallower depths. It should be further noted that numerous human burials have been identified in nearby areas, although not within the Project APE. Based on the identified sensitivity for encountering unanticipated significant cultural resources and human remains, archaeological monitoring during construction is recommended.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2184 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
1 May 2020
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Location
The proposed Hunter Subdivision Project (Project) is located within the northeast portion of the City of St. Helena, Napa County, California (Figure 1). The Project is situated at the northeastern terminus of Adams Street, northeast of State Route 29 (SR 29), and south of the Napa River. The Project area intersects Public Land Survey System (PLSS) Section 30 of Township 8 North, Range 5 West; and falls on the Saint Helena 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle.

The site is generally rectangular with a “panhandle” extension that connects to Adams Street southwest of the panhandle. Adjacent land uses include single-family and multi-family residential development to the south, including the Vineyard Valley Mobile Home Park. Office uses are located immediately adjacent to the Project site’s most southwestern edge at the terminus of Adams Street. Undeveloped land currently under cultivation with grape vines occupies the southern and central portion of the Project site. A canal and gravel maintenance road borders the site along the west/northwest.

1.2 Project Description
The City of St Helena (City) is the lead agency responsible for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is yet undetermined if the Project will require federal agency review, however the present study has been prepared with to accommodate agency review for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)if required.

Ben and Kelly Vanzutphen (Project applicant) are proposing to subdivide the Project site into 51 lots to accommodate single-family residences, a 3.4-acre parcel that would accommodate 25 attached residential units, and a 0.06-acre parcel that would not be developed. The 25 attached units would be income restricted, with 5 units affordable to very low income families, and 20 to moderate income families. The 51 single-family lots could be developed with single-family market-rate housing units (one dwelling per lot). An accessory dwelling unit (ADU or “granny units”) would be allowed on a single-family lot, per the City’s zoning ordinance (Section

17.116.030). The applicant has proposed ADUs on 11 of the single-family lots.

The single-family lots would range in size between 7,000 and 12,000 square feet, with most of the lots in the 7,000 to 8,000 square foot range. A number of irregular shaped lots would be located along the eastern edge of the project site and along the cul-de-sac. Each lot would have a minimum depth of 75 feet, and minimum width of 70 feet. The building pads shown within each lot would have a minimum 20-foot front and rear setback, and a 10-foot setback on the sides. Under the MR zoning the maximum height for principal dwellings is limited to a maximum of 30 feet (allowing Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2185 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
2 May 2020
for a 2-story home) and for any accessory structure would be limited to a maximum height of 15 feet.

West of Starr Avenue the 3.4-acre parcel (Lot 52), would consist of attached housing (duplex or triplex) including 30,000 to 45,000 total square feet of building area that would include two-story, two-bedroom units each with a single-car garage and an on-site parking space plus 37 covered guest parking spaces. Access would be provided from Adams Street, just west of its intersection with Starr Avenue.

The area of potential effects (APE) is represented by the boundaries of the 17 acre Project site, which includes Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 009-030-057. Figure 2 depicts the Project APE, as well as Extended Phase I (XPI) and Phase II testing locations. The vertical APE, as represented by the maximum depth of disturbance, generally varies throughout the Project site. Excavation for ground preparation is anticipated to be as deep as 1.5 feet below the existing grade. Utility trenching may require disturbances up to 6 feet in depth. Fill or otherwise redistributed soils are present across the Project site, northeast of the proposed Starr Avenue. South of this area are vineyards situated on the native ground surface.

1.3 Report Structure and Key Personnel
This report is divided into seven chapters. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 reviews the natural environment and the cultural context. Chapter 3 summarizes the results of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) and Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) search results.

Chapter 4 provides research methods and a discussion of Inventory, XPI, Phase II, and GPR methods. Chapter 5 provides the results of pedestrian survey, XPI exploratory testing, Phase II excavations, and GPR study. Chapter 6 includes a summary of cultural resources information associated with the Project, potential regulatory compliance issues associated with impacts to cultural resources, and provides recommendations for additional actions to be taken in order to support preparation of a defensible EIR. References are provided for in Chapter 7. Several appendices are attached to this report. Appendix A includes confidential NWIC records search results; Appendix B includes the State historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurrence letter for the St Helena Flood Control Project; Appendix C contains NAHC Sacred Lands File (SLF) search results; and Appendix D contains resulting data from the GPR study.

Adam Giacinto, MA, RPA, acted as principal investigator, oversaw field efforts, and authored the technical report. William Burns, MSc, RPA assisted with preparation of this report and completed survey, Extended Phase I testing, and Phase II testing. Ross Owen, MA, RPA, assisted with preparation of this report and Phase II testing. Nicholas Hanten, MA, assisted with preparation of this report and Phase II testing. Brad Comeau, MSc, RPA, conducted the GPR study and reviewed Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2186 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
3 May 2020
the results. All archaeologists preparing this report meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards for archaeology and have extensive working within local, state, and federal regulatory contexts.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2187 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
4 May 2020

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2188 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
5 May 2020
Figure 1. Regional Map
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2189 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
6 May 2020

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2190 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
7 May 2020
Figure 2. Extended Phase I/Phase II Testing Map
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2191 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
8 May 2020

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2192 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
9 May 2020

1.4 Regulatory Context
The current cultural resources investigation was completed to satisfy both CEQA and Section 106 of NHPA.

1.4.1 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the United States’ official list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects worthy of preservation. Overseen by the National Park Service (NPS), under the U.S. Department of the Interior, the NRHP was authorized under the NHPA, as amended. Its listings encompass all National Historic Landmarks, as well as historic areas administered by NPS.

NRHP guidelines for the evaluation of historic significance were developed to be flexible and to recognize the accomplishments of all who have made significant contributions to the nation’s history and heritage. Its criteria are designed to guide state and local governments, federal agencies, and others in evaluating potential entries in the NRHP. For a property to be listed in or determined eligible for listing, it must be demonstrated to possess integrity and to meet at least one of the following criteria:

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Integrity is defined in NRHP guidance, How to Apply the National Register Criteria, as “the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the NRHP, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the NRHP criteria, but it also must have integrity” (NPS 1990: 44).

NRHP guidance further asserts that properties be completed at least 50 years ago to be considered for eligibility. Properties completed fewer than 50 years before evaluation must be proven to be “exceptionally important” (criteria consideration G) to be considered for listing.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2193 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
10 May 2020
A historic property is defined as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. This term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. The term includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and that meet the NRHP criteria” (36 CFR Sections 800.16(i)(1)).

Effects on historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA are defined in the assessment of adverse effects in 36 CFR Sections 800.5(a)(1):

An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative.

Adverse effects on historic properties are clearly defined and include, but are not limited to:
(i) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; (ii) Alteration of a property, including restoration, rehabilitation, repair, maintenance, stabilization, hazardous material remediation and provision of handicapped access, that is not consistent with the Secretary’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 68) and applicable guidelines;
(iii) Removal of the property from its historic location; (iv) Change of the character of the property’s use or of physical features within the property’s setting that contributes to its historic significance; (v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s significant historic features; (vi) Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration, except where such neglect and deterioration are recognized qualities of a property of religious and cultural significance to an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization; and Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2194 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
11 May 2020
(vii) Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property’s historic significance (36 CFR 800.5 (2)).

If compliance with Section 106 is required, the criteria of adverse effect are applied to historic properties, if any exist in the Project Area of Potential Effect (APE), pursuant to 36 CFR Sections 800.5(a)(1). If no historic properties are identified in the APE, a finding of “no historic properties affected” will be made for the proposed Project. If there are historic properties in the APE, application of the criteria of adverse effect will result in Project-related findings of either “no adverse effect” or of “adverse effect,” as described above. A finding of no adverse effect may be appropriate when the undertaking’s effects do not meet the thresholds in criteria of adverse effect 36 CFR Sections 800.5(a)(1), in certain cases when the undertaking is modified to avoid or lessen effects, or if conditions were imposed to ensure review of rehabilitation plans for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (codified in 36 CFR Part 68).

If adverse effects findings were expected to result from the proposed Project, mitigation would be required, as feasible, and resolution of those adverse effects by consultation may occur to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects on historic properties pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.6(a).

1.4.2 California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and CEQA In California, the term “historical resource” includes but is not limited to “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.” (PRC section 5020.1(j).) In 1992, the California legislature established the CRHR “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” (PRC section 5024.1(a). The criteria for listing resources on the CRHR were expressly developed to be in accordance with previously established criteria developed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), enumerated below. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c)(1– 4), a resource is considered historically significant if it (i) retains “substantial integrity,” and (ii) meets at least one of the following criteria:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage.
• Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2195 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
12 May 2020
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

In order to understand the historic importance of a resource, sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource. A resource less than fifty years old may be considered for listing in the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance (see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 4852(d)(2)).

The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing in the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.

California Environmental Quality Act
As described further below, the following CEQA statutes and CEQA Guidelines are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources:
• PRC section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.” • PRC section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a) defines “historical resources.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource;” it also defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of an historical resource.
• PRC section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.” • PRC section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e): Set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony.

PRC sections 21083.2(b)-(c) and CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4: Provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including examples of preservation-in-place mitigation measures; preservation-in-place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2196 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
13 May 2020
artifacts and the archaeological context, and may also help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the archaeological site(s).

More specifically, under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause "a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource." (PRC section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b). If a site is either listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR, or if it is included in a local register of historic resources, or identified as significant in a historical resources survey (meeting the requirements of PRC section 5024.1(q)), it is a "historical resource" and is presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of CEQA (PRC section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a)). The lead agency is not precluded from determining that a resource is a historical resource even if it does not fall within this presumption (PRC section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a)).

A "substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource" reflecting a significant effect under CEQA means "physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired" (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b)(1); PR Code section 5020.1(q)0. In turn, the significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
• Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or • Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
• Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(b)(2).) Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site contains any "historical resources," then evaluates whether that project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource such that the resource's historical significance is materially impaired.

If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2197 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
14 May 2020
preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).

Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. • Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

Impacts to non-unique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental impact (PRC section 21083.2(a); CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(c)(4).) However, if a non-unique archaeological resource qualifies as tribal cultural resource (PRC 21074(c); 21083.2(h)), further consideration of significant impacts is required.

CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. As described below, these procedures are detailed in PRC section 5097.98.

California Health and Safety Code
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the County coroner has examined the remains (section 7050.5b). PRC Section 5097.98 also outlines the process to be followed in the event that remains are discovered. If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours (section 7050.5c). The NAHC will notify the Most Likely Descendant. With the permission of the landowner, the Most Likely Descendant may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be completed within 48 hours of notification of the Most Likely Descendant by the NAHC. The Most Likely Descendant may recommend means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and items associated with Native Americans.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2198 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
15 May 2020
2 PROJECT CONTEXT

2.1 Environmental Context
The Project site is located on undeveloped open agricultural land within the Napa Valley, immediately south of the Napa River, and within the City of St. Helena. The Pacific Ocean is located 30 miles west, San Pablo Bay is 25 miles to the south, and Lake Berryessa is 12 miles northeast. A canal constructed for the St. Helena Flood Protection Project in 2010 bounds the site to the west and north, a residential community is present to the east. Elevation throughout the Study Area ranges from approximately 210 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) in the northern portion of the site to 245 feet AMSL in the southern portion. Local vegetation consists primarily of low-laying meadow environment plants and grasses, with some scattered oak woodland and riparian community trees and shrubs along the drainages. The central portion of the Project site is planted with grape vines. The gradual slope throughout most of this area (less than 5 degrees) and proximity of Napa River and smaller drainages, would have historically resulted in the regular seasonal inundation of much of this area. The high level of surrounding topographic variability lends to the biodiversity of the area, this has traditionally provided for a broad range of flora and fauna that could be utilized by local Wappo populations.

Geologic maps of the project area indicate it is underlain primarily by Quaternary Alluvium consisting of Holocene-era alluvial soils deposited through stream action and erosion of the surrounding hillslopes and Franciscan Complex metamorphic deposits (Jennings et al. 1977, updated 2010). Napa Glass Mountain, the primary source of obsidian in Napa Valley, is upriver from the Project site. Soils within the Project site are mapped as Bale Clay Loam with 0 to 5% slopes. These soils are formed through alluvial action on a Holocene alluvial fan, with soils comprised of sit and clay with moderate gravel and send components (S-45641; SSURGO 2019).

2.2 Cultural Context

2.2.1 Prehistoric Context
Numerous chronological sequences have been developed to aid in understanding cultural changes in the region. Building on early studies and focusing on data synthesis, Fredrickson (1974, 1994) developed a prehistoric chronology for human history in this region that used sociopolitical complexity, trade networks, population, and the introduction and variation of artifact types to differentiate between cultural groups. Three periods are presented in Fredrickson’s prehistoric sequence: Paleoindian, Archaic (consisting of Lower, Middle, and Upper), and Emergent.

Following four decades, Fredrickson’s synthesis is still widely used today as the dominant framework for northwest California researchers.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2199 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
16 May 2020
Paleoindian Period (ca. 10,000–6,000 BC)
Fredrickson’s Paleoindian period marked the initial human migration into California with most known sites found on the edge of former lakeshores and waterways. Groups were small and highly mobile, occupying broad geographic areas. The vast array of research conducted on Paleoindian sites relies heavily on data collected from the Great Basin or Southern California region. Although Paleoindian sites exist in northwest California, a lack of well-defined Paleoindian assemblages associated with these sites prohibits the full understanding of the adaptive system of these early peoples. In northwest California, the Borax Lake site (LAK-36) near Clear Lake basin is the best illustration of the Paleoindian period, with fluted projectile points and chipped stone crescents. A site near Clear Lake (LAK-510) and another at Cache Creek (LAK-1581) have early dates associated with obsidian hydration, but they lack diagnostic items with strong associations to welldated strata. Evidence of milling technology and associations with faunal remains is unknown (Hildebrandt 2007).

Archaic Period (6000 BC–AD 1000)
Fredrickson’s Archaic period was characterized by three subdivisions based on developmental trends in subsistence strategies, settlement, technology, and social organization (Chartkoff 1998).

The subdivisions defined a Lower (6000–3500 BC), Middle (3500–500 BC), and Upper (500 BC– AD 1000) Archaic sequence. A more diverse range of resources for groups to exploit proliferated during the Archaic period’s substantial climate change to warmer and drier conditions. The diversification of the food base required more complex geographic mobility and expansion into surrounding environments, and the settlement strategies increased correspondingly. Archaic period social organization consisted of small-scale, semi-nomadic, socially egalitarian societies shifting from a foraging to a collecting way of life (Chartkoff 1998). Archaic cultures retained the use of large projectile points, but acorn and seed processing technology, consisting of the milling slab and handstone, was developed; this was eventually replaced by the bowl mortar and pestle.

Trade systems and sustained exchanges between groups grew from the new diffuse economies.

Shell beads gained significance as trade items.

Emergent Period (AD 1000–1800)
In the Emergent period (Fredrickson 1974, 1994), which lasted from the end of the Upper Archaic (ca. AD 1000) until European contact, there was an increase in the use of plant food resources in addition to an increase in terrestrial and fish game. There was a concurrent increase in the diversity and complexity of material culture during the Emergent period, as demonstrated by more classes of artifacts. The recovery of a greater number of small, finely chipped projectile points, often stemless with convex or concave bases, suggests an increased usage of the bow and arrow rather Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2200 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
17 May 2020
than the atlatl (spear throwing technology) and dart for hunting. Other items included the increased presence of smaller bone and Olivella beads, perforated stones, a variety of bone tools, and personal ornaments made from shell, bone, and stone. Many Emergent sites contain are highly formal and unnecessarily decorative. These items include the flanged pipe, the Olivella callus cup bead, and the banjo effigy ornament (Bennyhoff 1994). Mortuary customs were elaborate and include interment with abundant grave goods and cremation replacing the loosely flexed burial (Milliken et al. 2007).

Bartoy and Holson provided a detailed site-specific summary of this period in their investigation completed for the St. Helena Flood Control Project, portions of which have been borrowed directly here (2007). The variant of this pattern within the Napa Valley is referred to as the St. Helena Aspect. The intent of this terminology is to differentiate the Napa Valley from the Clear Lake Aspect manifestation. The local St. Helena Aspect expression of the Augustine Pattern is best exemplified at CA-NAP-129 (Bartoy and Holson 2007), located less than a mile upstream of the current project. The St. Helena Aspect is distinguished by the use of small, serrated projectile points with either parallel or corner-notched stems. Corner-notched points without serrations became more common towards the Historic Period. Well-shaped mortars and pestles are prevalent.

Larger shouldered bifaces, bipoints, and leaf-shaped points are absent. Bone awls are common and probably indicate increased production of basketry. Associated with basketry, the hopper mortar became more prevalent. Tubular tobacco pipes are also quite common. There is also an increase in beads and ornaments made from shell, stone, and bone. This coincides with an increase in trade items from greater distances (Bartoy and Holson 2007).

During this period, there was an increase in population size accompanied by the advent of larger, more permanent villages (Wallace 1955). Larger populations and higher population densities are characteristic. Many of the larger settlements were permanent villages in which people resided yearround. The populations of these villages may have also increased seasonally (Milliken et al. 2007).

Ethnography
The history of the Native American communities prior to the mid-1700s has largely been reconstructed through later mission-period and early ethnographic accounts. The first records of the Native American inhabitants of the San Diego region come predominantly from European merchants, missionaries, military personnel, and explorers. These brief, and generally peripheral, accounts were prepared with the intent of furthering respective colonial and economic aims and were combined with observations of the landscape. They were not intended to be unbiased accounts regarding the cultural structures and community practices of the newly encountered cultural groups. The principal intent of these researchers was to record the pre-contact, culturally specific practices, ideologies, and languages that had survived the destabilizing effects of Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2201 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
18 May 2020
missionization and colonialism. This research, often understood as “salvage ethnography,” was driven by the understanding that traditional knowledge was being lost due to the impacts of modernization and cultural assimilation. Alfred Kroeber applied his “memory culture” approach (Lightfoot 2005:32) by recording languages and oral histories.

It is important to note that even though there were many informants for these early ethnographies who were able to provide information from personal experiences about native life before the Europeans, a significantly large proportion of these informants were born after 1850 (Heizer and Nissen 1973); therefore, the documentation of pre-contact, aboriginal culture was being increasingly supplied by individuals born in California after considerable contact with Europeans.

As Robert F. Heizer (1978) stated, this is an important issue to note when examining these ethnographies, since considerable culture change had undoubtedly occurred by 1850 among the Native American survivors of California.

Based on ethnographic information, it is believed that at least 88 different languages were spoken from Baja California Sur to the southern Oregon state border at the time of Spanish contact (Johnson and Lorenz 2006). The distribution of recorded Native American languages has been dispersed as a geographic mosaic across California through six primary language families (Golla 2007).

Victor Golla has contended that one can interpret the amount of variability within specific language groups as being associated with the relative “time depth” of the speaking populations (Golla 2007:80). A large amount of variation within the language of a group represents a greater time depth then a group’s language with less internal diversity. One method that he has employed is by drawing comparisons with historically documented changes in Germanic and Romantic language groups. Golla (2007:71) has observed that the “absolute chronology of the internal diversification within a language family” can be correlated with archaeological dates. This type of interpretation is modeled on concepts of genetic drift and gene flows that are associated with migration and population isolation in the biological sciences.

The study area was traditionally occupied by the Wappo, with language origins associated with the Yukian language group. The name “Wappo” is said to be taken from the Spanish word “guapo” meaning handsome or brave, which was given to the group during Mission times by the Franciscans (Kroeber 1925). The Wappo language is the only Southern Yukian language and differs greatly from Northern Yukian with less than 20% of the basic vocabulary shared (Golla 2011). Isolated from other Yukian-speaking peoples, this group was bound on all sides by other native groups: the Lake Miwok to the north, the Patwin (Wintun) to the south and east, the Pomo to the north and west, and the Coast Miwok to the southwest (Heizer and Whipple 1971). The split between Northern Yukian and Wappo is somewhat unclear, likely ranging between 1,000 and Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2202 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
19 May 2020
3,000 years ago (Kroeber 1925; Golla 2007). This split was likely related to the intrusion of Pomospeaking communities during this period, which is evidenced through structural linguistic changes found within Wappo. These Wappo-speaking communities are indicated to have moved into the Napa region relatively, 500-1,500 years ago, based on the relatively limited presence of Miwok within the Wappo lexicon.

The territory occupied by the Wappo included Alexander Valley, most of Napa Valley, and the northern portion of Sonoma Valley. There are numerous regional subgroups including the Mishewal people of the Alexander and Knights Valley whose territory also included a small segment of the Russian River; the Mayacama people of the upper Napa Valley whose major village of maya?kma was located near present-day Calistoga; and the Caymus people whose territory was centered around a village located at Yountville. The Guilicos Wappo community were situated over the mountains to the west at the head of Sonoma Creek. Yet another Wappo group was located on the south shore of Clear Lake known as Lile’ek (Golla 2011).

Wappo settlements were organized in permanent villages throughout the valleys, typically found along major watercourses, such as rivers and creeks (Sawyer 1978). Districts of smaller settlements or tribelets were generally arranged around a larger community site (Kroeber 1925). The chiefs of these smaller tribelets resided in the larger villages but were responsible for maintaining close relationships with their tribelet as well as neighboring tribes. Subsistence for the Wappo was largely dependent upon the acorn (a staple food item), as well as other native plants, and hunting of a variety of animals, including deer, bear, elk, and rabbits.

Material cultural for the Wappo included tools made of stone, sticks, and shells. Basket making, likely influenced by the Pomo, was also an important aspect of the group’s material culture and was of particularly high quality and aesthetic. The last description of a traditional village (Driver 1936) describes oval-shaped houses made of grass thatch placed over bent poles (Sawyer 1978).

A lack of geographical restrictions in combination with their central location between the Pomo to the west and the Patwin to the east gave the Wappo the opportunity to act as middlemen in trading of items, such as shells for use as beads or ornaments (Heizer and Elsasser 1980). The Wappo would both bury and cremate the remains of the dead. Death rituals were complex and could involve burning personal possessions and relatives cutting their hair, rubbing clay on their heads, scoring of their flesh, and participating in intense ritual dances (Sawyer 1978).

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2203 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
20 May 2020

2.2.2 The Historic Period
Spanish Period (1769–1822)
The first Spanish expedition to enter the San Francisco Bay Area occurred under Gaspar de Portola in 1769. Portola’s chronicler, Fray Juan Crespi, detailed the journey of the group as it ventured up the coast. The first Spanish overland expedition into the San Francisco Bay region was led by Juan Bautista de Anza. The expedition reached San Francisco in 1776, where its members founded Mission Dolores and the Presidio. Spanish ‘missionization’ of Alta California was initiated in San Diego (1769). A total of 21 missions were constructed by the Dominican and Franciscan orders between 1769 and 1823. Missions in the region included San Francisco de Asís (1776), Santa Clara de Asís (1776), San José de Guadalupe (1797 in Alameda County), San Rafael Arcángel (1817 in Marin County), and San Francisco Solano (1823 in Sonoma County; Grunsky 1989).

Mexican Period (1822–1848)
Spanish-Mexican settlers arrived in the Napa Valley in 1823. In 1836, the first land grant within the Napa Valley area was awarded to George Yount at Caymus (Bartoy et al. 2005) Local Native Americans assisted Yount in constructing his two-story Kentucky-style log house. Within the next ten years, the Napa Valley was divided and parceled into numerous ranchos. In 1836, Nicolás Higuera, a soldier who served at the San Francisco Presidio, received several land grants from the Mexican government within Napa Valley, including an area called the Rancho Entre Napa, which included property that is now part of the present-day City of Napa.

Mexico’s separation from the Spanish empire in 1821 and the secularization of the California missions in the 1830s caused further disruptions to Native American populations. Following the establishment of the Mexican republic, the government seized many of the lands belonging to Native Americans, providing them as parts of larger Land Grants to affluent Mexican citizens and rancheros. The 1833 Secularization Act passed by the Mexican Congress ordered half of all mission lands to be transferred to Native Americans, and the other half to remain in trust and managed by an appointed administrator. These orders were never implemented due to several factors that conspired to prevent Native Americans from regaining their patrimony.

Under the command of General Vallejo, Mexican soldiers had a series of conflicts with Wappo Native American tribes and allied Pomo tribes. Known as the Satiyomi Campaigns, the Wappo fought successfully against Vallejo and his Patwin allies in AD 1834, AD 1836, and AD 1842 (Bartoy et al. 2005). Largely as a result of these conflicts, Vallejo signed two treaties with the Wappo in AD 1836.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2204 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
21 May 2020
American Period (Post 1848)
California was officially ceded to the United States in 1848, which led to the continued appropriation of Native American Lands by ranchers, prospectors, and an increasing number of settlers. The United States Government did little to dissuade these trespasses. From 1850, with the passage of California’s Indian Act, until legislative reforms in the late 1880s, state laws promoted conditions that amounted to indentured servitude for much of the Native American population throughout California. On February 8, 1850, Napa became one of California’s original 27 counties, with the City of Napa as the seat of the county. In AD 1852, the first mineral springs resort in California was established at White Sulphur Springs, approximately four miles to the west of St.

Helena (Bartoy et al. 2005). These bolstered the local economy, supporting the presence of multiple hotels and other businesses. A tremendous influx of individuals occurred in this area as a result of the California Gold Rush, which initiated in 1848. Since AD 1850, the economic growth of Napa County has been largely based on agriculture, ranching, timber, and mineral resources.

By 1868, the railroad had been extended to St. Helena, and with easier transportation came more residents and a thriving community. St. Helena, officially founded in 1876, was originally part of Dr. Edward Turner Bale’s Rancho Carne Humana (Napa County Historical Society 2019). Bale died in 1849, leaving his wife, Maria Ygnacia Soberanes, a member of the prominent Vallejo family. Maria built Bale’s grist and lumber mill into a profitable enterprise, and later sold 126 acres in St. Helena to Henry Still and Charles Walters. She also provided land to numerous individuals as an incentive to open local businesses.

A portion of downtown St. Helena was designated a National Register Historic District in 1998.

Based on records maintained by the Napa County Historical Society, it contains 35 historic buildings mostly along Main Street but also extending onto Railroad Avenue and Money Way (2019).

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2205 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
22 May 2020

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2206 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
23 May 2020

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 NWIC Records Search
A records search of the APE and the surrounding half-mile was completed by NWIC staff on October 22, 2018 (Confidential Appendix A). This search included their collection of mapped prehistoric, historical and built-environment resources, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Site Records, technical reports, archival resources, and ethnographic references. Additional consulted sources included the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Inventory of Historical Resources/CRHR and listed OHP Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility, California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, and Caltrans Bridge Survey information.

Previously Conducted Studies:

NWIC records indicate that fifty-nine (59) previous cultural resources technical investigations have been conducted within a half-mile of the APE. Of these, seven have included a portion of the current APE (Table 1). Approximately 90% of the APE has been included in previous investigations.

Table 1. Previous technical studies within a one half-mile radius of the APE Report ID Author Year Company Title
Previous Studies Conducted within the APE
S-032333 Mike Davis 1995
De Leuw,
Cather &
Company
Historic Property Survey Report, Pope Street Bridge
Replacement Project, 04-NAP-0000-SH1a, BRLO5051 (001), Napa River, Pope Street, Br. No. 21C0109, 59312 962052
S-043810 Kevin M. Bartoy
and John Holson 2005 Pacific Legacy,
Incorporated
Extended Archaeological Survey for the St. Helena
Flood Protection Project, City of St. Helena, Napa
County, California.

S-043810a
Kevin Bartoy, John
Holson, Lauren
Rosenthal, and
Heather Blind
2005 Pacific Legacy
Incorporated
Archaeological Investigation and Evaluation of Eight
Sites in the Napa River Floodplain for the St. Helena
Flood Protection Project, City of St. Helena, Napa
County, California (Vol 1: Report. Vol 2: Appendices.)
S-043810b Kevin Bartoy and
John Holson 2007 Pacific Legacy
Incorporated
Revised Historic Properties Treatment Plan for
Archaeological Sites CA-NAP-399, CA-NAP-406, CANAP-413, and CA-NAP-863, St. Helena Flood Protection Project, City of St. Helena, Napa County
S-043810c Susan K. Stratton 2007
Office of
Historic
Preservation
EPA060919A: Revised Historic Properties Treatment
Plan for the St. Helena Comprehensive Flood
Protection Project, Napa County, California: SRP No.

C-06-6093-110
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2207 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
24 May 2020
Report ID Author Year Company Title
S-043810d
Tsim D. Schneider,
Lori D. Hager,
Samantha S.

Schell, Lucian N.

Schrader, and John
Holson
2013 Pacific Legacy
Incorporated
Archaeological Data Recovery at CA-NAP-399, CANAP-406, CA-NAP-413, and CA-NAP-863 for the St.

Helena Flood Protection Project, City of St. Helena,
Napa County, California
Previous Studies Conducted within ½ Mile of the Project Area S-000538 David Chavez 1977
Holman and
Chavez,
Consulting
Archaeologists
An Archaeological Field Reconnaissance of a
Development Site in the City of St. Helena, California
(letter report)
S-000538a David Chavez 1977 Holman and
Chavez
Proposed Subsurface Archaeological Testing
Program of the Housing Guild Associates'
Development Site, City of St. Helena, Napa County,
California (letter report)
S-000538b David Chavez 1977 Holman and
Chavez
Preliminary Report, Subsurface Archaeological
Testing Program of the Housing Guild Associates'
Development Site, City of St. Helena, Napa County,
California (letter report)
S-000538c David Chavez 1977 Holman and
Chavez
Subsurface Archaeological Investigation of the
Housing Guild Associates' Development Site, City of
St. Helena, Napa County, California
S-000562 David Chavez 1977
Holman and
Chavez,
Consulting
Archaeologists
An Archaeological Impact Evaluation of the Horace
Jenkins Property in St. Helena, California (letter
report)
S-001864 Katherine Flynn 1979
Archaeological
Resource
Service
Archival Search and Field Survey of the 255 acre
Meadowood Golf and Tennis Club Expansion, St.

Helena, California (letter report)
S-001864a William Roop 1988
Archaeological
Resource
Service
Changes in the Proposed Master Plan Since
Approval of the Meadowood Resort Master Plan of
October 1980 (letter report)
S-001864b William Roop 1989
Archaeological
Resource
Service
Changes in the Proposed Master Plan Since
Approval of the Meadowood Resort Master Plan of
October 1980 (letter report)
S-002486 Suzanne Baker 1981 Archaeological
Consultants
Archaeological Reconnaissance of a Portion of the
Silverado Trail, Napa County, California
S-002551 Stephen A. Dietz 1981
Archaeological
Consulting and
Research
Services, Inc.

Cultural Resource Survey Report of the Calistoga
Pipeline Archaeological Reconnaissance, Napa
County, California
S-007618
Gregory King, Pat
Oman, Margaret
Buss, Denise
O'Connor, Daryl
Noble, Terry
Schuster, and John
Snyder
1986
California
Department of
Transportation
Historic Properties Survey Report Proposed Shoulder
Widening and Installation of Left Turn Lanes, Napa
County, 4-NAP-29 22.2/28.4 04226-111330
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2208 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
25 May 2020
Report ID Author Year Company Title
S-007618a Pat Oman 1985 Caltrans District
4 Archaeological Survey Report for Widening and LeftTurn Channelization to Highway 29 in Napa County, 4-NAP-29 22.2/28.4 04226-111330
S-007618b Denise O'Connor
and Gregory King 1986 Caltrans
Historical Architectural Survey Report for a Widening
Project on Highway 29 from Oakville to St. Helena,
Napa County, 4-NAP-29 22.2/28.4 04226-111330
S-007618c Gregory King 1985 Caltrans
Historic Resource Evaluation Report on Historic
Debris Located in the Oakville Vicinity, Napa County,
4-NAP-29 22.2/28.4 04226-111330
S-007618d Gregory King 1986 Caltrans
Historic Resource Evaluation Report on Former Napa
Valley Railroad Line, 4-NAP-29 22.2/28.4 04226-
111330
S-007618e Mick Hayes 1990 Caltrans
Negative Archaeological Survey Report: Addendum
#1, for Widening and Left-Turn Channelization to
Highway 29 in Napa County
S-007618f Glenn Gmoser 1990 Caltrans
Negative Archaeological Survey Report: Addendum
#2, for Widening and Left-Turn Channelization to
Highway 29 in Napa County
S-007618g Steven J. Rossa 1992 Basin Research
Associates
Negative Archaeological Survey Report: Addendum
#4, for Widening and Left-Turn Channelization to
Highway 29 in Napa County
S-007618h Gregory King 1987 Caltrans Oakville and Its Store S-007618i
Kathryn Gualtieri,
Thomas F.

McDonnell, and
Richard T.

Fitzgerald
1991
Office of
Historic
Preservation;
Caltrans
FHWA861015A; 4-NAP-29 22.2/28.4
S-012060 William Roop 1990
Archaeological
Resource
Service
A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Lands of
David Garden, Assessor's Parcel 009-070-005, St.

Helena, Napa County, Calif.

S-012739 Milton W. Stoll, Jr. 1960 Napa Valley Archaeological Survey S-013885 Sunshine Psota 1992
Cultural
Resources
Facility,
Sonoma State
University
An Archaeological Investigation of a Bank
Stabilization Project along the Napa River, St.

Helena, Napa County, California
S-014817 Janine M. Loyd and
Thomas M. Origer 1993 Tom Origer &
Associates
An Archaeological Survey for the St. Helena Water
Storage Tank Site and Water Main, St. Helena, Napa
County, California
S-014848 Archeo-Tec Inc. 1993 Archeo-Tec Inc.

Archival Literature Review, On-Site Archaeological
Surface Reconnaissance, and Subsurface
Archaeological Testing of the Approximately 5.8 Acre
Safeway Relocation Project Parcel Located at the
Intersection of Adams Street and Library Lane, St.

Helena, Napa County, California
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2209 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
26 May 2020
Report ID Author Year Company Title
S-016834 Janine M. Loyd and
Thomas M. Origer 1995 Tom Origer &
Associates
A Cultural Resources Survey for the Brown Street
Apartment Project, St. Helena, Napa County,
California
S-016913 William Roop and
Jeff Parsons 1995
Archaeological
Resource
Service
A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Meadow
Creek Subdivision, St Helena, Napa County,
California
S-016927 Thomas M. Origer
and Janine M. Loyd 1995 Tom Origer & Associates
A Cultural Resources Survey for Stonebridge Well II,
St. Helena, Napa County, California
S-017144 Thomas M. Origer 1994 Tom Origer &
Associates
Investigations at CA-NAP-863: A Prehistoric
Archaeological Site on the West Bank of the Napa
River in the City of St. Helena, Napa County,
California
S-017145 Vicki R. Beard and
Thomas M. Origer 1995 Tom Origer & Associates Archaeology of CA-NAP-159, St. Helena, California S-017180 Mark V. Thornton 1994
California
Department of
Forestry and
Fire Protection
A Survey and Historic Significance Evaluation of the
CDF Building Inventory, CDF Archaeological Reports,
Number 17, Volume 1 of 2
S-017180a Mark V. Thornton 1994
California State
University,
Fresno
A Survey and Historic Significance Evaluation of the
CDF Building Inventory,CDF Archaeological Reports,
Number 17, Volume 2 of 2
S-019105
Michael Smith,
Laurence H.

Shoup, and
Suzanne Baker
1997
Archaeological/
Historical
Consultants
Archaeological Survey Report, Silverado Trail Bike
Lane Expansion Project, Napa County, California
(Caltrans Project No. 5921)
S-019204 William Roop 1997
Archaeological
Resource
Service
A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Napa Valley
Wine Train, St. Helena Station
S-021260 Kim J. Tremaine
and John A. Lopez 1998
Tremaine &
Associates,
Archaeological
Consultants
Rock Fences of Napa County: A Pilot Study
S-022014 Katherine Flynn 1998
Archaeological
Resource
Service
A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Hunt Avenue
Parcel, St Helena, Napa County
S-023611 Lorna Billat 2001 EarthTouch,
LLC.

Proposed Modifications to an Exisiting
Telecommunications Facility (Nextel Site Number
CA-0915A-"St. Helena") (letter report)
S-024365 Katherine Flynn 2001
Archaeological
Resource
Service
A Cultural Resources Evaluation of the Proposed
Small Winery Construction Within APN 025-080-039,
690 Meadowood Lane, St. Helena, Napa County, CA
S-030905 Stacie Ham 2003
California
Department of
Transportation
Survey and Evaluation of Masonry Arch Bridges
S-030905a Stephen E. Mikesell 2004 Office Historic
Preservation
FHWA030430X; Survey and Evaluation of Masonry
Arch Bridges - Caltrans Statewide Historic Bridge
Survey Update
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2210 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
27 May 2020
Report ID Author Year Company Title
S-032333a
Donna M.

Garaventa, Stuart
A. Guedon, and
Melody E. Tannam
1995 Basin Research
Associates, Inc.

Positive Archaeological Survey Report Pope Street
Bridge Replacement Project City of St. Helena, Napa
County, California
S-032333b JRP Historical
Consulting Services 1995
JRP Historical
Consulting
Services
Historic Architectural Survey Report Pope Street
Bridge Replacement Project
S-032333c
JRP Historical
Consulting
Services; Basin
Research
Associates, Inc.
1996
JRP Historical
Consulting
Services; Basin
Research
Associates, Inc.

Finding of No Adverse Effect, Pope Street Bridge
Replacement Project, St. Helena, Napa County,
California, Bridge No. 21C-109
S-032333d
JRP Historical
Consulting
Services; Basin
Research
Associates, Inc.
1997
JRP Historical
Consulting
Services; Basin
Research
Associates, Inc.

Finding of No Adverse Effect, Pope Street Bridge
Replacement Project, St. Helena, Napa County,
California, Bridge No. 21C-109
S-032333e Cherilyn Widell and
David H. Densmore 1997
Office of
Historic
Preservation,
Federal
Highway
Administration
FHWA960522A; 04-NAP-0-SH1a, Pope Street Bridge
Replacement, St. Helena
S-033511
Laura Leach-Palm,
Patricia Mikkelsen,
Jerome King, Paul
Brandy, Lindsay
Hartman, and
Bryan Larson
2007
Far Western
Anthropological
Research
Group, Inc.;
JRP Historical
Consulting
Cultural Resources Inventory of Caltrans District 4
Rural Conventional Highways in Alameda, Marin,
Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sonoma
Counties
S-034210 Carie Montero 2006 Caltrans
Historic Property Survey Report for the Route 29
Saint Helena Left-Turn Channelization and Road
Rehabilitation Project in Napa County, California, 04-
NAP-29, PM 25.5/28.4 (KP 41.0/45.7), EA 259400.

S-034210a Vida Germano 2006
California
Department of
Transportation,
District 4
Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Route
29 Saint Helena Channelization Project in Napa
County, California, 04-NAP-29, PM 25.5/28.4 (KP

41.0/45.7), EA 259400
S-034210b Eric Wohlgemuth
and Meta Bunse 2007
Far Western
Anthropological
Research
Group, Inc.;
JRP Historical
Consulting
Archaeological Survey Report for the St. Helena LeftTurn Channelization Project, along State Route 29 near St. Helena, Napa County, California, 04-NAP29, PM 25.5-28.4 (KP 41.0/45.7), EA 025940 S-034210c
eric Wohlgemuth,
Jeffrey Rosenthal,
and Meta Bunse
2006
Far Western
Anthropological
Research
Group, Inc.;
JRP Historical
Consulting
Prehistoric Land Use and Obsidian Production in
Upper Napa Valley: Extended Phase I Investigations
at CA-NAP-710/H, -711, and -805, and Phase II
Investigations at CA-NAP-710/H and -712, along
State Route 20 near St. Helena, Napa County,
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2211 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
28 May 2020
Report ID Author Year Company Title
California, 04-NAP-29, PM 25.5-28.4 (KP 41.0/45.7),
EA 025940
S-035822 Diana J. Painter 2008
Painter
Preservation &
Planning
An evaluation of the proposed changes to the St.

Helena Carnegie Library (letter report)
S-035929 Pacific Gas and
Electric Company 2008
Pacific Gas and
Electric
Company
Cultural Resources Assessment - Fulton to St.

Helena Rebuild Project
S-043810 (2005) thru S-043810d (2013)
Archaeological investigations conducted by Pacific Legacy in support of the St. Helena Flood Protection Project occurred between 2004 and 2013. This project overlapped the western and northern portions of the present Project APE. As a result of the survey and Extended Phase I exploratory work, eight archaeological resources were identified (all in the general vicinity of the present Project APE): CA-NAP-399, CA-NAP-406, CA-NAP-413, CA-NAP-843, CA-NAP-863, CA-NAP-1007 (formerly HMS Vineyards Site), CA-NAP-1008 (formerly Miller Vineyard Site), and CA-NAP-1009/H (formerly HMS Historic Stone Wall). Based on the results of the Phase I Inventory and Phase II Evaluation efforts, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) determined that five of the identified archaeological sites (CA-NAP-413, CA-NAP-843, CA-NAP-1007, CA-NAP-1008, and Cal-NAP-1009H) lacked sufficient data potential and integrity to meet the criteria for NRHP eligibility. It was determined that three sites (CA-NAP-399, CA-NAP-406 and CA-NAP-863) were eligible for listing in the NRHP listing under Criterion D. Avoidance of the sites was considered, and it was determined that the objectives of the proposed undertaking were important and could not be met without destroying or damaging the identified Historic Properties. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with these findings in 2006 (Appendix B). A Historic Properties Treatment Plan (HPTP) was prepared outlining a program for Phase III Data Recovery and analysis that addressed the research potential of cultural deposits situated within the St. Helena Flood Control Project APE. As part of this process, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was prepared between SHPO, USACE, and SWRCB in 2007. With the expectation that human remains would be encountered during investigations and later monitoring activities, the Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley and the City of St. Helena developed a burial agreement for the treatment of human remains in 2007 (Bartoy and Holson 2007: 87). Phase III Data Recovery was completed of the entirety of CA-NAP-399 and CA-NAP-863, as well as an approximate 500 x 100 ft section of CA-NAP-406 (the extent of their APE). Site CA-NAP-406 was indicated in report maps to continue eastward into what represents the present Project APE (Bartoy et al. 2005: 90). The eastern limits of this site were not determined as part of this work, nor was subsurface evaluation or data recovery completed of this area within the present Project APE.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2212 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
29 May 2020
Previously Identified Cultural Resources:

Thirty (30) cultural resources have been recorded within the records search area. Three of the above mentioned resources intersect the Project APE: CA-NAP-406, CA-NAP-843, and CA-NAP1008 (Table 2; Confidential Appendix A). Work for the St. Helena Flood Protection Project resulted in a substantial level of previous archaeological investigation along the western and northern portions of the APE. This work has demonstrated the area to contain significant and highly sensitive archaeological resources. Specifically, 163 human burials were recovered from one site (CA-NAP-399); the largest number of burials recovered from a single site in Napa Valley to date (Schneider et al. 2013: 44). Human remains were not documented within archaeological resources intersecting the present Project APE.

Table 2. Cultural resources within a one half-mile radius of the APE Primary Trinomial Age Resource Name Description
Resources within the Project APE
P-28-000307 CA-NAP-000406 Prehistoric B-83-MC LITHIC SCATTER;

HABITATION DEBRIS
P-28-000701 CA-NAP-000843 Prehistoric SR-1 LITHIC SCATTER P-28-001267 CA-NAP-001008 Prehistoric Miller Vineyard Site LITHIC SCATTER Resources within ½ Mile of the Project APE
P-28-000009 CA-NAP-000863 Prehistoric Adams Street Site LITHIC SCATTER;
BURIAL; HEARTH;

HABITATION DEBRIS
P-28-000150 CA-NAP-000158 Prehistoric B-59-Z LITHIC SCATTER;

HABITATION DEBRIS
P-28-000151 CA-NAP-000159 Prehistoric B-70-DG LITHIC SCATTER;

HABITATION DEBRIS
P-28-000301 CA-NAP-000399 Prehistoric B- 55- V
LITHIC SCATTER;
BURIAL; CACHES;
HEARTH; HABITATION
DEBRIS
P-28-000305 CA-NAP-000404 Prehistoric B-80-WC LITHIC SCATTER;

HABITATION DEBRIS
P-28-000313 CA-NAP-000413 Prehistoric Adams Napa Junction Site LITHIC SCATTER;

BEDROCK MILLING
P-28-000476 CA-NAP-000594H Historic AC-43 FOUNDATIONS;

WALLS/FENCES
P-28-000770 None Historic Saint Helena Ranger Unit
Headquarters

SINGLE FAMILY
PROPERTY;

GOVERNMENT
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2213 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
30 May 2020
Primary Trinomial Age Resource Name Description
BUILDING; WPA/CCC

STRUCTURE
P-28-000790 None Historic St. Helena Post Office GOVERNMENT BUILDING P-28-000966 CA-NAP-001113H Historic Southern Pacific Railroad ROADS/TRAILS;

ENGINEERING
STRUCTURE; BRIDGE
P-28-001262 None Prehistoric Silverado and Pope Isolate ISOLATE P-28-001263 CA-NAP-001007 Prehistoric HMS Vineyards Site LITHIC SCATTER P-28-001264 None Prehistoric HMS Vineyards Isolate #1 ISOLATE P-28-001265 None Prehistoric HMS Vineyards Isolate #2 ISOLATE P-28-001266 None Prehistoric HMS Vineyards Isolate #3 ISOLATE P-28-001268 CA-NAP-001009H Historic HMS Vineyards Historic Stone Wall WALLS/FENCES P-28-001299 None Historic State Highway 29 over Sulphur Creek Bridge (#21-16) BRIDGE
P-28-001300 None Historic Pope Street over Napa River Bridge (#21C-109) BRIDGE
P-28-001302 None Historic Pope Street over Sulphur Creek Bridge (#21C-110) BRIDGE
P-28-001540 None Historic 1381 Main Street 1-3 STORY

COMMERICAL BUILDING
P-28-001547 None Historic Napa Valley Railroad District ROADS/TRAILS P-28-001548 None Historic F-SH 1 ENGINEERING

STRUCTURE
P-28-001610 None Historic St. Helena Public Library GOVERNMENT BUILDING P-28-001750 None Historic Saint Helena Southern Pacific Railroad Depot RAILROAD DEPOT
P-28-001875 None Historic 222 Pope Street SINGLE FAMILY

PROPERTY
P-28-001876 None Historic 21 Silverado Trail SINGLE FAMILY

PROPERTY
P-28-002481 None Historic St. Helena Historic Commercial District
1-3 STORY

COMMERICAL BUILDING
P-28-000307 (CA-NAP-406)
P-28-000307 was recorded initially during survey and subsurface testing completed by Yolande Beard in 1976 as a small site with worked obsidian, a pestle fragment and a small piece of magnesite. The resource was relocated by Stuart Guedon on June 13, 1995 at this recorded location. Guedon observed light scatter of obsidian debitage. The site was recorded as part of investigation and data recovery efforts for the St. Helena Flood Protection Project between 2004 Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2214 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
31 May 2020
and 2009 (Bartoy et al. 2005; Schneider et al. 2013). At the time of this study, the eastern and western extent of this site remained unconfirmed, however the resource as recorded measured 130 x 95 m. This resource was determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP/CRHR by the USACE and SWRCB in 2005. SHPO provided concurrence with these determinations in 2006. As such, an undetermined portion of this site, continuing from the west into the APE, was assumed prior to Dudek’s present investigation to be eligible for NRHP/CRHR listing.

During Pacific Legacy’s 2005 evaluation, an archaeological investigation of CA-NAP-406 consisted of the placement of 17 auger bores, 22 shovel test probes (50 cm x 50 cm), two excavation units (1 m x 1 m), and one mechanically excavated trench (3 m x 0.5 m; Bartoy et al. 2005). A total of four of the auger bores were placed within excavation units and shovel test probes to ensure that the maximum depth of the cultural deposit had been reached. Testing was limited to the APE, which was defined as approximately 100 feet to the east of the then proposed Adams Street extension. The total amount of soil excavated in the 22 shovel test probes and two excavation units amounted to 4.24 cubic meters. A total of 4,244 artifacts were recovered from this site during this investigation.

Phase III data recovery at CA-NAP-406 was completed between 2007 and 2009, and involved excavation of two Control Units (CUs) measuring 1 x 1 m; four Rapid Recovery Units (RRUs) measuring 2 x 1 m; and four trenches, measuring 3 x 1 m. In total, including Phase II investigations, the recovered assemblage included 5,711 pieces of lithic debitage, 17 bifaces, one core, seven edge-modified flakes, one hammerstone, 101 charcoal fragments, seven pieces of baked clay, and 40 historical-era artifacts.

P-28-000701 (CA-NAP-843)
CA-NAP-843 was recorded initially during survey and subsurface testing completed by J. Abell of Archaeo-Tec on April 1, 1993. The site was recorded as a sparse obsidian lithic scatter with 3 projectile point fragments, one biface and several modified flakes, and debitage distribute across an area measuring 85 x 35 m. The recorded location of this site was located immediately southwest of the present Project APE, however Abell noted that the resource may continue into the parcel representing the present APE. All item were identified on the surface; auguring yielded no subsurface material or identified midden-like soils. The resource was relocated by Stuart Guedon on June 13, 1995 at this recorded location. Guedon observed an extremely light and diffuse scatter of obsidian debitage that did not extend into adjoining areas.

The site was re-identified during subsurface testing by Pacific Legacy for the St. Helena Flood Protection Project in 2004. While NWIC resource files map this site to the southwest, Pacific Legacy’s technical report indicates that this testing occurred within the boundaries of the Project Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2215 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
32 May 2020
APE (Bartoy et al. 2005: 126). Archaeological investigation consisted of the placement of 29 auger bores and 15 shovel test probes (50 cm x 50 cm). The total amount of soil excavated in the shovel test probes amounted to 1.5 cubic meters. A total of four artifacts were recovered from this site during this investigation. Testing confirmed the characterization of this site as a low density lithic scatter with no associated midden (Bartoy et al. 2005). The site was considered a sparse surface scatter with no depth to the deposit. The artifact assemblage from the site included three edgedamaged obsidian flakes and one fragment of historic glass. Given the low density of cultural materials and the lack of spatial patterning, this resource was determined not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR by the USACE and SWRCB. SHPO provided concurrence with these determinations in 2006.

P-28-001267 (CA-NAP-1008)
CA-NAP-1008 (also referred to as “Miller Vineyard Site”) was identified by Pacific Legacy for the St. Helena Flood Protection Project initiating in 2004 at a location that falls within northeastern portion of the present Project APE. The site was recorded as a surface scatter and shallow deposit of flaked lithic artifacts, predominantly Napa Valley obsidian, measuring 150 x 100 m. Extended Phase I Inventory and Phase II Evaluation work completed by Pacific Legacy occurred in 2004 and 2005 (Bartoy et al. 2005). Subsurface archaeological investigation included 32 augers, 13 STPs (measuring 50 x 50 cm), two excavation units (measuring 1 x 1 m), and two mechanically excavated trenches (measuring 3 m x 0.5 m). A total of 396 artifacts were recovered from within

3.88 cubic meters of removed soil. Soil mixing to a depth of 60 cm below the surface (cmbs) was observed, presumably as a result of past discing activities associated with the surrounding vineyard. Obsidian hydration placed the sited chronologically between 2,500 years BP and 500 years BP. The site was determined not eligible for CRHR/NRHP listing by the USACE and SWRCB based on the results of extended Phase I Inventory and Phase II Evaluation work for the Flood Protection Project (Bartoy et al. 2005). SHPO provided concurrence with these determinations in 2006.

3.2 NAHC Correspondence
Dudek requested a NAHC search of their Sacred Lands File on September 28, 2018 for the proposed Project area. The results of this search were provided on October 10, 2018. These did not identify the presence of sacred sites within the Project area. The NAHC additionally provided contact information for Native American representatives with traditional cultural affiliations with this area. It was recommended that these individuals be contacted with requests for additional cultural resources information.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2216 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
33 May 2020
While Dudek has not contacted these individuals to date, outreach with NAHC-listed representatives was initiated for the Project was completed by the City pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52. The Project is subject to compliance with AB 52 (PRC Section 21074), which requires consideration of impacts to “tribal cultural resources” as part of the CEQA process, and requires the CEQA lead agency to notify any groups (who have requested notification) of the Project who are traditionally or culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project.

Because AB 52 is a government-to-government process, all records of correspondence related to AB 52 notification and any subsequent consultation are on file with the City. The City sent Project notification letters to the following tribes on April 23, 2018: Cortina Band of Indians, Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (Graton Rancheria), Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians, and Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley. Letters contained a description of the Project, outlined the process and timing of AB 52, and requested that the tribes respond with a request for consultation, if desired. On May 16, 2018, Graton Rancheria responded with an email indicating that the Project is not in their traditional ancestral territory. One tribe, the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, responded on May 22, 2018 indicating that the project is within their aboriginal territories and requesting a copy of the present report. No additional responses to this outreach have been received by the City to date.

3.3 Geomorphology
The Project site is located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province of California. This region is part of the San Andreas Fault system, the boundary of the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. Motion between the two plates is generally a right-lateral strike slip with the Pacific Plate moving northwestward in relation to the North American Plate. A data recovery of archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project area has resulted in substantial and detailed description of geomorphic setting, formation processes, and soil stratigraphy (Schneider et al. 2013). Segments of this report have been included to follow here directly.

The Project site is situated on the floodplain southwestern of the Napa River. Areas immediately south of the river are on a Holocene fluvial terrace. The river channel has been forced to the eastern side of the Napa Valley by alluvial fans deposited by Sulphur and York Creeks. The central portion of the Project is comprised of these alluvial fans, at the distal margin of the fan deposited by Sulphur Creek. Closer to the Sulphur Creek channel, the distal end of the fan protrudes into the terrace, likely resulting in the deposition of relatively coarse sediments (coarse sand and gravel) in that area. Areas near the river have a relatively complex stratigraphy, with one or more buried occupation surfaces present created due to their context within alluvial depositional environments.

Sites farther from the Napa River channel demonstrate less stratigraphic complexity than the other sites in the project area, with no evidence of buried occupation surfaces.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2217 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
34 May 2020
Within the Project site, soils are noted to be relatively consistent throughout. Across the site appears to be a disturbed surface stratum underlain by natural alluvial soils. The depth of this disturbance varies greatly throughout the APE. Previous and current testing indicates that between approximately 0.5 m and 1.5 m below surface, a layer of gray clay intermixed with small gravels is present. This layer of clay appeared to be natural alluvial subsoil that formed the base of the terrace in this area.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2218 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
35 May 2020
4 RESEARCH METHODS
The Secretary of the Interior has issued Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44720–44726), which are used for the identification and evaluation of historic properties and to ensure that the procedures are adequate and appropriate. The identification and evaluation of historic properties are dependent upon the relationship of individual properties to other similar properties (NPS and ACHP 1998, pp. 18–20). Information associated with properties regarding their prehistory, history, architecture, and other aspects of culture must be collected and organized to define these relationships (NPS 2009), which is the intent of the current inventory.

The City had previously hired a consultant to evaluate the Project and an environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared and released for public review in 2012. The City did not take any action on the Project at that time and based on receipt of new information the draft EIR was subsequently revised, but was never released for public review (WSA 2017). In late 2017, Dudek was retained to prepare a new EIR for the Project and the prior cultural evaluation was reviewed for adequacy.

Based on a review of the prior cultural work including the methods, findings, and mitigation, a number of information gaps were identified. Dudek provided the following recommendations for additional cultural resources efforts to be completed with the intent of ensuring that work supporting this EIR would be completed to adequate and appropriate standards:
• Determine the distribution of the planned Project disturbances relative to the horizontal and vertical distribution of cultural resources.
• Complete an updated records NWIC search to ensure the project has a current record archaeological work completed to date.
• Request an updated NAHC Sacred Lands File search in order to retain contact information for traditionally affiliated Native American representatives. • Assist with facilitation of AB52 consultation, if required by the lead agency for compliance with CEQA.
• Complete a Phase I Survey to document the present conditions within the project site and any visible archaeological resources.
• Conduct Extended Phase I and Phase II excavations within areas anticipated to intersect CA-NAP-406 and an appropriate sample of surrounding areas with potential to contain cultural resources. The intent of this work will be to examine the subsurface soils to depths that will be impacted by the project.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2219 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
36 May 2020
• Complete a GPR study to document general soil strata throughout the APE and locate possible subsurface anomalies.
• Provide cultural resources recommendations to be provided based on background research and fieldwork regarding what additional steps are required in order to ensure compliance with CEQA and other regulatory conditions.

4.1 Research Questions
The broader Project area has been subject to a substantial level of previous archaeological investigation. These focused on the areas intersecting the St. Helena Flood Control Project, which generally bounded, and overlapped to some degree, the west and the north sides of the Project APE. The prior EIR indicated that all significant resources within the Project APE were covered with fill that had been displaced by work associated with the St. Helena Flood Control Project.

With this consideration in mind, the following research questions were developed in order to guide the present cultural resources work:
• What is the recorded distribution of potentially significant cultural resources relative to the Project APE? Most pertinently, does NRHP-eligible site CA-NAP-406 or other resources have potential to extend into the Project site?
• How much of the Project site has been subject to previous investigation, and what has this investigation included?
• What Native American tribes and tribal representatives have specific traditional associations with this area and who should be contacted should sensitive material of Native American origin be identified in the future?
• Do existing subsurface soils have potential to support the presence of archaeological resources?
• Is there evidence of fill or specific disturbances within the Project APE and, if so, to what depth?
• Has existing work satisfied standard requirements for CEQA compliance and, if not, what additional work is required to meet this compliance?

4.2 Pedestrian Survey
Following Bureau of Land Management (BLM) precedents, which are appropriate for cultural resources projects in general, survey techniques are loosely grouped into two categories:

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2220 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
37 May 2020
reconnaissance and intensive (BLM 2004; NPS 2009). The choice of survey category depends on the level of effort required for a particular project, which can vary depending on the nature of the properties or property types, the possible adverse effects on such properties, and agency requirements (NPS and ACHP 1998). The selection of field survey techniques and level of effort must be responsive to the management needs and preservation goals that direct the survey effort.

For any survey, it is important to consider the full range of historic properties that may be affected, either directly or indirectly, and consider strategies that will minimize any adverse effects and maximize beneficial effects on those properties (BLM 2004; NPS 2009; NPS and ACHP 1998).

The current survey (completed November 15, 2018) can be classified as intensive since shortinterval transect spacing and full documentation of cultural resources was completed. Survey staff exceeded the applicable Secretary of Interior Professional Qualifications Standards for archaeological survey. Dudek archaeologist William Burns, MA, RPA surveyed the entire APE with transects spaced no more than 15 meters apart and oriented along cardinal directions where possible.

Survey direction and location was adjusted for the presence of grape vines that were present through the central and southern portions of the Project APE. Survey crew was equipped with a Trimble Geo7X Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver with sub-meter accuracy. Location-specific photographs were taken using an IPhone 7 equipped with 8 MP resolution and georeferenced PDF maps of the project area. Accuracy of this device ranged between 2 meters and 5 meters.

Subsurface exposures were opportunistically sought out and inspected near rodent burros, as well as along natural and human-made erosional features.

4.3 Subsurface Testing

4.3.1 Extended Phase I Testing
Dudek developed an XPI exploratory program in order to address the research questions outlined above. The intent of XPI investigations is to build upon Phase I survey information. Three hollow stem 6-inch auger borings and five STPs, measuring 0.5 x 0.25 m, were excavated at predetermined locations placed with the intent of providing a general understanding of the present subsurface conditions throughout the Project site. These locations were set with the goal of assessing the level of previous subsurface disturbance and presence of fill within the Project site, and the potential for soils to support the presence of cultural material and deposits associated with the three previously recorded sites in the vicinity: CA-NAP-406, CA-NAP-843, and CA-NAP-1008.

4.3.2 Phase II Testing
Further excavations within the APE were necessary to fully understand the extent of disturbances resulting from the previous levee project and soils changes. The intent of Phase II investigations Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2221 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
38 May 2020
is to build upon Phase I survey and XPI information. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) was utilized in transects and blocks to locate subsurface anomalies. Ten hollow stem 6-inch auger borings and twenty STPs, measuring 0.5 x 0.25 m, were excavated at anomaly locations discovered though GPR as well as pre-determined locations placed with the intent of providing a general understanding of the present subsurface conditions throughout the Project site. These locations were set with the goal of assessing the level of previous subsurface disturbance and presence and depth of fill within the Project site, and the potential for soils to support the presence of cultural material and deposits associated with the three previously recorded sites in the vicinity: CA-NAP-406, CA-NAP-843, and CA-NAP-1008. Excavation units are shown relative to the October 2009 Google Earth imagery within Figure 3. Active construction activities for the prior levee project are observable within this imagery.

Excavations units, including both auger and STP samples, were excavated and recorded in 20 cm arbitrary levels from the surface and screened using 1/8 inch mesh. Accurate vertical provenience was allowed by the short intervals of the hand-excavated augurs and STPs. Augers can be excavated more rapidly, with less disturbance, and to greater depths than STPs. STPs require removal of more soil than augers. However, this unit type also provides for a larger sample when looking for buried cultural deposits and allow for direct inspection of subsurface soil profiles along their exposed side walls. All removed soil soils and units were examined for midden-like soils and other cultural characteristics based on color, texture, consistency, stickiness, plasticity, and the presence of artifacts. Depositional characteristics and indications of past disturbance and/or fill were documented. Field notes were taken on Dudek auger and STP forms. All holes were backfilled using removed soils after sampling. Topsoil or grass was placed back on the surface of all excavated areas and restored to their previous appearance as best possible. A series of overview and excavation photographs were taken to document the current surface and subsurface conditions in each area. Any artifacts identified were documented using field forms, photographed, then bagged with labels identifying their subsurface provenience. Artifacts found during XPI excavations were buried on site in the corresponding backfilled unit within 10-20 cm of the surface.

Artifacts found during Phase II excavations were collected and returned to Dudek’s office for analysis.

4.4 Ground Penetrating Radar
Dudek has in-house GPR equipment and dedicated personnel trained in its use. The Dudek GPR is a wheeled device approximately the size of a child’s wagon, and can be pushed across the ground in a pre-defined survey pattern that is tracked by a GPS devise. A Sensors and Software, Ltd., Noggin 250 GPR unit was used to collect all data, using the SmartCart configuration. This allowed investigators an opportunity to observe any potential anomalies in real time as they walked the site. The GPR was set up to record data to a maximum depth of 8 meters (approximately 26 feet).

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2222 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
39 May 2020
A Trimble GeoXt device with sub-meter accuracy was used to collect locational information for each line and grid. GPR is non-invasive and uses electromagnetic fields to probe subsurface contexts for objects and changes in soil or material properties. Generally summarized, an antenna sends a finite frequency non-dispersive wave through the ground. This wave is then scattered and/or reflected back as “anomalies” with interpretable characteristics. While the location of anomalies can be identified in the field, and GPR survey strategies adjusted to focus on these areas in real-time, results are post-processed through software for the final results. By walking continuous linear transects and grids, this software allows for generation of three dimensional horizontal and visual mapping of subsurface features. This is most effective with historical or modern built environment features constructed of materials such as asphalt, brick, concrete, metal, wood, and other materials that would stand out against the surrounding soil matrix.

Raw GPR data is processed analyzed using GPR Slice (v7) software to create 2-dimensional vertical radargram images and time-slice horizontal (plan view) images for the Project site. Timeslice imagery is generated through post-processing of grids within a specific area. These can be viewed vertically from the surface to provide rough 3-dimensional renderings of subsurface anomalies, if present. Radargrams are also visible for review real-time on the GPR display during linear transects. Subsurface features as represented as hyperbolas, with the slope and size of the hyperbola related to the size and shape of the object. Round, linear features, such as enclosed waterlines and pipes, can be identified as smooth hyperbolae when crossed perpendicularly and as a solid line when the GPR runs parallel to the direction of the feature. Consecutive time-slice images are stitched from
Twenty-six transects lines and two grids (Grid-01: 10 m by 10 m, Grid-02: 10 m by 7.5 m) were tested. Their locations decided on attempting to avoid areas of high disturbance, based of older aerial satellite images (Figure 4). GPR was performed in order to identify potential subsurface archaeological features and signs of the extent of disturbance in the APE.

Based on review of records search information, the results of the XPI testing, and historical aerial imagery, transects for Lines 1 through 9, Grid-01, and Grid-02 were placed in the middle of the APE. The placement of this GPR study areas were to avoid the areas of highest disturbance seen in the 2009 aerial images while targeting locations intersecting the likely extended boundary of CA-NAP-406.

GPR transect Lines 1-19 were placed intersecting and just north of the boundary of CA-NAP-406 as it has been indicated to extend to within the Project APR by previous studies (Bartoy et al. 2005:
90). Grid-01 (10 m by 10 m) was comprised of 21 parallel lines oriented north-south (0.5 m interval) and 21 parallel lines oriented east-west (0.5 m interval) and Grid-02 (10 m by 7.5 m) was comprised of 16 parallel lines oriented north-south (0.5 m interval) and 21 parallel lines oriented Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2223 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
40 May 2020
east-west (0.5 m interval). Both grids and were placed near the central area of the APE, within the likely expanded site boundaries of CA-NAP-406 as indicated by previous studies. GPR transect Lines 20-25 were placed along the northern boundary of the over-excavated area located immediately north of the extant vineyards. After completing the GPR data acquisition and initial field analysis of the data, high-potential anomalies were ground-truthed through excavation of STPs to assess the GPR anomalies and surface observations.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2224 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
41 May 2020
Figure 3. Extended Phase I and Phase II Testing Relative to 2009 Aerial Imagery Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2225 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
42 May 2020

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2226 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
43 May 2020
Figure 4. GPR Investigation Area
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2227 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
44 May 2020

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2228 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
45 May 2020
5 RESULTS
This section presents the results of the records search and the field survey of the current study.

5.1 Survey Results
A Phase I Survey of the entire Project APE was completed November 15, 2018. The southern half of the Project APE was occupied by grape vines, allowing for approximately one-half of the ground surface to be directly visible. Low-laying grasses were present throughout the northern half of the Project APE, restricting visibility of the ground surface to less than 10% in most areas on this initial site visit (see Figures 5-6). Evidence for buried cultural deposits was opportunistically sought through inspection of natural or artificial erosion/excavation exposures and the spoils from rodent burrows. The Project APE has been subject to a number of past disturbances. The most notable of these have included present and past agricultural activities, as well as likely earth moving work in the northernmost portion of the Project APE. No artifacts were observed on the surface during survey, however visibility was highly restricted in most areas by low-laying vegetation and organic debris.

Figure 5. Overview of Auger-1 Location, view northward
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2229 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
46 May 2020

5.2 Extended Phase I and Phase II Results
Dudek archaeologist, William Burns performed XPI testing from November 15, 2018 to November 17, 2018. Dudek archaeologists Adam Giacinto, William Burns, Ross Owen, Nicholas Hanten, Kolin Taylor, Jessica Borges, and Brad Comeau performed Phase II testing from January 20, 2020 to January 24, 2020. Results of these excavations are provided in Table 3.

Table 3. Extended Phase I and Phase II Testing Results
Unit ID Depth
(cmbs) Results Artifacts Recovered Soil Description
AT-01
0-20 Negative None 2.5Y 5/3 Light olive brown clay silt with gravel, compact 20-40 Positive 1 obsidian shatter 2.5Y 5/3 Light olive brown clay silt with gravel, compact: 1 obsidian shatter fragment
40-60 Negative None 2.5Y 6/2 Light brown gray clay silt with gravel, compact.

Rock impasses at 60 cmbs
AT-02
0-20 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown loamy clay with gravel, compact
20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown loamy clay with gravel, compact
40-60 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown loamy clay with gravel, compact
AT-03 0-20 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown loamy clay with gravel, compact
Figure 6. Overview of STP-2, view westward toward levee Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2230 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
47 May 2020
Unit ID Depth
(cmbs) Results Artifacts Recovered Soil Description
20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown loamy clay with gravel, compact
40-60 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown loamy clay with gravel, compact
AT-04
0-20 Positive 1 green bottle glass
fragment
10YR 4/1 Dark gray silty clay, no gravels: 1 fragment
green bottle glass
20-40 Negative None 10YR 4/1 Dark gray clay, < 2% angular gravels 40-60 Negative None 10 YR 4/1 Dark gray clay < 5% angular gravels 60-80 Negative 4 obsidian debitage 10 YR 4/1 Dark gray clay < 5% angular gravels. Rock impasse at 75 cmbs
AT-05
0-20 Negative None 2.5 YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown clay loam 20-40 Positive 2 obsidian debitage 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty loam with increased sand content
40-60 Positive 2 obsidian debitage 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty loam with increased sand content
60-80 Positive 1 obsidian debitage 10YR 2/2 Very dark brown silty loam with increased grit, moderately compact. Rock impasse at 80 cmbs
AT-06
0-20 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty loam 20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty loam 40-60 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty loam 60-80 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty loam 80-100 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty loam 100-120 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty loam 120-140 Negative None 2.5Y 4/3 Olive brown sandy silt, with 20% gravel. 140-160 Negative None 2.5Y 4/3 Olive brown sandy silt, with 20% gravel. 160-180 Negative None 2.5Y 4/3 Olive brown sandy silt, with 20% gravel. 180-200 Negative None 2.5Y 4/3 Olive brown sandy silt, with 20% gravel. Auger terminated at 187 cmbs
AT-07
0-20 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty loam, gradual increase in sand content with depth
20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty loam, gradual increase in sand content with depth
40-60 Negative None 10YR 4/2 Dark grayish brown sandy loam 60-80 Negative None 10YR 4/2 Dark grayish brown sandy loam 80-100 Negative None 10YR 5/3 Brown sandy clay, coarse sand with 15% angular gravels. Rock impasse at 90 cmbs
AT-08
0-20 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown clay loam 20-40 Negative None 2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray brown clay loam, increased sand, <5% small cobbles and gravel
40-60 Negative None 2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray brown clay loam, increased sand, <5% small cobbles and gravel
60-80 Negative None 2.5Y 4/3 Olive brown sandy silt, some oxidation present Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2231 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
48 May 2020
Unit ID Depth
(cmbs) Results Artifacts Recovered Soil Description
80-100 Negative None 2.5Y 4/4 Olive brown sandy silt, some oxidation present AT-09
0-20 Negative None 10YR 3/3 Dark brown silt loam
20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/3 Dark brown silty loam
40-60 Negative None 10 YR 3/2 Very dark gray brown silty clay loam. Rock impasse at 55 cmbs
AT-10
0-20 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty loam with coarse sand
20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/3 Dark brown silty clay loam 40-60 Negative None 10YR 3/3 Dark brown silty clay loam. Rock impasse at 53 cmbs
AT-11
0-20 Negative None 10YR 3/1 Very dark gray clay silt
20-40 Negative None 2.5Y 3/3 dark olive brown silty clay 40-60 Negative None 2.5Y 3/3 dark olive brown silty clay 60-80 Negative None 2.5Y 3/3 dark olive brown silty clay 80-100 Negative None 2.5Y 2.5/1 Black silty clay
100-120 Negative None 2.5Y 2.5/1 Black silty clay
120-140 Negative None 2.5Y 2.5/1 Black silty clay
140-160 Negative None 2.5Y 2.5/1 Black silty clay
AT-12
0-20 Positive 1 obsidian debitage 2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray brown clay loam 20-40 Positive 2 obsidian debitage 2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray brown clay loam 40-60 Negative None 2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray brown clay loam 60-80 Negative None

2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray brown sandy clay loam, with 20% small-medihm gravels and cobbles. Rock impasse at 70
cmbs
AT-13
0-20 Positive 1 obsidian flake 2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray brown silty loam 20-40 Negative None 2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray brown silty loam 40-60 Negative None 2.5Y 4/1 dark geay silty clay loam with oxidation throughout
60-80 Negative None 2.5Y 2.5/1 black silty clay loam, compact 80-100 Negative None 2.5Y 2.5/1 black silty clay loam, compact 100-120 Negative None 2.5Y 2.5/1 black silty clay loam, compact 120-140 Negative None 10YR 4/1 dark gray mottled with 10YR 4/3 brown clay loam, compact
140-160 Negative None 2.5Y 5/2 grayish brown sandy clay loam 160-180 Negative None 2.5Y 5/2 grayish brown sandy clay loam 180-200 Negative None 2.5Y 5/2 grayish brown sandy clay loam 200-220 Negative None 2.5Y 4/2 Dark grayish brown sandy clay loam 220-240 Negative None 2.5Y 4/2 Dark grayish brown sandy clay loam 240-260 Negative None 2.5Y 4/2 Dark grayish brown sandy clay loam Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2232 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
49 May 2020
Unit ID Depth
(cmbs) Results Artifacts Recovered Soil Description
260-280 Negative None 2.5Y 4/2 Dark grayish brown sandy loam, water table at 280 cmbs
STP-01
0-20 Positive
21 obsidian flakes, 1
retouched obsidian
flake
10YR 3/2 very dark gray brown loamy clay with gravel,
compact
20-40 Positive 45 obsidian flakes 10YR 3/2 Very dark gray brown clay silt, compact STP-02
0-20 Positive 9 obsidian flakes 2.5Y 5/3 Light olive brown clay silt with gravel, compact 20-40 Positive 44 obsidian flakes 10YR 3/2 Very dark gray brown clay silt, compact STP-03
0-20 Positive 3 obsidian flakes, 1
chert flake 2.5Y 5/3 Light olive brown clay silt with gravel, compact 20-40 Positive 3 obsidian flakes 10YR 3/2 Very dark gray brown clay silt, compact STP-04
0-20 Positive 14 obsidian flakes 10YR 3/3 Dark Brown sandy clay silt with gravel, compact 20-40 Positive 8 obsidian flakes 10YR 3/2 Very dark gray brown clay silt, compact STP-05
0-20 Positive 34 obsidian flakes 10YR 4/2 Dark grayish brown loamy clay with gravel, compact
20-40 Positive
63 obsidian flakes, 1
obsidian
chopper/scraper
10YR 3/2 Very dark gray brown clay silt, compact
STP-08
0-20 Positive 50 obsidian debitage 10YR 3/2 very dark gray brown loamy clay, lightly compacted, with <5% small rounded gravels
20-40 Positive 44 obsidian debitage 10YR 3/2 very dark gray brown loamy clay, lightly compacted, with <5% small rounded gravels
40-60 Positive 4 obsidian debitage 10YR 3/2 very dark gray brown loamy clay, lightly compacted, with <2% small rounded gravels
60-80 Negative None 10YR 4/3 Brown clay with <2% small angular and rounded gravels
80-100 Negative None 10YR 4/4 Dark yellowish brown sandy clay, <5% gravel and cobbles
100-120 Negative None 10YR 4/4 Dark yellowish brown sandy clay, <5% gravel and cobbles. Terminated at 105 cmbs due to water table
STP-09
0-20 Positive 21 obsidian debitage 2.5Y 3/1 Very dark gray silty clay with <10% angular gravel 20-40 Positive 14 obsidan debitage,
modern plastic 2.5Y 3/1 Very dark gray silty clay with <10% angular gravel 40-60 Positive
21 obsidian debitage,
brick fragment,
wooden lathe
fragment, and modern
plastic

2.5Y 3/1 Very dark gray silty clay with <10% angular gravel 60-80 Positive
21 obsidian debitage,
1 obsidian retouched
edge tool, brick
fragment

2.5Y 3/2 very dark gray brown sandy silt with <15%
angular gravel, very compact
80-100 Positive 22 obsidian debitage,
brick fragment

2.5Y 3/2 very dark gray brown sandy silt with <15%
angular gravel, very compact
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2233 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
50 May 2020
Unit ID Depth
(cmbs) Results Artifacts Recovered Soil Description
100-120 Positive 1 obsidian debitage
Auger - 2.5Y 3/2 very dark gray brown clay loam with
<15% angular gravel, slightly compact. Rock impase at
120 cmbs
STP-10
0-20 Positive 1 obsidian biface, 17
obsidian debitage 2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray brown silty clay loam 20-40 Positive
3 obsidian debitage, 2
glass fragments,
plastic, and aluminum

2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray brown silty clay loam, increasing clay content and compaction with depth
40-60 Positive 1 obsidian debitage 2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray brown sandy silty clay loam 60-80 Negative None Auger - 2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray brown sandy silt 80-100 Negative None Auger - 2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray brown sandy silt 100-120 Negative None Auger - 2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray brown sandy silt 120-140 Negative None Auger - 2.5Y 3/1 Very dark gray sandy clay 140-160 Negative None Auger - 2.5Y 3/2 Very dark gray coarse sand. Terminated at 160 cmbs
STP-11
0-20 Positive 6 obsidian debitage 7.5YR 3/2 dark brown loamy clay with <5% rounded gravel 20-40 Positive 3 obsidian debitage 7.5YR 3/2 dark brown loamy clay with <5% rounded gravel 40-60 Positive 3+ pieces of plastic 10YR 3/2 dark grayish brown loam with <5% rounded gravel
60-80 Negative None 7.5YR 3/4 dark brown loam
80-100 Negative None 80-90 cmbs: 7.5YR 3/4 dark brown loam 90-100 cmbs: coarse gray sand
STP-12
0-20 Positive 3 obsidian debitage 10YR 3/3 Dark brown sandy silt 20-40 Positive 6 obsidian debitage 10YR 3/3 Dark brown sandy silt 40-60 Positive 13 obsidian debitage
40-50 cmbs: 10YR 3/3 Dark brown sandy silt
50-60: 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown sandy silt with ~50% cobbles
60-80 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown sandy silt with ~50% cobbles. Terminated at 75 cmbs due to rock impasse
STP-14
0-20 Negative None 10YR 4/3 Brown sandy loam with <5% gravel 20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/3 Dark brown sandy loam with <5% gravel 40-60 Negative None 10YR 3/3 Dark brown sandy loam with <5% gravel, cobbles at 55 cmbs
STP-16
0-20 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown loamy clay 20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown loamy clay 40-60 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown loamy clay, 55cmbs increased cobbles (5-10 cm diam.)
STP-17
0-20 Positive 1 obsidian debitage 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown sandy loam with angular cobbles (5-15 cm diam.)
20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown sandy loam with angular cobbles (5-15 cm diam.)
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2234 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
51 May 2020
Unit ID Depth
(cmbs) Results Artifacts Recovered Soil Description
40-60 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown sandy loam with angular cobbles (5-15 cm diam.)
STP-18
0-20 Negative None
10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown sandy loam with <5%
angular gravels. Angular cobbles (4-8 cm diam.) at 15
cmbs
20-40 Negative None 10YR 4/1 Dark gray loamy clay, < 2% angular gravels, clobbles (~10 cm diam.)
40-60 Negative None 10YR 4/1 Dark gray loamy clay, < 2% angular gravels, clobbles (~10 cm diam.)
STP-19
0-20 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown loamy clay 20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/3 Dark brown loamy clay with cobbles (4-8 cm diam.)
40-60 Negative None 10YR 3/3 Dark brown loamy clay with cobbles (4-8 cm diam.)
STP-21
0-20 Positive 1 obsidian debitage 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown loamy clay with <5% angular gravels
20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown loamy clay with <5% angular gravels
40-60 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown loamy clay with <5% angular gravels
STP-22
0-20 Negative None 10YR 3/3 Dark brown sandy loam with <5% gravel 20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/3 Dark brown sandy loam with <5% gravel 40-60 Negative None 10YR 3/3 Dark brown sandy loam with >50% cobbles (4- 10 cm diam.)
STP-23
0-20 Positive 1 obsidian debitage 2.5Y 3/2 Dark Brown clay silt 20-40 Negative None 2.5Y 3/2 Dark Brown clay silt
40-60 Negative None 2.5Y 3/2 Dark Brown clay silt
60-80 Negative None Auger - 60-70 cmbs: 2.5Y 3/2 Dark brown clay silt 70-80 cmbs: 2.5Y 2.5/1 Black silty clay
80-100 Negative None Auger - 2.5Y 2.5/1 black silty clay 100-120 Negative None Auger - 2.5Y 2.5/1 black silty clay 120-140 Negative None Auger - 2.5Y 2.5/1 black silty clay 140-160 Negative None Auger - 2.5Y 2.5/1 black silty clay STP-24
0-20 Negative None 10YR 3/3 Dark brown sandy silt
20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/3 Dark brown sandy silt
40-60 Negative None 10YR 3/3 Dark brown sandy silt
STP-25
0-20 Positive 1 obsidian debitage 7.5YR 3/2 Dark brown sandy loam with 5% large cobbles (5-15 cm diam.)
20-40 Positive 1 historic ceramic 7.5YR 3/2 Dark brown sandy loam with 70% large cobbles (5-15 cm diam.)
STP-26
0-20 Negative None 7.5YR 3/2 Dark brown silty sandy loam 20-40 Negative None 7.5YR 3/2 Dark brown silty sandy loam Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2235 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
52 May 2020
Unit ID Depth
(cmbs) Results Artifacts Recovered Soil Description
40-60 Negative None 7.5YR 3/2 Dark brown silty sandy loam with 50% cobbles (5-15 cm diam.)
STP-27
0-20 Negative None 10YR 4/2 Dark grayish brown loamy clay with ~50% gravel 20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark gray sandy clay with ~50% gravel 40-60 Positive 12 obsidian debitage 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown clay with 10% gravels:
12 obsidian debitage
60-80 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown sandy loam with 10% gravels
80-100 Negative None 10YR 2/2 Very dark brown sandy loam 100-120 Negative None 10YR 2/2 Very dark brown sandy loam 120-140 Negative None 10YR 2/2 Very dark brown sandy loam. Terminated at 130 cmbs
STP-28
0-20 Positive 6 obsidian debitage 10YR 4/2 Dark grayish brown silty clay 20-40 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown clay 40-60 Negative None 2.5YR 3/1 Very dark grayish brown
60-80 Negative None Auger - 2.5YR 4/1 Very dark gray sandy clay 80-100 Negative None Auger - 2.5YR 4/1 Very dark gray sandy clay 100-120 Negative None Auger - 2.5YR 4/1 Very dark gray sandy clay 120-140 Negative None Auger - 2.5YR 4/1 Very dark gray sandy clay 140-160 Negative None Auger - 2.5YR 4/1 Very dark gray sandy clay STP-29
0-20 Positive 6 obsidian debitage 10YR 2/2 Very dark brown clay 20-40 Positive 3 obsidian debitage 10YR 2/2 Very dark brown clay 40-60 Positive 4 obsidian debitage 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty clay 60-80 Positive 1 obsidian debitage, 3
glass fragments 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty clay 80-100 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty clay 100-120 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty clay 120-140 Negative None 10YR 3/2 Very dark grayish brown silty clay 140-160 Negative None 5Y 3/1 Very dark gray silty clay. Terminated at 150 cmbs.

STP-30
0-20 Positive 2 obsidian debitage 2.5Y 3/2 Dark brown sandy loam 20-40 Positive 1 obsidian debitage 2.5Y 3/2 Dark brown sandy loam 40-60 Negative None 2.5Y 3/1 Very dark grayish brown sandy loam 60-80 Negative None 2.5Y 4/2 Dark grayish brown sandy silt with 40% large cobbles
80-100 Negative None 2.5Y 4/2 Dark grayish brown sandy silt 100-120 Negative None 2.5Y 4/2 Dark grayish brown sandy silt Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2236 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
53 May 2020
Archaeological testing did not result in the identification of intact cultural deposits. Results indicate artifact frequencies were highest in the central (near CA-NAP-406) and northern (CANAP-1008) portions of the Project APE. Most cultural material was recovered from shallower contexts (above 60 cmbs). Modern debris was encountered to 100 cmbs. Artifacts consisted predominantly of small obsidian tertiary flakes. These findings are generally consistent with the assemplage documented for Phase II excavations completed for the St. Helena Flood Control Project along the western side of the central portion of the Project APE (Bartoy et al. 2005). This study suggested that a gray sandy clay sterile soil sub-stratum was present approximately 1.5 m below the surface (Schneider et al. 2013: 27).

The portion of the APE north of the existing vineyards was confirmed to be covered by a layer of fill extending to at least 100 cmbs (3.28 ft). A soil shoulder of this approximate height marks the extent of this graded fill along the eastern perimeter of the APE, north of the vineyard. A ditch, as well as narrow lower terrace, is present east of this berm where native soils could be encountered at shallow depths. October 2009 Google Earth imagery (as previously included in Figure 3) does show the distribution of fill in this area. At the time of the prior levee project, the area was used for staging of equipment. It is unclear from this imagery if underlying native soils were graded, ripped, or otherwise prepped prior to the distribution of fill. A large area of likely excavation is also visible within the 2009 imagery just north of the existing vineyard.

The patterning shown by the distribution of artifacts in this area is somewhat unclear. In general, artifacts are clearly associated with soils approximately 60 cmbs or shallower, below which the presence of artifacts substantially decreases. The areas nearest the recorded boundaries of CANAP-406, notably STP-9, did yield relatively high frequencies of artifacts to depths up to 100 cmbs. However, modern construction waste (brick) was also found within this unit at this same depth. Based on this distribution of cultural material, it seems most likely that soils and/or artifacts associated with CA-NAP-406 were spread throughout the APE at a later stage of the levee project. This likely occurred after grading and partial leveling of soils from outside of CA-NAP-406, which helps explain both why the distribution of artifacts remains relatively vertically constrained and why there is not a clear soil transition between the different levels of graded soils.

The areas of the APE within the vineyard, while previously disturbed through agricultural activities, were not capped by redistributed soils during the levee project. As such, these areas would have the highest potential for intact cultural deposits to persist. The total assemblage of artifacts recovered from all excavation units within this area included four fragments of obsidian debitage and one possibly historical-era ceramic fragment. All material was recovered from the upper 40 cmbs. It is most likely that soils within the vineyard are likely representative of the native soils underlying fill to the north, consisting of sandy loam with increased frequencies of rock at depth.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2237 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
54 May 2020

5.3 Ground Penetrating Radar Review
GPR data collection was performed on January 14 and 15, 2020 by Brad Comeau, Adam Giacinto, and William Burns. Twenty-six transects lines and two square grids were tested. The transect lines were organized into two groups. Lines 1 to 19 were placed close to the center of the Project site and ran E/W across the entirety of the APE. These lines had no major hits, though a few stronger anomalies were ground-truthed with STPs. The STPs were generally irrigation lines; no cultural features were encountered. Lines 20-26 were placed farther south from Line 1-19. Line 20 registered an anomaly at 118 m east along the transect, at a depth of approximately 0.5 m (Figure 7). This anomaly was investigated with STP 11, however the STP failed to locate a feature and was likely reflective of a soil change or subsurface cobble. A few other minor hits along Line 20- 26 were investigated with STPs, though none revealed any features. Radargrams generated through linear transects provided an approximate cross section of stratigraphy across the entire APE, east to west. GPR data indicates a soil change between approximately 0.5 m and 1.5 m (Figure 7). This clearly aligns with soil profiles revealed through STPs and auger bores, which display a disturbed fill from the ground surface, transitions to a subsurface alluvium between 0.5 m and 1.5 m. The two grids, Grid-01 and Grid-02, contained no substantial GPR findings.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2238 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
55 May 2020
Figure 7. GPR Line 20 Anomaly
Figure 8. GPR General Soil Profile (Line 5)
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2239 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
56 May 2020

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2240 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
57 May 2020
6 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Summary
This study has consisted of a CHRIS records search of the Project APE and a half-mile radius, NAHC Sacred Lands File search, intensive-level pedestrian survey, XPI subsurface probing, Phase II excavations, and a GPR investigation. A NAHC Sacred Lands File did not indicate the presence of any Native American cultural resources in or near the Project APE. Dudek did not contact Native American representatives as part of these efforts, however the City has notified and consulted with NAHC-listed Tribal representatives pursuant to AB 52. One tribe, the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, has responded to this outreach with a request for a copy of the present report. A record of consultation is on file with the City.

Records on file with the NWIC provided documentation of three previously recorded archaeological sites within the Project APE (CA-NAP-406, CA-NAP-843, and CA-NAP-1008).

An additional five archaeological sites have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the Project. Two of these have been determined NRHP/CRHR eligible. CA-NAP-406 has been determined to be eligible for listing on the NRHP listing under Criterion D with SHPO concurrence. CA-NAP-843 and CA-NAP-1008 were determined with SHPO concurrence to be ineligible for NRHP/CRHR listing based on a lack of sufficient data potential and integrity.

XPI exploratory probing confirmed that soil containing archaeological material associated with CA-NAP-406, CA-NAP-843 and CA-NAP-1008 is present within the Project APE. Phase II excavations and research were able to identify a layer of disturbed fill/redistributed soils across the northern half of the APE which contained the cultural material in its upper layers (generally less than 60 cmbs but as deep as 100 cmbs). It is likely that this upper layer of fill is comprised largely of redeposited and otherwise disturbed cultural deposits associated with CA-NAP-406.

Soils identified below the fill was not found to contain cultural deposits or substantial frequencies of cultural material. CA-NAP-843 and CA-NAP-1008 have been subject to previous evaluation efforts, and are not NRHP/CRHR eligible. No intact cultural deposits were identified as a result of XPI, Phase II, and GPR investigations.

6.2 Review of Potential Impacts
The City is the lead agency responsible for compliance with the CEQA. Compliance with Section 106 may also be required. According to CEQA (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852), a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect (adverse effect) on the environment and the cultural resource itself. A substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource would be constituted by physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2241 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
58 May 2020
alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. Once a baseline understanding of resource distribution and significance is understood, the CEQA process provides that some impacts may be made to be less than significant with application of mitigation.

Effects on historic properties under Section 106 of the NHPA are defined in the assessment of adverse effects in 36 CFR Sections 800.5(a)(1). An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Consideration shall be given to all qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. Adverse effects may include reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the undertaking that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance or be cumulative. Compliance with Section 106 requires, the criteria of adverse effect are applied to historic properties, if any exist in the Project APE. If no historic properties are identified in the APE, a finding of “no historic properties affected” will be made for the proposed Project. If there are historic properties in the APE, application of the criteria of adverse effect will result in Project-related findings of either “no adverse effect” or of “adverse effect”.

CA-NAP-843 and CA-NAP-1008 fall within the APE. These have both been determined ineligible for CRHR/NRHP-listing with concurrence from SHPO. Previous investigations appear to have included the portions of these resources intersecting the present Project APE. Impacts to CA-NAP843 and CA-NAP-1008 would not represent a significant effect, although appropriate management strategies to account for unanticipated impacts will require consideration.

CA-NAP-406 has been determined to be eligible for CRHR (Criterion 4) and NRHP (Criterion D) listing. Previous investigations evaluating this resource were restricted to portions of this resource located immediately west of the present Project APE. Prior to the presently documented investigations, the actual distribution, composition, and significance of archaeological deposits associated with this resource within the present Project APE remained undetermined. Based on the results of archaeological excavations and a GPR investigation no intact deposits or features associated with CA-NAP-406 appear to extend to within the APE. Disturbed and redeposited archaeological material within the APE is not CRHR/NRHP eligible. As such, effects to known cultural resources resulting from the Project as presently designed would be less than significant, No Historic Properties Affected.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2242 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
59 May 2020

6.3 Recommendations
While archaeological resources were identified within the Project APE, all observed cultural material was identified within disturbed and redeposited context. The exact depth, area, and severity of previous disturbances remains somewhat unclear. The vertical APE of the Project is as deep as 6 feet below the existing ground surface for utility trenching and 1.5 feet below the existing grade for general ground preparation. There is some potential to encounter unanticipated significant cultural resources during Project activities, most notably where intact remnant deposits associated with CA-NAP-406 could be present. Based on the results of XPI, Phase II, and GPR investigations, such deposits have the highest potential to be present deeper than two feet beneath the present grade in areas located north of the planned Starr Avenue expansion. Portions of the APE to the south, presently occupied by vineyards, have a higher potential to contain intact cultural deposits at shallower depth. In addition, it should be noted that numerous human burials have been identified in nearby areas, although not within the Project APE.

Based on identified sensitivity for encountering unanticipated significant cultural resources and human remains, archaeological monitoring is recommended. The following plan has been prepared with the intent of aiding in future cultural monitoring efforts.

Monitoring Roles and Responsibilities
The requirement for a Native American monitor shall be determined by the City in consultation with traditionally culturally affiliated tribes. Archaeological monitors should be present during all initial ground-disturbing activities with the potential to encounter cultural resources. Prior to the initiation ground-disturbing work, construction crews will be made aware of the potential to encounter cultural resources and the requirement for cultural monitors to be present during these activities. Archaeological monitoring may be adjusted (increase, decreased, or discontinued) at the recommendation of the qualified archaeological principal investigator meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, and in consultation with the City, based on inspection of exposed cultural material and the observed potential for soils to contain intact cultural deposits or otherwise significant archaeological material.

The archaeological monitor shall be provided a copy of this technical report and its pertinent appendices to inform their monitoring efforts. The archaeological shall have the authority to temporarily halt work to inspect areas as needed for potential cultural material or deposits. In the event that potentially intact archaeological deposits or features are exposed during construction activities for the proposed project, all construction work occurring within 100 feet of the find shall immediately stop until the archaeological principal investigator can evaluate the significance of the find and determine whether or not additional study is warranted. The work exclusion buffer Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2243 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
60 May 2020
may be adjusted as appropriate to allow work to feasibly continue at the recommendation of the archaeological principal investigator. Should it be required, temporary flagging may be installed around this resource in order to avoid any disturbances from construction equipment. The potential for project avoidance of potentially significant cultural resources should be a primary consideration as part of this initial process. Significance of the find will be assessed as outlined by CEQA (14 CCR 15064.5(f); PRC Section 21082). If the archaeological principal investigator observes the discovery to be potentially significant under CEQA or Section 106 of the NHPA, additional efforts such as preparation of an archaeological treatment plan, testing, and/or data recovery may be warranted prior to allowing construction to proceed in this area.

In accordance with Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, if potential human remains are found the county coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. The coroner will provide a determination within 48 hours of notification. No further excavation or disturbance of the identified material, or any area reasonably suspected to overlie additional remains, shall occur until a determination has been made. If the county coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, Native American, they shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, the NAHC must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the most likely descendent (MLD) from the deceased Native American. Within 48 hours of their notification, the MLD will recommend to the lead agency their preferred treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

Reporting Requirements
Daily monitoring logs will be completed by onsite archaeological monitor. Within 60 days following completion of construction, the qualified archaeological principal investigator shall provide an archaeological monitoring report to the City. This report shall include the results of the cultural monitoring program (even if negative), including a summary of any findings or evaluation/data recovery efforts, and supporting documentation that demonstrates all mitigation measures defined in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) were appropriately met. Appendices should include archaeological monitoring logs and documentation relating to any newly identified or updated cultural resources. This report shall be submitted to the NWIC once considered final.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2244 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
61 May 2020
7 REFERENCES
16 U.S.C. 470–470x-6. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 36 CFR 60. National Register of Historic Places.
36 CFR 800.1–800.16 and Appendix A. Protection of Historic Properties. 48 FR 44720–44726. “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Federal Agency Historic Preservation Programs Pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act.” April 24, 1998.

Bartoy, Kevin and John Holson. 2007. Pacific Legacy IncorporatedRevised Historic Properties Treatment Plan for Archaeological Sites CA-NAP-399, CA-NAP-406, CA-NAP-413, and CA-NAP-863, St. Helena Flood Protection Project, City of St. Helena, Napa County.

Prepared by Pacific Legacy for the USACE. On file with the NWIC as report S-043810.

Bartoy, Kevin, John Holson, Lauren Rosenthal, and Heather Blind. 2005. Archaeological Investigation and Evaluation of Eight Sites in the Napa River Floodplain for the St.

Helena Flood Protection Project, City of St. Helena, Napa County, California (Vol 1:

Report. Vol 2: Appendices). Prepared by Pacific Legacy for the USACE. On file with the NWIC as report S-043810.

BLM (Bureau of Land Management). 2004. “The Foundations for Managing Cultural Resources.” Section 8100 in the BLM Manual. Release no. 8-72. December 3, 2004.

Bennyhoff, J.A. 1994. “A Delta Intrusion to the Bay in the Late Middle Period in Central California.” In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by R.E.

Hughes, 7–13. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility no. 52.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Multiple sections. State of California.

Chartkoff, J.L. 1998. “California Culture Area.” In Archaeology of Prehistoric Native America:

An Encyclopedia, edited by G.E. Gibbon and K.M. Ames, 104–112. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data.

Fredrickson, D.A. 1974. “Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges.” Journal of California Anthropology 1(1): 41–53.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2245 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
62 May 2020
Fredrickson, D.A. 1994. “Archaeological Taxonomy in Central California Revisited.” In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A.

Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by R.E. Hughes, 91–103. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility no 52.

Golla, V. 2007. “Linguistic Prehistory.” In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T.L. Jones and K.A. Klar, 71–82. New York, New York:

Altamira Press.

Golla, Victor. 2011. California Indian Languages. University of California Press, Berkeley. pp 191-194.

Grunsky, F. R. 1989. Pathfinders of the Sacramento Region: They Were There Before Sutter. Sacramento County Historical Society.

Heizer, R. 1978. “Introduction.” In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, 1–6. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, edited by W.C. Sturtevant. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Heizer, Robert F. and A.B. Elsasser. 1980. The Natural World of the California Indians.

University of California Press, Berkeley.

Heizer, R. and K.M. Nissen. 1973. The Human Sources of California Ethnography. Berkeley, California: University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley.

Heizer, Robert F., and M.A. Whipple. 1971. The California Indians. A Source Book. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Hildebrandt, W.R. 2007. “Northwest California: Ancient Lifeways among Forested Mountains, Flowing Rivers, and Rocky Ocean Shores.” In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T.L. Jones and K.A. Klar, 83–97. Lanham, Maryland:

Altamira Press.

Johnson, J.R., and J.G. Lorenz. 2006. “Genetics, Linguistics, and Prehistoric Migrations: An Analysis of California Indian Mitochondrial DNA Lineages.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 26:33–64.

Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. New York, New York: Dover Publications Inc.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2246 of 4069 ends

Cultural Resources Inventory, Extended Phase I, and Phase II Report for the Hunter Subdivision Project, Napa County, California
10839
63 May 2020
Milliken, R., T. Fitzgerald, M.G. Hylkema, R. Groza, T. Origer, D.G. Bieling, A. Leventhal, R.S.

Wiberg, A. Gottsfield, D. Gillette, V. Bellifemine, E. Strother, R. Cartier, and D.A.

Fredrickson. 2007. “Punctuated Culture Change in the San Francisco Bay Area.” In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T.L. Jones and K.A. Klar, 99–123. Lanham, Maryland: Altamira Press.

Napa County Historical Society. 2019. http://wordpress.napahistory.org/wordpress/programs/ napa-valley-history-tours/st-helena-bike-tour. Accessed March 20, 2019.

Sawyer, Jesse O. 1978. Wappo. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 256–263.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Schneider, Tsim D., Lori D. Hager, Samantha S. Schell, Lucian N. Schrader, and John Holson. 2013. Pacific Legacy Incorporated Archaeological Data Recovery at CA-NAP-399, CANAP-406, CA-NAP-413, and CA-NAP-863 for the St. Helena Flood Protection Project, City of St. Helena, Napa County, California. Prepared by Pacific Legacy for the USACE.

On file with the NWIC as report S-043810.

Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO). 2009. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service “Soils.” Accessed via Google Earth Soilweb
William Self Associates (WSA). 2017. Hunter Subdivision Project Revised EIR, IV. Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, E. Cultural and Paleontological Resources.

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2247 of 4069 ends

APPENDIX A (CONFIDENTIAL)
NWIC Records Search Results
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2248 of 4069 ends

APPENDIX B
SHPO Concurrence Letter for the St Helena Flood
Control Project
Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2249 of 4069 ends

JAN-02-2007 15:17

STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY

OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
P.O. 60)( 942896
SACRAMENTO, CA 94296.()()01
(916) 653-6624 Fu: (916) 853-9824
[email protected]<s.ca.gov
www.ohp.parks.c:a.gov
December 14, 2006
Cookie Hirn
Cultural Resources Officer
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Financial Assistanc~
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

I RECEIVED
I DEC28Z006
I l,;iVtSION CF
i FINAt-~ ASSISTANCF.

P.02
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Govsmcr
Reply to: EPA060919A
RE: Request for Section 106 consultation, St. Helena CQmprehensive Flood Protection Project, Napa County, SRF NO. C-06·6093-110.

Dear Ms. Him,
Thank you for your Jetter dated 19 September 2006 regarding the above referenced undertaking. Your letter indicates your request for consultation in order to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulations at 36 CFA Part 800, Is prompted by the use of an United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) capitalization grant, administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWACB) State Revolving Fund (SRF) program, to assist the City of St. Helena and the Napa County Flood Control District with financing of a comprehensive flood protection project. The SWRCB has been delegated authority to act on behalf of the USEPA in carrying out Section 106 responsibilities under the terms of the nationwide Programmatic Agreement Among the Environmental Protection Agency, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State Hi$faric Preservation Officers Concerning Compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act under EPA's State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund Program (1990). As the project will also Involve a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), you have consulted with the ACOE and they have agreed that the SWRCB will act as lead agency in fulfilling collective responsibilities under Section 106.

It is my understanding tttat the proposed undertaking involves a number of interrelated construction components designed to provide flood protection and restore habitat. These components are illustrated on the submittal labeled Enclosure 1 and include: extensive modification of a floodplain terrace on the southern bank of a section of the Napa River (Terrace 8), relocation of up to 17 mobile homes currently residing on Terrace B, restoration of approximately 600 feet of shoreline in the Terrace B area, construction of an approximately 2000 foot long levee using the soil removed from Terrace B with the excess soils disposed upon the Miller and Hunter Parcels, installation of a ditch system, construction of a detention basin and pumping facility, installation of a 30-inoh storm drain, construction of a new floodwall, and undergrowth clearing for vegetation management referred to as "Element C". It is also my understanding that previously proposed components regarding work on Terrace A and at the nearby wastewater treatment plant are no longer included In the undertaking.

Your letter also describes the Area of Potential Effects (APE), Native American consultation, efforts to identify Historic Properties, requests concurrence on determinations of eligibility for eight identified archaeological sites, and concludes with a request for concurrence on an adverse effect finding for the undertaking. These determinations and findings are supported by the following enclosed documents:

Agenda Item #6.6.

Page 2250 of 4069 ends

St. Helena City CouncilJune 26, 2023

St. Helena City Council
June 26, 2023