5ac._Exhibit_4_Draft_ISMND_Appendices_for_the_Kenmar_Road_and_US_101_Interchange_Project — Fortuna City Council, March 20, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

Appendices
City of Fortuna Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendices
Appendices
City of Fortuna Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix A
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Overview
Figure 3 Off-Site Mitigation
Paper Size ANSI A
500 1,000 1,500
Feet
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: NorthAmencan 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePiane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
N
$ \~\EIXeka Proj8cts\5611 4735\G S\Maps\OeltVer'ables\ 12 4735 CE!l'I\ 11 21 735 QA~ • 11214735_01_'/icftty Pril1 date: 16 Sep 2022- 17:24
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road/ US 1011nterchange Project mii
§ it
Sep 2022
Vicinity Map
Project No.

Revision No.

Date
11214735
FIGURE 1 Data source: W::rid Imagery (Ciari1y): Ttlsw:xt.Giicensed IK'defthe Esti Master Uc:enseAgeemeot.IIWMSI..mmai)'IVteNTermsol UseExport: Thislayef is notlntindetJ lObe used to export ties for oft'lile. Data Collection ~ 8iting: This tayer may be used il varioosArcGIS apps to stWOJt data c::olectKw1 and e<itl)g, \Wh h resultS used ilterrliity 01 Shaled witt'~ Ohfs, as desaibed fcc these use cases.; transpOI'Iatoo: USGS The National Map: Nabonal Transportation Dataset U.S. Census Bureau- TIGERI\.Ine; U.S. Forest Ser.ice. Data Refreshed -Uy, 2022.; Road Names: Esri Comm.Jnrty MapsCootribUiofs, Paper Size ANSI A
50 100 150 200 250
US Feet
Map Projection: Lambert ConfOflTlal Con1c
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Gnd: NAD 1983 StatePiane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
<a:li § it
c:::J Project
Boundary
I2S2S2l Colorized Concrete
Pavement
Vegetation
c:::J Sidewalk/ SUP
City of Fortuna Ken mar Road/ US 101 Interchange
Project Overview
- Asphalt Concrete
Yellow Road Stripe
- RSP
-~
Stom Drain Pipe
Drainage Inlets
Manhole
Project No. 11214735
Revision No. -
Date September 2022
FIGURE 1 \\ghmet\gld\US\Eureka'Projects\5(i1\11214735l.GIS\Maps'Velivefable-s\11214735_CEQA\11214735_CEQA.aprx Data scuce. Wortj lmagety(Clarity). TlVs wort. IS licensed under he Esri Master LkenseA!JeementViewSoownary IView Tef'IT"5of UseExport. Tlis layeres not inended to be usedtoexp:lrttiles lor Pool: date: 20 Sep 2022 · 10:34 omM. Data Collectoo aod EdiWlg: This ~er may be used il vanousArcGlS apps to s~ data colection and e<!Mg, 'Nih lhe restAts used iltemally Of shared 'Mth ~.as desal>ed for these use cases Wort! Hlshade: Solrces: Esri, Aittls OS, USGS, NGA. NASA, CGIAR, N Robinsoo, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatas!)'rel:sen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Gedand, FEMA, ntermap aod the GIS user COOll1'llRt)' Cfeatedby:Jopez4
Paper SIZe ANSI A
150 300 450 600
Feet
Map Pro)ect<m: Lambert Conformal Conic
Honzontal Datum: North American 1983
Gnd: NAD 1983 StalePiane Cal1forma I FIPS 0401 Feet
\'ghdneC\ghd'I S\Eureka\Profeds\561\ 11214735\GIS~aps\Oett'erables\1 4735 CEQA\ 214735 CEOAaprK Prmt date: 15 Nov 2022· 17:00
la:l1
§ f1
Potential MitigiationMill Site (Approx.
452,740 sqft)
Parcels
Creeks
Potential MitigiationNewburg Park
Expansion Area
(Approx. 2,060 sqft)
c::::J Parcels
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road/ US 101 Interchange
Potential Locations for
Project No. 11214735
Revision No.

Date Nov 2022
Off-Site Mitigation FIGURE 3 Data sourte: WO!kl lmagefy (Oanty): ThiS wed iS liCensed under the Esti Master l.kenseAgreemeni.ViewSUmmart 1 View Terms cA UseExport: ThiS layer iS not ilteoood to be used to export tiles lor otfWle. Data COIJeclion and E*'9· ThJs layer may be used in various ArcGIS apps to support data colecbon and edrtng, vrith the resultsusediltemally or sharedwithotllers,asdescribedloctheseusecases.

World_ Transportation: Esri.I£RE, GeoTedloologies, loc.

World H~: Sources: Esti, Allbus OS, USGS, NOA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS. NLS, OS, NMA. Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswatl!f'Staat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, lfltermap and lt\e GIS user communi!)'. Created by· jfopez4 Appendices
City of Fortuna Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix B
Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting
Program
City of Fortuna - Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project | Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Fortuna - Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project SCH No. To be assigned
Environmental Protections Actions (EPA) and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring/Reporting Action & Schedule
Verification
(Initials/Date)
EPA 1 – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
The Project will obtain coverage under State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) Construction General Permit associated with construction. The lead agency for construction will submit permit registration documents (notice of intent, risk assessment, site maps, SWPPP, annual fee, and certifications) to the Water Board. The SWPPP will address pollutant sources, best management practices, and other requirements specified in the Order. The SWPPP will include erosion and sediment control measures, and dust control practices to prevent wind erosion, sediment tracking, and dust generation by construction equipment. A Qualified SWPPP Practitioner will oversee implementation of the Project SWPPP, including visual inspections, sampling and analysis, and ensuring overall compliance.

City’s contractor, to be verified
by a SWPPP practitioner
Performance criteria – North
Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board and
City standards
Reporting actions – As
required by the state permit
Schedule - During project
construction activities,
including work and non-work
times
Air Quality
MM AQ-1: BMPs to Reduce Air Pollution
The contractor shall implement the following BMPs during construction:
– Disturbed surfaces (e.g., staging areas, soil piles, active graded areas, excavations, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered as needed for dust suppression. – All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using street sweepers at least once per day, or as needed to alleviate dust and debris on the roadway. – All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour, unless the unpaved road surface has been treated for dust suppression with water, rock, wood chip mulch, or other dust prevention measures.
– All areas to be paved shall be completed as soon as practical. – Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes.

City and City’s contractor Performance criteria – North Coast Unified Air Quality
Management District
standards
Reporting actions – Verify
requirements are included in
final plans and specifications
Schedule – During
construction, check jobsite
compliance as necessary
City of Fortuna - Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project | Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 Environmental Protections Actions (EPA) and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring/Reporting Action & Schedule
Verification
(Initials/Date)
Biological Resources
MM BIO-1: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Protect Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles
No more than one week prior to commencement of ground disturbance within 50 feet of mapped wetlands, riparian habitat associated with Mill Creek, and Sensitive Natural Communities within the Project Area, a qualified biologist shall perform a pre-construction survey and shall relocate any individuals of Northern Red-legged Frog, Yellow-legged Frog, or Western Pond Turtle or egg masses of Northern Red-legged Frog that occur within the work-impact zone to nearby suitable habitat.

In the event that a Northern Red-legged Frog, Yellow-legged Frog, or Western Pond Turtle is observed in an active construction zone, the contractor shall halt construction activities in the area where observed and the frogs or turtles shall be moved to a safe location in similar habitat outside of the construction zone.

City and City’s biologist and
contractor
Performance criteria –
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW)
standards
Reporting actions – Verify
requirements are in final
specifications; verify
completion and
documentation of surveys, if
necessary
Schedule – Pre-construction
and during construction;
verify applicable protection
measures are implemented
MM BIO-2: Protect Special Status, Migratory, and Nesting Birds Ground disturbance and vegetation clearing shall be conducted, if possible, during the fall and/or winter months and outside of the avian nesting season (March 15 – August 15) to avoid any direct effects to special status and protected birds. If ground disturbance cannot be confined to work outside of the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys within the vicinity of the Project Area, to check for nesting activity of native birds and to evaluate the site for presence of raptors and special status bird species.

The biologist shall conduct at minimum a one-day pre-construction survey within the 7-day period prior to vegetation removal and ground-disturbing activities. If ground disturbance and vegetation removal work lapses for seven days or longer during the breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a supplemental avian pre-construction survey before Project work is reinitiated.

If active nests are detected within the construction footprint or within the construction buffer established by the Project biologist, the biologist shall flag a buffer around each nest.

Construction activities shall avoid nest sites until the biologist determines that the young have fledged, or nesting activity has ceased. If nests are documented outside of the construction (disturbance) footprint, but within the construction buffer, nest buffers will be implemented as needed. In general, the buffer size for common species will be determined on a case-by-case basis in consultation with CDFW. Buffer sizes will take into account factors such as (1) noise and human disturbance levels at the construction site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity; (2) City and City’s biologist and
contractor
Performance criteria –
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW)
standards
Reporting actions – Verify
that protection and
avoidance measures are in
final specifications; verify
completion and
documentation of surveys, if
necessary
Schedule – Pre-construction
and during construction;
verify applicable disturbance
buffers and protection
measures are implemented
City of Fortuna - Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project | Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 Environmental Protections Actions (EPA) and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring/Reporting Action & Schedule
Verification
(Initials/Date)
distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the construction site and the nest; and (3) sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds.

If active nests are detected during the survey, the qualified biologist shall monitor all nests at least once per week to determine whether birds are being disturbed. Activities that might, in the opinion of the qualified biologist, disturb nesting activities (e.g., excessive noise), shall be prohibited within the buffer zone until such a determination is made. If signs of disturbance or distress are observed, the qualified biologist shall immediately implement adaptive measures to reduce disturbance. These measures may include, but are not limited to, increasing buffer size, halting disruptive construction activities in the vicinity of the nest until fledging is confirmed or nesting activity has ceased, placement of visual screens or sound dampening structures between the nest and construction activity, reducing speed limits, replacing and updating noisy equipment, queuing trucks to distribute idling noise, locating vehicle access points and loading and shipping facilities away from noise-sensitive receptors, reducing the number of noisy construction activities occurring simultaneously, and/or reorienting and/or relocating construction equipment to minimize noise at noisesensitive receptors.

MM BIO-3: Compensatory Mitigation for Sensitive Natural Communities Construction within mapped Sensitive Natural Communities (Shining willow groves) shall be avoided to the greatest extent practicable. If impacts are unavoidable and Shining willow groves are removed or detrimentally impacted, mitigation will occur at a minimum ratio of 1:1. A Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared in coordination with State resource agencies. Onsite locations for wetland mitigation shall be prioritized. If suitable locations for onsite mitigation is not sufficiently available, offsite mitigation shall occur at locations identified in Figure 3
The Plan shall be acceptable to State agencies with jurisdiction and include the following elements: proposed mitigation ratios; description and size of the restoration or compensatory area; site preparation and design; plant species; planting design and techniques; maintenance activities; plant storage; irrigation requirements; success criteria; monitoring schedule; and remedial measures. The ratio and conditions of mitigation will be negotiated in consultation with the City and State resource agencies with jurisdiction over sensitive natural communities. The Plan shall be implemented by the City.

City and City’s contractor Performance criteria –
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW)
standards
Reporting actions –
Completion and
documentation of surveys, if
necessary
Schedule – Pre-construction
and during construction;
verify applicable disturbance
buffers and protection
measures are implemented
MM BIO-4: Avoidance and Minimization Measures to Protect Juxtaposed Wetlands The City shall implement the following avoidance and protection measures for Waters of the United States and Waters of the State adjacent to areas of planned disturbance that will not be impacted (filled or excavated) during Project construction:

City and City’s contractor Performance criteria –
County, state, and federal
standards, consistent with
the project’s permits
Reporting actions – Verify
that protection and
City of Fortuna - Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project | Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 Environmental Protections Actions (EPA) and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring/Reporting Action & Schedule
Verification
(Initials/Date)
– The City shall attempt to avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands/waters to the greatest extent feasible in the final design plans.
– Adjacent wetlands shall be clearly identified in the construction documents and reviewed by the City prior to issuing for bid to ensure they are clearly marked as equipment exclusion zones during construction.
– Suitable perimeter control BMPs, such as silt fences, or straw wattles shall be placed below all construction activities at the edge of surface water features to intercept sediment before it reaches the waterway. These BMPs shall be installed prior to any clearing or grading activities.
avoidance measures are in
final specifications
Schedule – During
construction; check jobsite
compliance as necessary
MM BIO-5: Compensate for Loss of Wetlands and Waters
The City shall avoid fill of seasonal wetlands and waters, to the extent feasible. If fill cannot be avoided, the City shall compensate for the loss of seasonal wetland habitat so that there is no net loss in wetlands. The City shall compensate for impacts to identified wetlands through restoration, rehabilitation, and/or creation of wetland at a ratio of no less than 1:1.2.

A Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be prepared in coordination with the NCRWQB, the USACE, and Humboldt County. Compensation for wetlands shall occur so there is no net loss of wetland habitat at ratios to be determined in consultation with the NCRWQCB.

Onsite locations for wetland mitigation shall be prioritized. If suitable locations for onsite mitigation is not sufficiently available, offsite mitigation shall occur at locations identified in Figure 3. The Plan shall be acceptable to the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands and waters and include the following elements: proposed mitigation ratios; description and size of the restoration or compensatory area; site preparation and design; plant species; planting design and techniques; maintenance activities; plant storage; irrigation requirements; success criteria; monitoring schedule; and remedial measures. The Plan shall be implemented by the City.

The City shall also compensate for impacts to other waters by obtaining required permits from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Humboldt County shall be received prior to the start of any on-site construction activity. The City shall ensure any additional measures outlined in the permits are implemented.

City and City’s biologist and
contractor
Performance criteria – City,
state, and federal standards,
consistent with the project’s
permits
Reporting actions – Verify
requirements are in final
specifications; verify
completion of HMMP
Schedule – Pre-construction,
during construction, and
post-construction; verify
applicable compensatory
mitigation is implemented;
check jobsite compliance as
necessary
Cultural Resources
MM CR-1: Protect Archaeological or Tribal Cultural Resources during Construction All recommendations resulting from the Extended Phase 1 investigation shall be implemented by the City prior to, during and following construction, as appropriate. The City shall document how Phase 1 each recommendation was implemented by recording the date, action taken, and responsible party.

City and City’s archaeologist
and contractor, Tribal Cultural
Resource Monitor
Performance criteria – City,
state, and federal standards
Reporting actions – Verify
requirements are in final
plans and specifications;
City of Fortuna - Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project | Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 Environmental Protections Actions (EPA) and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring/Reporting Action & Schedule
Verification
(Initials/Date)
Prior to the ground-disturbing construction activities (on the first day of work), construction personnel shall receive Cultural Resources Awareness Training to ensure that construction activities are conducted in a manner that is protective of known and unknown cultural resources. The training shall include information on the location and lateral extent of potential nearby cultural resources sites, avoidance of those areas, laws protecting such resources, and procedures for responding to inadvertent discovery situations. Avoidance of known cultural resources sites shall be determined by a professional archaeologist or Native American monitor and include establishing a no-disturbance buffer zone around known resources.

Initial ground-disturbing activities near the previously recorded prehistoric resource shall be monitored by a Tribal Cultural Resource Monitor within 1,000 ft. If archaeological remains or potential tribal cultural resources are encountered during initial-ground disturbing activities, all work shall halt within a 50-foot radius of a discovery. Construction personnel shall not collect cultural materials. A qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to evaluate the find, and the Tribal Cultural Resource Monitor shall be notified. If the find qualifies as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource as defined by CEQA, the archaeologist shall develop appropriate measures to protect the integrity of the resource in coordination with appropriate tribal representatives and ensure that no additional resources are affected. If the find qualifies as a tribal cultural resource as defined by CEQA, the City shall ensure that appropriate actions to protect the resource are taken and that no additional resources are affected.
verify completion of DPR 513
forms, if necessary
Schedule – Pre-construction
and during construction;
verify applicable protection
measures are implemented
MM CR-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Material If cultural materials for example: chipped or ground stone, historic debris, building foundations, or bone are discovered during ground-disturbance activities, work shall be stopped within 66 feet of the discovery, per the requirements of CEQA (Revised Guidelines, Title 14 CCR 15064.5 (f)). Work near the archaeological finds shall not resume until a professional archaeologist, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines, has evaluated the materials and offered recommendations for further action.

Tribal representatives shall be notified.

City and City’s archaeologist
and contractor
Performance criteria – City,
state, and federal standards
Reporting actions – Verify
requirements are in final
specifications; verify
completion of archaeological
monitoring; verify completion
of noticing as detailed in MM
CR-2 upon inadvertent
discovery
Schedule – During
construction; verify
completion of archaeological
monitoring as detailed in MM
CR-2
City of Fortuna - Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project | Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 Environmental Protections Actions (EPA) and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring/Reporting Action & Schedule
Verification
(Initials/Date)
MM CR-3: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains
If human remains are discovered during project construction, work will stop at the discovery location, within 66 feet, and any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent to human remains (PRC, Section 7050.5). The Humboldt County Coroner will be contacted to determine if the cause of death must be investigated. If the Coroner determines that the remains are of Native American origin, it is necessary to comply with State laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the NAHC (PRC, Section 5097). The Coroner will contact the NAHC. The descendants or most likely descendants of the deceased will be contacted, and work will not resume until they have made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of treatment and disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods, as provided in PRC, Section 5097.98.

City and City’s archaeologist
and contractor
Performance criteria – City,
state, and federal standards
Reporting actions – Verify
inclusion of language in final
plans and specifications
Schedule – During
construction; verify
completion of protection
measures and notifications if
inadvertent discovery
Geology and Soils
MM GEO-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources In the event that fossils are encountered during construction (i.e., bones, teeth, or unusually abundant and well-preserved invertebrates or plants), construction activities shall be diverted away from the discovery within 50 feet of the find, and a professional paleontologist shall be notified to document the discovery as needed, to evaluate the potential resource, and to assess the nature and importance of the find. Based on the scientific value or uniqueness of the find, the paleontologist may record the find and allow work to continue, or recommend salvage and recovery of the material, if it is determined that the find cannot be avoided. The paleontologist shall make recommendations for any necessary treatment that is consistent with currently accepted scientific practices. Any fossils collected from the area shall then be deposited in an accredited and permanent scientific institution where they will be properly curated and preserved.

City and City’s contractor Performance criteria – City, state, and federal standards
Reporting actions – Verify
inclusion of language in final
plans and specifications
Schedule – During
construction; verify
completion of protection
measures and notifications if
inadvertent discovery
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
MM HAZ-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Hazardous Soils
A Preliminary Site Investigation (PSI) will be required within the Project Area, including:
– Pre-characterization of soil and groundwater for potential CAM 17 Metals, TPHg, TPHd, and VOC impacts will happen prior to the start of construction activities, specifically at locations along the remnant railroad corridor anticipated to be impacted during Project construction activities.
– Pre-characterization for ADL in near surface soil will occur prior to initiation of construction activities, specifically at representative locations along the Project Area intersecting with Kenmar Road, Riverwalk Drive, Eel River Road, and US Highway 101 ramps. The ADL preCity and City’s contractor Performance criteria – City and state standards
Reporting actions – Verify
requirements are in final
specifications; verify
completion of SAP; verify
completion of SGMP and
SESTP, if applicable
City of Fortuna - Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project | Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 Environmental Protections Actions (EPA) and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring/Reporting Action & Schedule
Verification
(Initials/Date)
characterization sampling will be conducted at discreet locations generally representative of soil conditions anticipated to be impacted during Project construction activities.

If construction activities include demolition of concrete infrastructure (bridges, overpasses, box culverts), a hazardous materials assessment will be completed to maintain compliance with National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutant (NESHAP) as promulged under 40 CFR Part 61 and/or 40 CFR Part 63.

If construction activities include dewatering, and if laboratory analysis of pre-construction soil borings indicate elevated total and STLC concentrations of ADL and CAM-17 Metals of 1,000 ppm and 5 mg/L, respectively, pre-construction characterization of groundwater will be required.

If sampled soil is found to be impacted by constituents of concern above established Solubility Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) and/or Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) thresholds applicable to roadway land uses (ADL, CAM-17 Metals, TPHg, TPHd, VOC’s, etc.), preparation of a Construction Soil Groundwater Monitoring Plan (SGMP) and/or Lead Compliance Plan be required prior to any construction activities. The Construction SGMP and/or Lead Compliance Plan will proactively plan and manage potentially encountered hazardous materials affected soils throughout the Project Area. The SGMP and/or Lead Compliance Plan will identify protocols that will be utilized to proactively manage potentially impacted soil and groundwater within the Project Area and reduce exposure to site workers.

If pre-construction characterization indicates constituent of concern impacts above STLC levels to soil and/or groundwater, it is required that site workers involved in excavation activities be Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) trained (Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] 1910.120 Schedule – Pre- and during
construction; verify
requirements are
implemented; check jobsite
compliance as necessary
Noise
MM NOI-1: Reduce Construction Noise Levels
The City and its contractor shall implement best management practices to reduce construction noise levels emanating from construction activities and minimize disruption and annoyance at the Riverwalk Drive RV Park. Specific measures that can be feasibly implemented to include, but are not limited to, the following:
– Provide advance notice to nearby residents and those within the Riverwalk Drive RV Park within 250 feet prior to starting work, with information regarding anticipated schedule, hours of operation and a project contact person.
– Best available noise control practices (including mufflers, intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds) shall be used for equipment and trucks to minimize construction noise impacts.

City and City’s contractor Performance criteria – City
standards
Reporting actions – Verify
requirements are in final
specifications; verify
completion of noticing as
detailed in MM NOI-1
Schedule – Pre- and during
construction; verify
applicable best management
practices are implemented;
City of Fortuna - Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project | Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 Environmental Protections Actions (EPA) and Mitigation Measures (MM) Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring/Reporting Action & Schedule
Verification
(Initials/Date)
– Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive noise receptors as feasible. If they must be located near receptors, adequate muffling (with enclosures where feasible and appropriate) shall be used. Enclosure openings or venting shall face away from sensitive noise receptors.
– Schedule work and deliveries to minimize noise-generating activities near the Riverwalk Drive RV Park.
check jobsite compliance as
necessary
Transportation
MM TR-1: Maintain Emergency Access and Notify Emergency Responders The City shall require contractors to provide adequate emergency access to all properties along the corridor during the construction process. At locations where the access to a nearby property is temporarily blocked, the contractor shall be required to have ready the means necessary to accommodate access by emergency vehicles to such properties, such as plating over excavations. As construction progresses, emergency providers shall be notified in advance of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities and the locations and durations of any temporary lane closures.

City and City’s contractor Performance criteria – City
and county standards
Reporting actions – Verify
requirements are in final
specifications; verify
completion
Schedule – Pre- and during
construction; verify jobsite
compliance as necessary
Appendices
City of Fortuna Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix C
Air Quality Modeling Results
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0
Daily Emission Estimates for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds) ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day)Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.68 6.40 6.28 1.87 0.27 1.60 0.57 0.24 0.33 0.02 1,637.43 0.42 0.04 1,659.42Grading/Excavation 3.55 36.44 36.71 3.11 1.51 1.60 1.62 1.29 0.33 0.10 10,278.04 2.46 0.42 10,464.26 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 3.03 30.92 28.15 2.74 1.14 1.60 1.37 1.03 0.33 0.07 6,915.11 1.55 0.10 6,984.66 Paving 1.20 17.34 14.06 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.04 4,194.31 0.73 0.28 4,294.62 Maximum (pounds/day) 3.55 36.44 36.71 3.11 1.51 1.60 1.62 1.29 0.33 0.10 10,278.04 2.46 0.42 10,464.26 Total (tons/construction project) 0.54 5.67 5.40 0.49 0.22 0.27 0.25 0.19 0.06 0.01 1,450.23 0.33 0.05 1,473.21 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2025
Project Length (months) -> 18
Total Project Area (acres) -> 4
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 0
Water Truck Used? -> Yes
Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 0 000 200 40
Grading/Excavation 359 0 540 0 720 40
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 13 0 30 0 600 40
Paving 0 256 0 390 480 40
CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.

Total Emission Estimates by Phase for -> Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e ) ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase)Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.01 0.13 0.12 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 32.42 0.01 0.00 29.81Grading/Excavation 0.28 2.89 2.91 0.25 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.03 0.01 814.02 0.20 0.03 751.85 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.21 2.14 1.95 0.19 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.02 0.00 479.22 0.11 0.01 439.12 Paving 0.04 0.52 0.42 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 124.57 0.02 0.01 115.71 Maximum (tons/phase) 0.28 2.89 2.91 0.25 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.03 0.01 814.02 0.20 0.03 751.85 Total (tons/construction project) 0.54 5.67 5.40 0.49 0.22 0.27 0.25 0.19 0.06 0.01 1450.23 0.33 0.05 1,336.49 CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs.The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase.

Daily VMT (miles/day)
Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

US 101 Kenmar Interchage
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.

US 101 Kenmar Interchage
PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified.Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K.

Total Material Imported/Exported
Volume (yd3/day)
Appendices
City of Fortuna Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix D
Visual Impact Assessment
Technical Memorandum
This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with City of Fortuna. It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated with the Project and should not be relied upon in any way.

The Power of Commitment
11214735 1
May 17, 2022
To California Department of
Transportation – District 1
Contact No. (916) 918-0626
Copy to City of Fortuna Email [email protected]
From Lucas Piper, PLA – Landscape
Architect
Josh Wolf, PE – Project Manager
GHD Project
No.
11214735
Project Name Kenmar Road and Highway 101 Interchange Project Subject Visual Resources Technical Memorandum for the Kenmar Road Highway 101 Interchange Project – Humboldt County CA

1. Purpose of Scenic Resource Evaluation and Visual
Impact Assessment
The purpose of this visual resource technical memorandum is to document potential visual changes anticipated from the Kenmar Road and Highway 101 Interchange Project (Project). Visual changes and associated effects are demonstrated by identifying visual resources in the Project area and measuring the amount and type of change that would occur as a result of the Project.

1.1 Project Location
The Project area is located approximately 1,000 feet east of the Eel River near the southwestern corner of the City of Fortuna. The Project area is approximately 16 acres in size and is primarily comprised of existing Caltrans right-of-way. West of the US 101 right-of-way, the Project is located largely within the existing Humboldt County right-of-way that contains Riverwalk Drive. The Project would include small areas of encroachment into portions of APN 201-152-013 (agricultural field); APN 201-152-015 (an existing 87- space RV park) will be temporarily or permanently occupied by the realigned roadway, and other parcels in the vicinity (Appendix A – Figure 1).

The Project area also includes non-operational railroad tracks and anadromous Mill Creek, which crosses under Kenmar Road. The Project area is located partially within the city limits of Fortuna and partially within unincorporated Humboldt County. Portions of the Project area are located in the Coastal Zone, including Riverwalk Drive and both southbound and northbound lanes of US 101 to the south of the interchange undercrossing. Of the portions of the Project area located within the Coastal Zone, all Project activities are located within the jurisdiction of the Humboldt County Local Coastal Program (Eel River Area Plan). No portions are located within the State retained Coastal Zone jurisdiction.

1.2 Project Description
The Project is intended to improve traffic operation and safety at a key highway interchange in Fortuna, California. Highway 101 serves as the primary regional roadway in Humboldt County and is critically important to the residents and economy of Fortuna. The existing intersection controls, roadway geometry, and the high volumes of local and regional traffic on Kenmar Road result in poor traffic operation at and This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with City of Fortuna. It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated with the Project and should not be relied upon in any way. 11214735 2
near the interchange. The proposed Project will replace the existing intersections of US 101 and Kenmar Road at the interchange with two roundabouts, improving traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle operations. The Project also includes modifications to the US 101 on-ramps and off-ramps, relocation of the park and ride facility, lane improvements on Kenmar road, and the realignment of Eel River Drive and Riverwalk Drive (Appendix A – Figure 2). The Project may also include traffic signal and lane improvements on the western Kenmar leg of the Ross Hill Road intersection. In addition to the proposed motor vehicle-related roadway safety improvements, the Project includes a segment of Class I bike path through the Project area in addition to other at-grade pedestrian and bicycle improvements to enhance pedestrian connections and promote regional bicycle network continuity. The Project will simplify and improve navigation and traffic operations on Kenmar Road and Eel River Drive, including the Kenmar Road and US 101 interchange.

1.3 Visual Resource Components
Viewers of the Project include the general public traveling the corridor, including vehicle users, pedestrian, and cyclists. Viewers of the Project also include local residents living adjacent to or near the Project corridor and individuals employed at places of work based in or near the Project corridor. Visual changes may be more impactful to local residents and non-vehicular users than vehicle-based users.

Kenmar Road and US Highway 101 are not classified as All-America Roads in the National Scenic Byway system or as Designated State Scenic Highways. The Project area would be accessed via Kenmar Road, Eel River Drive, Riverwalk Drive, and US 101. No new access roads would need to be constructed to implement the Project. The Eel River is located approximately 0.15 miles west of the Project area can been seen from Highway 101 along most of the length of the Project area. The Eel River has received both state and federal Wild and Scenic River designation. The Project is in both the Local and Appeal Zone jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and impacts to the coastal visual environment are addressed. Views of coastal resources are considered scenic resources to be protected. Once implemented, the Project would not impair views of the adjacent coastal resources as the proposed interchange improvements are consistent with the current land use of the Project area and as such, there would be a less than significant impact to scenic vistas/resources.

The visual quality of the existing corridor will not be significantly altered by the proposed Project. Views of local landmarks and resources from the Project corridor include Riverwalk RV Park, Eel River, Best Western Country Inn, Fortuna Park and Ride, out of service railroad tracks crossing Kenmar Road, and a mix of open green space and forested areas (see Exhibit1). Views of and access to these local landmarks and resources are not negatively impacted by the proposed Project. Existing roadway drainage patterns would be maintained to the maximum extent practicable. Replacement, extension, or alteration of the Mill Creek at Kenmar Road culvert would not occur. The visual quality of viewsheds from local landmarks will change because of the Project; however, visual quality will not diminish or be inconsistent with the existing visual character of pre-Project viewsheds from local landmarks.

This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with City of Fortuna. It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated with the Project and should not be relied upon in any way. 11214735 3
Exhibit 1 – General existing site conditions showing current roadways, striping, and vegetated areas around the Project areas. Aerial view of the Project area looking north from the southern limits of the Project area. Local landmarks, existing roads and resources are shown.

Exhibit 2 – Aerial view of the Project area looking west from the eastern portion of the Project area. Views of the Eel River to the west and abandoned railroad tracks and Fortuna Park and Ride to the east of the Project area.

Riverwalk RV Park
Best Western County Inn
Fortuna Park
and Ride
Abandoned
Railroad Tracks
Highway 101
Riverwalk Drive
Kenmar Road
Eel River Drive
Riverwalk Drive Eel River
Fortuna Park
and Ride
Abandoned
Railroad Tracks
Kenmar Road
Highway 101
Proposed Roundabout
Location #1
Proposed Roundabout
Location #2 Proposed
Retaining Wall #1
Proposed Retaining Wall #2
(Spans beneath US 101 overpass)
Proposed
Retaining Wall #3
This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with City of Fortuna. It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated with the Project and should not be relied upon in any way. 11214735 4

1.4 Visual Impacts of Proposed Project
The Project would have a less than significant impact to the visual character or quality of public views. A questionnaire to determine Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) level was completed in reference to this Project and the calculated VIA level score result was 14. As defined by Caltrans, this score level is reflective of negligible visual changes to the environment and as a result, only a belief memorandum addressing visual issues is required in lieu of a technical study.

Visual impacts due to Project construction would be short-term and would cease upon Project completion.

Vegetated areas temporarily disturbed by construction would be reseeded/restored to pre-construction conditions if needed. Any vegetation incorporated into the Project is anticipated to include low-maintenance planting designed to blend into the surrounding environment without blocking visibility for safe vehicular operation. The disturbed roadside areas would be restored/stabilized with a combination of grass seed (broadcast or hydroseed), straw mulch, rolled erosion control fabric, and, if needed, other plantings/revegetation. If required, revegetation would include replanting. Though the Project will expand the footprint of the interchange, the Project will be designed in to minimize removal of trees/densely forested areas and established vegetation.

The Project would provide enhanced lighting to improve roadway visibility for drivers during night-time hours. Lighting is anticipated to be installed at ramp merges and diverges along the shoulders of US 101 as well as at conflict points in and out of the roundabout and at pedestrian crossings. Lighting will also be provided at approaches to the intersection to improve visibility of the changing roadway features.

Lighting would be designed to protect wildlife and night-time views, including views of the night sky. The Project will be designed to be consistent with the City’s design guidelines and the recommendations of the International Dark-Sky Association, which includes standards for fixtures, shielding, wattage, placement, height, and illumination levels. To comply with these requirements, lighting for the Project will be the minimum lumens necessary, directed downward, and shielded. This will ensure lighting is contained within the site and does not cause significant lighting and glare impacts for surrounding land uses.

The existing roadways in the Project area would be rehabilitated by overlaying the existing surface and/or replaced with new pavement. The Project would include required striping and signage to comply with California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) requirements. Existing directional and safety signage would be upgrade and replaced to reflect new traffic flow patterns resulting from the roundabouts. The visual character of the proposed Project will be compatible with the existing visual character of the corridor and impacts to the site or quality of public views are not anticipated.

1.4.1 Roundabouts and Road Realignments
The Project includes proposed roundabouts on either side of US 101, which will expand and reconfigure the existing northbound and southbound off-ramps and on-ramps. Additionally, Kenmar Road, Eel River Drive, and Riverwalk Drive will be realigned and widened to accommodate the roundabouts as well as pedestrian and bicycle lane improvements. To prevent backup into the roundabout and in support of other operational improvements, the Project may also include traffic signal and lane improvements on the western Kenmar leg of the Ross Hill Road intersection. Recreational views from the Riverwalk RV Park would be temporarily altered due to the realignment of Kenmar Road and Riverwalk Drive to accommodate a new roundabout.

New plantings or other visual improvements would be integrated into the Project to minimize significant visual changes.

The Project design will change the character of the interchange; however, these improvements will improve traffic operations and safety of the corridor while also providing opportunity in the roundabouts central islands and off-ramp median areas for greenspace and vegetation.

The opportunity for new greenspace will enhance the visual character of the interchange while maintaining composition and unity of the site as well as providing safety improvements to better manage the levels of vehicular traffic. Center medians on Kenmar Road east of the northbound roundabout and Eel River Drive would also serve as pedestrian refuge islands and provide connectivity with new crosswalks. Furthermore, the proposed at-grade pedestrian improvements and installation of a Class I bike path through the Project This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with City of Fortuna. It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated with the Project and should not be relied upon in any way. 11214735 5
area will enhance multi-modal connectivity, thus increasing accessibility for the public while improving the visual appearance of the interchange.

1.4.2 Fortuna Park and Ride Reconfiguration
The existing Fortuna Park and Ride would be reconfigured, resurfaced and restriped. The overall footprint of the facility would be similar in size to the existing footprint. As a result of contemporary Caltrans design standards for parking and striping, the number of spaces would reduce from the existing 18 spaces to 15 spaces, including two accessible parking stalls. However, three additional parallel parking stalls are located across from Eel River Drive to bring the total parking stalls back to 18. Crosswalks would extend from the Fortuna Park and Ride across both Eel River Drive and Kenmar Road. The Park and Ride would provide parking for nearby trail access and could accommodate a public bus stop in the future. A shared use path and vegetated buffer would separate the Fortuna Park and Ride from Kenmar Road and Eel River Drive.

Visual impacts of the proposed Project would be temporary during construction and upon completion of the Project, the overall aesthetic and visual quality and continuity of the Fortuna Park and Ride would be enhanced due to enhanced landscaping and improved pedestrian and recreational access around the interchange and to nearby trails. The repaved and restriped parking lot will provide safe and convenient parking and access for vehicles while maintaining consistency with the existing rural visual character of the existing interchange area. Finally, the reconfigured Fortuna Park and Ride will not impede views of or diminish the visual character of nearby landmarks or natural resources.

1.4.3 Pedestrian, Bicycle Lane, and Roadway Improvements New shared use paths, and curb ramps would be constructed on the north side of Kenmar Road, providing improved pedestrian and bicycle safety and enhanced connectivity to the opposite side of US 101. Beneath the underpass, a retaining wall (RW #1) will be constructed on the southbound side of Kenmar Road beneath the US 101 overpass to accommodate the entire width of the shared use path. A second retaining wall (RW #2) will be constructed on the northbound side of Kenmar Road just before the US 101 overpass and adjacent to the roundabout at Riverwalk Drive (Proposed Roundabout #1). At the Fortuna Park and Ride a third retaining wall (RW #3) will be constructed along the northbound side of the Eel River Drive, which will span the length of the Fortuna Park and Ride lot (See Exhibit 1). Retaining walls #1 and #2 will be ground anchored walls comprised of soil nailing, which is an economical and feasible technique used to construct retaining walls and stabilize existing slopes. Soil nail retaining walls use steel tendons, which are grouted and drilled into the ground to create a composite wall along a highway embankment. Retaining wall #3 may differ slightly in the structure as it will be retaining a natural hillside rather than a highway embankment. Retaining wall #3 will either consist of a soil nail retaining wall or a cantilevered soldier pile wall, which is a retaining wall constructed without ground anchoring and is embedded into the hillside.

Further site assessments need to take place to determine the preferred construction and placement of RW #3. All retaining walls will be colorized and texturized to have similar facings to maintain conformity and enhance the visual aesthetic throughout the interchange corridor.

Through signing and striping, cyclists may also proceed through the interchange by taking the full travelled way. The new shared use paths would connect to new crosswalks across the US 101 southbound offramp and US 101 northbound onramp to allow access across the ramps. The roundabout design will allow for future connectivity to the Great Redwood Trail.

The visual impacts of the proposed Project will be compatible with the existing rural visual character of the corridor. The enhanced pedestrian access will improve public access through this interchange while maintaining the rustic/natural aesthetic of the area and safety improvements to better manage the levels of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Implementation of the Project will not block or alter the existing views or the rural composition of Project corridor.

1.5 Summary
Review of the Project area and Project plans indicate that the Project would not result in substantial adverse impacts to the visual environment. The Project aims to improve operations, safety, and multi-modal This Technical Memorandum is provided as an interim output under our agreement with City of Fortuna. It is provided to foster discussion in relation to technical matters associated with the Project and should not be relied upon in any way. 11214735 6
access along the Kenmar Road and US Highway 101 corridor. As described above, the materials, form, line, and texture would be altered along the Project alignment, as a result of the widened roadway, road resurfacing, a paved walkway, sidewalks and curb ramps, crosswalks, roundabouts, lighting, landscaping, signage, a retaining wall, and stormwater drainage and infrastructure improvements. Although the Project will expand the existing interchange footprint, the proposed enhancements are consistent with the current land use, function, visual quality, and character of the area.

As a result of the proposed Project, visual aesthetics of the natural environment would be increased through the improved traffic corridor, pedestrian considerations, and bicycle access around the Kenmar Road and US Highway 101 interchange. Although there will be visual modifications to the interchange as compared to existing conditions, the overall view-scape surrounding the Project area will not be impeded or altered by structures or other Project elements. Furthermore, Project plans include expanding greenspace areas with native vegetation, thus adding to the rural visual composition and character of the interchange area.

The Project corridor is frequented by recreational viewers, as well as vehicle viewers utilizing the roadway.

The proposed Project components would not negatively impact the visual character of the site and would not obstructed views of nearby landmarks or resources. As such, the Project operation is anticipated to have a low impact on viewers in the area and negligible visual changes to the environment are proposed.

Regards,
Lucas Piper
Landscape Architect
Attachments: Appendix A – Graphics
APPENDIX A – GRAPHICS
Paper Size ANSI A
500 1.000
Feet
1,500
Map Projection: Lambert Confonnal Conic Horizontal Oarum: Nonh American 1983 Grid: NAO 1983 StatePiane California t1 FIPS 0402 Feet
~:11 § it
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road/ US 1011nterchange Project
Vicinity Map
Project No. 11214735
Revision No. •
Dale Apr 2022
FIGURE 1 \ ~s~ hn~ U$GSThei~M3P ft$0n31Tr3f'liR)Oit3liool)g~I,I.S Cen4~8tnau-TlGEA11..1fle;U ~S«Yce OJiaRermlleel~l)' 2022., \\bftd~ ~ lt>«.- ~~JJSIEI.teb'f>f~\56 1\11214~~uabl!ls 1121473S.)02200H 112t47$ EDR&pl!oto WOIIuGhoM&edll'6!i' ltl& E$nMaotHUO&nsoo~VItwSi.lnt\Wy V"WWTenY1$ofl...l';eExport:_Thlslio)'(lf~ntllltlt<.W'IISediObollSCdiOO)p)l11itMIOt~ O\l;i~en:!E6tf!O:lNGiay«~b& • 1121473$._01_vtcn!V Pl'iniON Q5Aof 2022 • 14.17 ~ fiV80WiihcGIS IIIW'SIO a!Pil(J\dilla d~ llrQ ~Illig, -Mill tllU ~".iUUI:t ~ lnl!lflllllly 1111tiiiAIOWII1 Of!Cf'A. a=1 ~bod for U..tU~r~J ~Rood N9flwl;.. Esn Ccmmntv MJI)C CorGi\luf015i Date
Comp No.

Project No.

Filename: N:\US\Eureka\Projects\561\11214735\Digital_Design\ACAD 2020\Figures\2132EX001-Figure 2.dwg Plot Date: 28 April 2022 - 2:10 PM

CITY OF FORTUNA
KENMAR Rd/US 101 IC PROJECT
11214735
2132
SEP 2021

PROJECT FOOTPRINT
0 100' 200' N
781 3rd St
Eureka, CA 95501 USA
T 1 707 443 8326 W www.ghd.com
LEGEND:

AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
KENMAR Rd
201-331-05
202-131-49
201-152-13
201-152-15
EEL RIVER Dr
RIVERWALK Dr

RAILROAD
FIGURE 2

MARK ARSENAULT
CALTRANS DISTRICT 1

NORTH REGION ARCHAEOLOGIST

DATE SUZANNE TREISS
CALTRANS DISTRICT 1

PROJECT LOCAL ASSISTANCE ENGINEER

DATE BRENDAN BYRD

CITY OF FORTUNA

DEPUTY CITY ENGINEER
DATE
Appendices
City of Fortuna Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix E
Natural Environment Study
Kenmar Road and Highway 101 Interchange Project
Natural Environment Study
Kenmar Road and Highway 101 Interchange,
Fortuna, Humboldt County, California
HUM-101-59.2/59.7
CTIPS 1D: 13000003108
EFIS 01 2000 0056
June 2022
Natural Environment Study
Kenmar Road and Highway 101 Interchange,
Fortuna, Humboldt County, California
HUM-101-59.2/59.7
CTIPS 1D: 13000003108
EFIS 01 2000 0056
June 2022

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
Humboldt County Department of Public Works
Prepared By: ______________________________________ Date: ___________ Andrea Hilton, Environmental Planner
707-267-2279718 Third Street, Eureka, CA, 95501
GHD Inc.

Prepared By: ____________________________________ Date: ___________ Brendan Byrd, City Engineer
707-725-1469
City of Fortuna
Approved By: ____________________________________ Date: ___________ Darrell Cardiff, Senior Environmental Planner
707-298-0904
Local Assistance
Caltrans District 1
Approved By: ____________________________________ Date: ___________ Coady Reynolds, Associate Environmental Planner
707-684-6988
Local Assistance
Caltrans District 1
The public can obtain this document in an alternative format by contacting the City of Fortuna at (707) 725-1469 or use the California Relay Service 1 (800) 735-2929 (Voice) or 711 for further information.

Natural Environment Study
NES i April 2022
Table of Contents
Summary......................................................................................................................... v Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................... 1 Project History.............................................................................................................. 1 Project Description....................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 – Study Methods............................................................................................. 3 Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................................ 3 Studies Required ....................................................................................................... 10 Personnel and Survey Dates ..................................................................................... 12 Agency Coordination and Professional Contacts ....................................................... 12 Limitations That May Influence Results ..................................................................... 13 Chapter 3 – Results: Environmental Setting.................................................................. 13 Description of the Existing Physical and Biological Conditions .................................. 13 Chapter 4 – Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation ..... 36 Habitats and Natural Communities of Special Concern ............................................. 36 Special Status Plant Species ..................................................................................... 40 Special Status Animal Species .................................................................................. 46 Chapter 5 – Conclusions and Regulatory Determinations............................................. 72 Federal Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary ......................................... 72 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation Summary................................................. 72 California Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary ...................................... 73 Wetlands and Other Waters Coordination Summary ................................................. 74 Invasive Species ........................................................................................................ 74 Other.......................................................................................................................... 74 Chapter 6 – References ................................................................................................ 75 Appendix A - Figures ................................................................................................... 86 Appendix B - CNDDB Database Search Results......................................................... 87 Appendix C - CNPS Database Search Results............................................................ 88 Appendix D - NOAA FISHERIES Official Species List................................................. 89 Appendix E - USFWS IPAC Official Species List......................................................... 90 Appendix F – Site Visit Photographs............................................................................ 91 Appendix G - On-site Wildlife Species List................................................................... 92 Natural Environment Study
NES ii April 2022
List of Tables
Table 1: Cumulative Projects Summary................................................................. 2 Table 2: NatureServe Conservation Status Ranks................................................ 8 Table 3: Habitats and Natural Communities of Special Concern Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA .............................................. 16 Table 4: Special Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA.................................................................................................. 17 Table 5 Special Status Invertebrate Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA ...................................................................................... 22 Table 6: Special Status Fish Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA.................................................................................................. 24 Table 7: Special Status Amphibian Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA ...................................................................................... 26 Table 8: Special Status Reptile Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA ...................................................................................... 28 Table 9: Special Status Bird Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA.................................................................................................. 29 Table 10: Special Status Mammal Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA ...................................................................................... 33 Table 11: Wetlands and Other Waters within the Delineated Area and Potential Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................ 38 Table 12: Impacts to Fish and Habitat Resources .............................................. 56 Table 13: Wildlife Species Detected On-site........................................................ 92 Acronyms List
API Area of Potential Impact
BMPs Best Management Practices
BIOS Biogeographic Information and Observation System
BSA Biological Study Area
CC California Coast
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
FGC California Fish and Game Code
Natural Environment Study
NES iii April 2022
FP California fully protected
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CRPR California Rare Plant Ranking
SAL CDFW Special Animals List
CWA Clean Water Act
cfs cubic feet per second
dbh diameter at breast height
DPS Distinct Population Segment
ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESHA Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit
F Fahrenheit
ESA federal Endangered Species Act
GPS Global Positioning System
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HBAP Humboldt Bay Area Plan
HCPW Humboldt County Department of Public Works
in inch/inches
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
LSAA Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement
LCP Local Coastal Program
MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act
MBPA Migratory Bird Protection Act
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
NEPA National Environmental Protection Act
NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NES Natural Environment Study
NCRWQCB North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board OHWM Ordinary High Water
PM Post Mile
Natural Environment Study
NES iv April 2022
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
ROW right of way
RSP Rock Slope Protection
SNC Sensitive Natural Community
SONCC southern Oregon/northern California coast
SSC Species of Special Concern
ft² square feet
SC State candidate for listing
SE State endangered
SR State Rare
ST State threatened
SFA Sustainable Fisheries Act
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
EEZ U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
Natural Environment Study
NES v April 2022
Summary
The Kenmar Road and Highway 101 Interchange Project (hereafter “Project”) is intended to improve traffic operation and safety at a key highway interchange in Fortuna, California. Highway 101 serves as the primary regional roadway in Humboldt County and is critically important to the residents and economy of Fortuna. The existing intersection controls, roadway geometry, and the high volumes of local and regional traffic on Kenmar Road result in poor traffic operation at and near the interchange. ..

Six federally threatened, endangered, or candidate wildlife species, including one threatened mammal (Pacific Marten), four threatened bird species (Marbled Murrelet, Northern Spotted Owl, Western Snowy Plover, Yellow-billed Cuckoo), and one candidate insect (Monarch Butterfly) have the potential to occur in the Area of Potential Impact (API). Four fish species and their associated critical habitat were indicated as having potential presence in the Project vicinity (9-quad search area): Green Sturgeon (southern DPS), Coho Salmon (southern Oregon / northern California ESU, Chinook Salmon (Coastal California ESU) and Steelhead (northern California DPS). The proposed Project will have no effect on these species and their associated critical habitat. Additionally, impacts to Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), designated for anadromous fish species in Mill Creek, would not occur, as the Project does not involve in-water work or channel modification.

State listed threatened and endangered species include with the potential to occur in the API include Coho Salmon, Tricolored Blackbird, Marbled Murrelet, Western Yellowbilled Cuckoo, Bald Eagle, Bank Swallow, Northern Spotted Owl, and Pacific Martin.

The project would have no impact or a less than significant impact on these state-listed species.

Three special status plant species listed as both federally and state endangered were identified in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) official species list and California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) RareFind 5 query; Menzies wallflower, Beach layia, and Western lily. The Project would not impact or effect federally and/or state listed special status plants or upland Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA), as neither was identified within the API or would be likely to occur given habitat conditions.

With the incorporation of standard avoidance and minimization efforts, potential impacts to other state special status wildlife species would also not result.

The Project would result in temporary and permanent impacts to delineated one- and three-parameter wetlands (see accompanying Wetland Delineation Report for additional details; GHD 2021a). The Project would also result in temporary and permanent impacts to shining willow groves (Salix lasiandra var. lasiandra Alliance, G4 S3.2), a Sensitive Natural Community (SNC), which are co-located with delineated wetlands.

Natural Environment Study
NES vi April 2022
The area of one-parameter, three-parameter, and SNC impacts will be determined in the future, as the design progresses. Required compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands would be determined in coordination with jurisdictional resource agencies at ratios to be no less than 1:1.2, to the satisfaction of each agency (North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board [NCRWQCB], County of Humboldt, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]).

Invasive plant species including Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) and French broom (Genista monspessulana) were noted throughout the Project’s Biological Study Area (BSA; see accompanying Botanical Report for additional details; GHD 2021b).

Removal of these invasive species is recommended for incorporation into the compensatory wetland mitigation that will be required of the Project.

The Project will require permits from the County of Humboldt (Coastal Development Permit), State Water Board (Construction General Permit), NCRWQCB (Clean Water Act [CWA] Section 401 Water Quality Certification), and the USACE (CWA Section 404 Permit).

Beneficial environmental impacts of the Project include neutral or better effect on existing local drainage, flooding, and implementation of stormwater design to contemporary standards, as well as invasive species removal.

Natural Environment Study
NES 1 June 2022
Chapter 1: Introduction
Project History
Project Purpose and Need
The Project is intended to improve traffic operation and safety at a key highway interchange in Fortuna, California (Appendix A, Figure 1 – Vicinity Map).

Highway 101 serves as the primary regional roadway in Humboldt County and is critically important to the residents and economy of Fortuna. The existing intersection controls, roadway geometry, and the high volumes of local and regional traffic on Kenmar Road result in poor traffic operation at and near the interchange.

Project Description
The proposed Project would replace the existing intersections of Highway 101 and Kenmar Road with two roundabouts at the interchange, improving traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle operations (Appendix A, Figure 2 – Area of Potential Impact). The Project also includes modifications to the Highway 101 on-ramps and off-ramps and the realignment of Eel River Drive. In addition to the proposed motor vehicle-related roadway safety improvements, the Project includes a segment of Class I bike path through the Project in addition to other at-grade pedestrian and bicycle improvements to enhance pedestrian connections and promote regional bicycle network continuity. The Project would simplify and improve navigation and traffic operations on Kenmar Road and Eel River Drive, including the Kenmar Road and Highway 101 interchange.

The Project is being designed to accommodate the expected volume and diversity of users, and mobility modes. As described in more detail below, the Project includes road resurfacing, a paved walkway, sidewalks and curb ramps, crosswalks, roundabouts, lighting, landscaping, signage, retaining walls, and stormwater drainage and infrastructure improvements. Particular constraints within the Project alignment may warrant adjustments to the standards to address site specific issues. Primary construction activities would include clearing and grubbing to remove vegetation, grading, excavation, paving, installation of Rock Slope Protection (RSP), and hauling. Please see the associated Project Description for additional Project details (GHD 2021c).

The Project is located along an urban portion of Kenmar Road in Fortuna, Humboldt County, California (Appendix A, Figure 1 – Vicinity Map). The location is included on the Fortuna U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5” quadrangle. There is adequate available shoulder area for staging areas. Access to the Project and staging areas is via paved roads, and all work will occur within the City’s right of way (ROW).

Area of Potential Impact (API)
The Project area, or area of potential impact (API) for the purposes of this Natural Environment Study (NES), includes all areas where Project-related Natural Environment Study
NES 2 June 2022
ground disturbances are anticipated to occur. This encompasses the roadway and the proposed staging area(s), a total area of approximately 16.14 acres (Appendix A, Figure 2 – Area of Potential Impact). Approximately 30% the API consists of an existing paved roadway (construction area) and adjacent road shoulder (staging areas).

Cumulative Projects
To evaluate potentially cumulative projects, outreach to the following local and state agencies was completed to identify any recent, current, or planned projects within 0.5 to 1.0 mile of the Project:
• Humboldt County Planning and Building Department (0.5-mile radius) • Humboldt County Department of Public Works (0.5-mile radius) • Caltrans (1-mile radius)
• City of Fortuna (0.5-mile radius)
A cumulative project summary is provided in Table 1. The Humboldt County Planning and Building Department reported they did not have records of projects within a 0.5-mile radius.

The Humboldt County Department of Public Works Department did not report any applicable projects within a 0.5-mile radius.

Caltrans responded and indicated they were aware of four projects within a 1- mile radius of the Project. The projects are located on and off the highway system.

Additional City of Fortuna projects within a 0.5-mile radius are included in Table

1. Table 1: Cumulative Projects Summary
Agency Project Construction
Year
In-Water
Work?
Caltrans Construct Materials Lab 2023 No
Caltrans Fortuna Median Paving/Fortuna
Median Roadside Safety Project
2026 No
Caltrans Rehabilitate Drainage/HUM-101
Drainage North
2026 No
Caltrans Fortuna Maintenance Station
Crane/Hoist
Not programmed
for construction
No
City of Fortuna Secondary Entry to Old Mill Site Long-term future No City of Fortuna Expired Approved Subdivision for
39 Homes on 23 acres
Unknown No
City of Fortuna Generator Repair Shop in
Commercial Zone
TBD, Building
Permit Pending
No
City of Fortuna Brewery Expansion in Commercial
Zone
Unknown No
Natural Environment Study
NES 3 June 2022
Chapter 2 – Study Methods
Regulatory Requirements
Federal Jurisdiction
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The ESA of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) establishes a national policy that all federal departments and agencies provide for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and their ecosystems. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce are designated in the ESA as responsible for: (1) maintaining a list of species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range (threatened) and that are currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range (endangered); (2) carrying out programs for the conservation of these species; and (3) rendering opinions regarding the impact of proposed federal actions on listed species. The ESA also outlines what constitutes unlawful taking, importation, sale, and possession of listed species and specifies civil and criminal penalties for unlawful activities.

Pursuant to the requirements of the ESA, an agency reviewing a proposed Project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally-listed or proposed species may be present in the Project region, and whether the proposed Project would result in a “take” of such species. The ESA prohibits “take” of a single threatened and endangered species except under certain circumstances and only with authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries through a permit under Section 7 (for federal entities or federal actions) or 10(a) (for non-federal entities) of the Act. “Take” under the ESA includes activities such as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” USFWS regulations define harm to include “significant habitat modification or degradation.” On June 29, 1995, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling further defined harm to include habitat modification “…where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the ESA, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for such species (16 USC 1536[3][4]). If it is determined that a project may result in the "take" of a federally-listed species, consultation would be required under Section 7 or Section 10 of the ESA.

Critical habitat is defined by the ESA as a specific geographic area containing features essential for the conservation of an endangered or threatened species.

Under Section 7 of the ESA, critical habitat should be evaluated if designated for federally-listed species that may be present in a project’s Action Area (federally designated term for a BSA).

Natural Environment Study
NES 4 June 2022
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs)
Conservation plans were incorporated into the ESA in 1982 (sections 10(a)(1)(B) and 10(a)(2)(A) of the ESA, as amended) to create a pathway for take exemptions under the Act for federal and non-federal entities (previously prohibited under Section 9 of the Act). HCPs are planning documents that provide measures to minimize or mitigate Project impacts to listed or candidate species (as well as eagles, following 2011 guidance) at an ecosystem versus single-species level. An HCP provides a degree of assurance for private entities that measures agreed upon in the HCP by federal regulators and the entity would be upheld and not altered for the lifespan of the document, and no additional obligations (financial, land use, or other) would be required at a later date with respect to the species covered in the HCP (referred to as the “No Surprises Rule”; 63 FR 8859). Requirements for issuance of an HCP require that all take is incidental, that take would be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practical, that adequate funds are available to implement the plan, and that the incidental take would not appreciably reduce the survival and recovery potential of the species, among others. HCPs also must comply with the Five Point Policy (65 FR 35242) that requires the incorporation of biological goals and objectives for each species in the document, adaptive management, monitoring, a set time frame for implementation, and public participation through the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) process.

The Project does not overlap any HCPs (Data Basin 2021a). The nearest HCP covers Humboldt Redwood Company property industrial timberlands and is located several miles northwest of the API (USFWS 2015).

Clean Water Act (CWA)
The CWA of 1977 as amended establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the U.S. It gives the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to implement pollution control programs, including setting wastewater standards for industry and water quality standards for contaminants in surface waters. The CWA makes it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, without a permit under its provisions.

Discharge of fill material into “waters of the U.S.,” including wetlands, is regulated by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA (33 USC 1251-1376). USACE regulations implementing Section 404 define “waters of the U.S.” to include intrastate waters (such as lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, and natural ponds) that the use, degradation, or destruction of could affect interstate or foreign commerce. Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3; 40 CFR 230.3). The placement of structures in “navigable waters of the U.S.” is also regulated by the USACE under Section 10 of the Federal Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC 401 et seq.). Projects are approved by USACE under standard (i.e., individual) or general (i.e., nationwide, programmatic, or regional) Natural Environment Study
NES 5 June 2022
permits. The type of permit is determined by the USACE and based on project parameters.

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires consultation with the USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, and responsible state wildlife agency for any federally authorized action to control or modify surface waters. Therefore, any Project proposed or permitted by the USACE under the CWA Section 404 must also be reviewed by the federal wildlife agencies and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

Section 401 of the CWA requires any applicant for a federal license or permit, which involves an activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into waters of the U.S., obtain a certification that the discharge will comply with applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. CWA 401 certifications are issued by Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) under the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands
Executive Order 11990 of 1977 furthers the protection of wetlands under NEPA through avoidance of long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands where practicable. The order requires all federal agencies managing federal lands, sponsoring federal projects, or funding state or local projects to assess the effects of their actions on wetlands. The agencies are required to follow avoidance, mitigation, and preservation procedures. The Presidential Wetland Policy of 1993 and subsequent reaffirmation of the policy in 1995 supports effective protection and restoration of wetlands, while advocating for increased fairness of federal regulatory programs.

Executive Order 13112 – Invasive Species
Executive Order 13112 directs federal agencies to use relevant programs and authorities to:
• Prevent the introduction of invasive species;
• Detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner;
• Monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; • Provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded;
• Conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species;
• Promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them; and
Natural Environment Study
NES 6 June 2022
• Not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere unless, in accordance with guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm will be taken in conjunction with the actions.

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management)
Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid the long- and shortterm adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The MBTA of 1918 (16 USC 703-712) as amended established federal responsibilities for the protection of nearly all species of birds, their eggs, and nests. A migratory bird is defined as any species or family of birds that live, reproduce, or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle. The MBTA prohibits the take, possession, buying, selling, purchasing, or bartering of any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). Only exotic species such as Rock Pigeons (Columba livia), House Sparrows (Passer domesticus), and European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) are exempt from protection.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA)
The MSFCMA of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) as amended provides the federal government with the authority to manage fisheries in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (from state waters which end three nautical miles offshore to a distance of 200 nautical miles). In addition, the Act mandates inter-agency cooperation in achieving protection, conservation, and enhancement of EFH. The Act defines EFH as "Those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. For the purpose of interpreting the definition of EFH: 'waters' include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; 'substrate' includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; 'necessary' means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and “spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” covers a species' full life cycle" (50 CFR 600.10).

EFH relates directly to the physical fish habitat and indirectly to factors that contribute to degradation of this habitat. Important features of EFH that deserve attention are adequate water quality, temperature, food source, water depth, and cover/vegetation. Adverse effects to EFH are considered to be “any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct or Natural Environment Study
NES 7 June 2022
indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions” (50 CFR 600.10).

Federal agencies are required to consult with NOAA Fisheries regarding any actions (may include funding, permitting, or activities) that may adversely impact EFH.

Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA)
The SFA of 1996 (Public Law 104-107) serves as an amendment to the MSFCMA to “authorize appropriations, to provide for sustainable fisheries, and for other purposes”. The SFA includes requirements for describing EFH in Fishery Management Plans (FMP) and also mandates the protection EFH.

According to the SFA, “[o]ne of the greatest long-term threats to the viability of commercial and recreational fisheries is the continuing loss of marine, estuarine, and other aquatic habitats. Habitat considerations should receive increased attention for the conservation and management of fishery resources of the United States.” This act also mandates the delineation of EFH for all managed species.

State Jurisdiction
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The Porter-Cologne Act provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations by establishing the California State Water Resources Control Board.

The State Board is the statewide authority that oversees nine separate RWQCBs that collectively oversee water quality at regional and local levels. California RWQCBs issue CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certifications for possible pollutant discharges into waters of the U.S. or state. On April 2, 2019 the California State Water Resources Control Board adopted new definitions and procedures for discharges of dredged or fill material to Waters of the State.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
The CESA includes provisions for the protection and management of species listed by the State of California as endangered, threatened, or designated as candidates for such listing (California Fish and Game Code [FGC] Sections 2050 through 2085). The CESA generally parallels the main provisions of the ESA and is administered by the CDFW, who maintains a list of state threatened and endangered species as well as candidate species. The CESA prohibits the “take” of any species listed as threatened or endangered unless authorized by the CDFW in the form of an Incidental Take Permit. Under the FGC, “take” is defined as to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.”
Other State Special Status Species and Communities
The CDFW maintains a list of species of special concern (CDFW 2022). These are broadly defined as species that are of concern to the CDFW because of Natural Environment Study
NES 8 June 2022
population declines and restricted distributions, and/or they are associated with habitats that are declining in California. The criteria used to define special status species are described by the CDFW. Impacts to special status plants, animals, and SNCs may be considered significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

State Species of Special Concern (SSC) include those plants and wildlife species that have not been formally listed yet are proposed or may qualify as endangered or threatened. In addition, USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern, and CDFW special status invertebrates are considered special status species by CDFW.

Sensitive Natural Communities (SNCs)
CDFW provides oversight of habitats (i.e., plant communities) listed as Sensitive in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and on the California Sensitive Natural Communities List, based on global and state rarity rankings.

The natural communities are broken down to alliance and association levels for vegetation types affiliated with ecological sections in California. The alliances on the California Sensitive Natural Communities List coincide with A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009, CNPS 2021a). CDFW considers alliances and associations with a state rank of S1 to S3 to be Sensitive. The application of ranking for determination of Sensitive Communities is summarized as follows in Table 2 (NatureServe 2021):

Table 2: NatureServe Conservation Status Ranks
Name Calculated Status Rank Status Description
Score ≤ 1.5 G1, N1, S1 Critically Imperiled

1.5 ≤ Score ≤ 2.5 G2, N2, S2 Imperiled

2.5 ≤ Score ≤ 3.5 G3, N3, S3 Vulnerable

3.5 ≤ Score ≤ 4.5 G4, N4, S4 Apparently Secure
Score > 4.5 G5, N5, S5 Secure
California Fish and Game Code (FGC)
Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA)
The CDFW administers the NPPA (Sections 1900–1913 of the FGC). These sections allow the California Fish and Game Commission to designate endangered and rare plant species and to notify landowners of the presence of such species. Plant species on California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) California Rare Plant Ranking (CRPR) Lists 1 and 2 are considered eligible for state listing as Endangered or Threatened pursuant to the FGC and CDFW has oversite of these special status plant species as a trustee agency. As part of the CEQA process, such species should be considered as they meet the definition of Natural Environment Study
NES 9 June 2022
Threatened or Endangered under Sections 2062 and 2067 of the FGC. CRPR List 3 and 4 plants may warrant protection under CEQA Guidelines 15380 only in special circumstances. CDFW publishes and periodically updates lists of special status species which include, for the most part, the above categories.

Additionally, there are 64 plant species designated as “rare” which is a special designation created before plants were rolled into CESA in the 1980s. The CESA and the NPPA required a Project to have a “Scientific, Educational, or Management Permit” from CDFW for activities that would result in “take,” possession, import, or export of state-listed plant species including research, seed banking, reintroduction efforts, habitat restoration, and other activities relating to any plant designated SE (State endangered), ST (State threatened), SR (State rare), or SC (State candidate for listing).

Birds of Prey and Native Nesting Birds
Sections 3503 and 3513 of the FGC prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. Subsection 3503.5 specifically prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls) and their eggs or nests.

These provisions, along with the federal MBTA, essentially serve to protect nesting native birds. Non-native species, including the European Starling, Rock Pigeon, and House Sparrow, are not afforded protection under the MBTA or FGC.

Fully Protected Species
The CDFW enforces the FGC, which provides protection for “fully protected birds” (Section 3511), “fully protected mammals” (Section 4700), “fully protected reptiles and amphibians” (Section 5050), and “fully protected fish” (Section 5515).

As fully protected (FP) species, the CDFW cannot authorize any Project or action that would result in “take” of these species, even with an incidental take permit.

Migratory Bird Protection Act (MBPA)
The California MBPA (FGC Section 3513, as amended) was introduced in the California State Assembly 2019 by Assembly Member Ash Kalra and cosponsored by the National Audubon Society. The text of the Act specifies that it is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the federal MBTA (16 USC 703-712) before January 1, 2017. This upholds the interpretation of the MBTA under Clinton’s Executive Order 13166, where “take” was defined as both “unintentional as well as intentional.” Governor Gavin Newson signed the Act into law on September 27, 2019. The MBPA effectively closes the federal MBTA loophole on incidental take of migratory birds in California.

Regional Jurisdiction
The Project would not be required to obtain a Humboldt County Grading Permit.

Natural Environment Study
NES 10 June 2022
Humboldt County Local Coastal Program
The API is partially within and regulated by the Humboldt Bay Area Plan (HBAP) of the Humboldt County Local Coastal Program (LCP), of which Humboldt County has the primary permitting authority. LCPs can be adopted by local governments and serve as the regulatory equivalent of the Coastal Act. The HBAP extends from the Mad River in the north to Table Bluff/Hookton Road in the south, excluding the cities of Eureka and Arcata, and identifies land uses and standards by which development will be evaluated within the Coastal Zone as defined by the Coastal Act. The HBAP was certified by the California Coastal Commission in 1982.

Studies Required
Biological Study Area (BSA)
The BSA, or the area directly or indirectly impacted by the proposed Project, encompasses a 500-foot radius around the API (construction area and staging area[s]) (Appendix A, Figure 3 – Biological Study Area). The BSA encompasses approximately 111.3 acres around the 16.14-acre API. The BSA boundary was determined based on the scope of work and includes all potential areas of impact (physical impacts such as sediment discharge and habitat loss, as well as potential for visual and auditory disturbance) to sensitive biological resources.

Literature Search
The following information or sources pertaining to biological resources within the BSA reviewed during this analysis, includes (but is not limited to):
• Bat Acoustic Monitoring Visualization Tool (BAMVT 2021); • Bumble Bee Watch - Bumblebee Sightings Map (Bumble Bee Watch 2021);
• CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) (CDFW 2021a);
• CDFW CNDDB RareFind5 (CDFW 2021b) (see Appendix A, Figure 4 – CNDDB Occurrences in 3-mile radius, and Appendix B);
• CDFW Special Animals List (SAL) as of January 2022 (CDFW 2022); • CNPS Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (8th Edition) (CNPS 2021b; Appendix C);
• eBird Hot Spot Data (eBird 2021);
• iNaturalist Occurrence Data (iNaturalist 2021);
Natural Environment Study
NES 11 June 2022
• NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region California Species List (NOAA Fisheries 2020; Appendix D);
• NOAA Fisheries EFH mapper (NOAA Fisheries 2021a);
• NOAA Fisheries Critical Habitat-Salmon and Steelhead (NOAA Fisheries 2021b);
• Satellite imagery of the proposed BSA and surrounding area; • USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool (USFWS 2022; Appendix E);
• USFWS Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS; USFWS 2021a);
• USFWS Wetlands Mapper (USFWS 2021b; Appendix A, Figure 5 – NWI Wetlands);
Field Reviews
Below follows a summary of field reviews by other organizations in the Project vicinity. An Environmental Constraints Analysis was conducted in 2016 by GHD for the Fortuna Highway 101/Riverwalk Connectivity Planning Study focusing on the 12th Street and Kenmar Road crossings of Highway 101 (GHD 2016).

A stream inventory survey was completed in 2004 by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG, now CDFW) along Mill Creek, a tributary to Strongs Creek, from upstream of the BSA at the footbridge approximately 300 feet downstream of Rohnerville Road to 0.2 miles upstream (CDFG 2004). At the time of the survey, the culvert passing underneath Rohnerville Road did not meet CDFG or NOAA Fisheries fish passage criteria (CDFG 2004), and was considered a partial barrier in the California Fish Passage Assessment Database (CDFW 2021b). The survey reach was upstream of the Project and no barriers to fish passage have been documented below the Rohnerville Road culvert that would inhibit fish passage to the API. The Rohnerville Road culvert was replaced in 2020 as part of a separate project and is no longer a barrier to fish passage.

Although no biological inventory (i.e., fish sampling) was completed, the CDFG recommended Mill Creek be managed as an anadromous stream.

Additionally, a stream inventory survey was completed in 2009 along Strongs Creek, a tributary to the Eel River, from the confluence with the Eel River to 5.8 miles upstream (CDFG 2009). This survey included a biological inventory which documented juvenile Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus). The CDFG recommended Strongs Creek be managed as an anadromous stream.

A field reconnaissance survey of the BSA was conducted by GHD in February 2021 and is described further.

Natural Environment Study
NES 12 June 2022
Survey Methods
GHD performed pedestrian reconnaissance surveys of the BSA by walking the full Project footprint (API) as well as adjacent accessible areas. Field investigations included a general inspection to characterize existing habitat with emphasis on areas having the potential to support special status species or sensitive habitats. The survey methods were intended to identify vegetation communities and sensitive habitat, and to determine the potential for sensitive species presence. Where the habitat allowed the surveyor to walk without risk of damaging nests or dens and surrounding vegetation, the survey included a physical search of the area. This included inspecting the ground, shrubs, culverts, holes, etc. for the presence of any wildlife species or special status plants. This reconnaissance-level survey was conducted to identify general wildlife resources, plants, and habitat in the BSA. No protocol-level surveys for special status wildlife were conducted at this time. A formal wetland delineation was conducted. Protocol-level surveys for rare plants were completed (see separate Botanical Report; GHD 2021b).

Personnel and Survey Dates
A reconnaissance-level site visit was conducted by GHD field staff in support of Project development on February 20, 2016 (GHD 2016).

A reconnaissance-level biological field survey was conducted by Kelsey McDonald, GHD Botanist (hereafter surveyor), on February 24, 2021, 09:00- 16:00, and March 10, 2021, 09:00-12:00. The weather was mostly clear on February 24, with a few high strata clouds, and the temperature was 45 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with variable wind (Beaufort scale 2-4). The survey concluded with similar weather conditions, and the temperature at 50°F. The weather on March 10 was overcast, 45 °F with low wind (Beaufort scale 2), with a slight drizzle as the survey ended. The survey included an assessment of the entire API. The surrounding BSA, including adjacent private property, was assessed visually from the Kenmar Road ROW. The surveyor walked throughout the API and within the creek bed.

Wetland delineation field work was completed on February 24, 2021 and April 8, 2021 by Kelsey McDonald and Rose Dana, GHD Botanists.

Seasonally appropriate rare plant and botanical surveys were completed on April 7, 2021 and July 30, 2021, also by Kelsey McDonald and Rose Dana.

Agency Coordination and Professional Contacts
Official Species Lists for the proposed Project were obtained from 1) NOAA Fisheries for the Project quad (Fortuna) and the surrounding eight quads (NFMS 2020; Appendix D; December 2020), and 2) the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office for the API (USFWS 2022; Appendix E; March 2022).

Natural Environment Study
NES 13 June 2022
Additional agency coordination has yet to occur but is anticipated as part of the permitting phase. Local agency permits from the City of Fortuna will not be required. The following permits are anticipated to be required for the Project:
• County of Humboldt – Coastal Development Permit
• State Water Board – Construction General Permit
• NCRWQCB – CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification • USACE – CWA Section 404 Permit
• Caltrans Encroachment Permit
• County of Humboldt Encroachment Permit
Limitations That May Influence Results
The API was defined based on preliminary design and is subject to modification pending final design. Determinations reached in this NES are based on historic surveys and studies, as well as web-based sensitive species database and literature searches. Protocol-level surveys for rare plants have been conducted.

However, no protocol-level surveys or studies were conducted to determine the presence or absence of listed or sensitive wildlife species within the BSA; only relatively brief reconnaissance-level site visits were conducted. As the historic studies/surveys may not accurately reflect actual occurrence of species presence in the BSA at this time, conclusions were based on the assumption of presence or non-presence based on existing habitat conditions, and impact and minimization measures have been developed accordingly.

Chapter 3 – Results: Environmental Setting
Description of the Existing Physical and Biological Conditions Information regarding existing biological and physical conditions presented in this section is based on literature review of known resources within the vicinity of the BSA and on-site investigations.

Study Area
The study area is limited to the BSA as defined above. A description of physical and biological conditions within the BSA and API is provided in the following sections. Representative photographs of the BSA are provided in Appendix F.

Physical Conditions
Climate
The Mediterranean climate is relatively mild and cool due to year-around coastal influences, including fog in the summer months. Precipitation primarily falls in the form of rain at this low elevation. Annual rainfall averages 49 inches per year in Natural Environment Study
NES 14 June 2022
Fortuna (BestPlaces 2021). Air temperatures vary, with winter/summer highs in the 50s (degrees Fahrenheit) and high 60s, respectively.

Topographic Conditions
The topography of the BSA is generally composed of a flat road and highway, and relatively flat pasturelands and industrial or residential areas (Appendix A, Figure 6 – Topography). The climate is mild and cool due to year-round coastal influences, including fog in the summer months. The elevation at the API is approximately 28 to 72 feet above mean sea level. Steep slopes are present to the southeast of Highway 101.

Hydrological Resources
The Project will take place adjacent to Mill Creek (Appendix A, Figure 5 – NWI Wetlands). Mill Creek originates on private timberlands and is tributary to Strong’s Creek which drains into the Eel River and ultimately into the Pacific Ocean. Mill Creek is considered a first order stream (CDFG 2004). The majority of the approximately 2.04-mile-long creek is within urban habitat, with a small portion of the headwaters in forested habitats (CDFG 2004). Additionally, the API/BSA is located approximately a quarter mile east of the Eel River.

Biological Conditions
A portion of the BSA located east of Highway 101 includes a steep slope with non-native eucalyptus at the extreme east end, and a parking lot immediately to the west. Continuing west, an inactive rail line runs through a series of mostly open areas of low herbaceous growth with scattered coastal redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) and Monterey pines (Pinus radiata). West of Highway 101 and associated ramps, ditches and runoff around the intersection drain through mixed willow thickets along the western slope and collect in ephemerally ponding wet pasture below. Redwoods of moderate size occur near the intersection of Kenmar Road and the Highway 101 ramps. Primary habitat features include several large individual redwoods and eucalyptus trees, the Mill Creek riparian area, willow thickets, and emergent wetlands. While these habitat features are not extensive, they could harbor sensitive wildlife species and have habitat and aesthetic value.

Aquatic resources in the BSA include delineated one- and three-parameter wetlands as well as Mill Creek, an anadromous tributary to the Eel River.

Invasive botanic species present include English ivy (Hedera helix), widespread Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), French broom (Genista monspessulana), and pampas grass (Cortaderia selloana). Other habitat communities include invasive Himalayan blackberry and French broom thickets, landscaped Monterey pine and coastal redwood, arroyo willow riparian thickets, and shining willow groves (an SNC).

Natural Environment Study
NES 15 June 2022
Habitat Connectivity
Wildlife corridors refer to established migration routes commonly used by resident and migratory species for passage from one geographic location to another. Maintaining the continuity of established wildlife corridors is important to:
a) sustain species with specific foraging requirements, b) preserve a species’ distribution potential, and c) retain diversity among many wildlife populations.

Therefore, resource agencies consider wildlife corridors to be a sensitive resource.

No wildlife movement corridors or regional wildlife linkages have been identified within the BSA. The BSA is not located within or near a high-integrity forest habitat “natural landscape block” identified in the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project (Spencer et al. 2010, Data Basin 2021b).

The Mill Creek riparian area consists of a narrow alder-dominated riparian corridor that runs north under Kenmar Road and along the north side of Kenmar Road. General dispersal of terrestrial wildlife may occur along the Mill Creek corridor through the BSA. This would occur as random movement of species throughout a normal home range. The Mill Creek crossing consists of two box culverts that are suitable for fish passage. Low flows and high sedimentation were observed in Mill Creek during the February 24 and March 10 site visits (see Appendix F). Habitats are fragmented by the interchange and other development in the area.

Regional Species and Habitats and Natural Communities of Concern Habitats and Natural Communities of Special Concern
A list of regionally occurring habitats and natural communities of special concern was compiled based on a review of the CNDDB (Appendix B) database records and the February, March, April, and July 2021 site visits. Three locations of SNCs were documented in the Project vicinity (within the 9-quad search, all specifically mapped in the Cannibal Island 7.5” quadrangle; CDFW 2021b). One SNC was documented in the BSA: shining willow groves (GHD 2021b).

A discussion of the potential for habitat occurrence, avoidance and minimization measures, and potential Project-related impacts to habitats and natural communities of special concern is provided in Chapter 4 – Discussion of Shining Willow Groves SNC. Mill Creek was identified as an aquatic feature and is discussed in Chapter 4 – Discussion of Aquatic Habitat, Regulated Waters, and Wetlands. Habitats and natural communities of special concern potentially occurring or known to occur in the BSA are listed in the following table.

Natural Environment Study
NES 16 June 2022
Table 3: Habitats and Natural Communities of Special Concern Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA
Name Global
Rank1
State
Rank2 General Habitat3
Habitat
Present/
Absent4
Rationale
Arroyo Willow Riparian G4 S4 Fresh emergent wetland P Documented within the BSA during field surveys.

Not considered an SNC
because SNCs are defined
as S1 through S3; excluded
from further consideration.

Shining Willow Groves G4 S3.2 Valley foothill riparian P Documented within the BSA during field surveys.

Footnotes:
1 Global Ranks: G4 = Apparently Secure – Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors; G3 [Vulnerable] – At moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors; G4 [Apparently Secure] – At fairly low risk of extinction or elimination due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences, but with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent declines, threats, or other factors (NatureServe 2020). 2 State Ranks: S4 = Apparently Secure – Uncommon but not rare in the state; S3 [Vulnerable] – At moderate risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors (NatureServe 2020). 3 Reprinted from CNPS Manual of California Vegetation Online (February 2021; CNPS 2021a). 4 Habitat Present/Absent: Present [P] - the sensitive natural community is present.

Special Status Plant Species
For the purpose of this study, special status plant species include plants that are (1) listed as threatened or endangered under the CESA or the ESA; (2) designated as rare by the CDFW; (3) state or federal candidate or proposed species for listing as threatened or endangered; and/or (4) have a California Rare Plant Rank of 1 or 2. Additionally, locally significant plants (CEQA Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (c)), or as designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances) are considered special status plant species (CDFW 2018).

A list of regionally occurring special status plant species was compiled based on a review of the USFWS official species list (generated for the API; Appendix E; March 2022), CNDDB RareFind 5 (generated for the Fortuna 7.5” quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads; Appendix B; February 2021), and CNPS (generated for the Fortuna 7.5” quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads; Appendix C; February 2021) database records. Three federally-listed and state-listed plant species (also CNPS-ranked) have been documented in the Project vicinity (9-quad search). Twenty-six CRPR rank 1 and 2 plant species have also been documented.

Habitat requirements for each species were assessed and compared to the habitats within the BSA in order to evaluate the potential for species presence. A discussion of the habitat requirements, potential for species occurrence, Natural Environment Study
NES 17 June 2022
avoidance and minimization measures, and potential Project-related impacts to special status plant species is provided in Section 4.2. Special status plant species potentially occurring or known to occur in the BSA are listed in the following table. Effects determinations have been provided for all federally-listed species.

Table 4: Special Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 CRPR2 General
Habitat3
Habitat
Present/
Absent4
Rationale
pink sandverbenaAbronia
umbellata var.
breviflora
--/-- 1B.1 Coastal dunes A No known occurrences in API or BSA. No suitable habitat (e.g.,
coastal dunes) present in API or
BSA; excluded from further
consideration.
coastal marsh
milk-vetch
Astragalus
pycnostachyus
var.
pycnostachyus
--/-- 1B.2 Coastal dunes
(mesic),
Coastal scrub,
Marshes and
swamps
(coastal salt,
streamsides)
A No known occurrences in API or
BSA. No suitable habitat (e.g.,
coastal dunes, salt marsh)
present in API or BSA; excluded
from further consideration.
seaside
bittercress
Cardamine
angulata
--/-- 2B.1 North coast
coniferous
forest, lower
montane
coniferous
forest. Wet
areas,
streambanks.

HP Marginal wet areas may occur in
the API. See Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special Status
Plants.
bristle-stalked
sedge
Carex leptalea --/-- 2B.2 Bogs and fens,
Meadows and
seeps (mesic),
Marshes and
swamps
HP Marginal wet areas may occur in
the API. See Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special Status
Plants.

Lyngbye's sedge Carex lyngbyei --/-- 2B.2 Marshes and
swamps
(brackish or
freshwater)
A No known occurrences in API or
BSA. No suitable habitat (e.g.,
coastal marshes) present in API
or BSA; excluded from further
consideration.

Humboldt Bay
owl's-clover
Castilleja
ambigua var.
humboldtiensis
--/-- 1B.2 Marshes and
swamps
(coastal salt)
A No known occurrences in API or
BSA. No suitable habitat (e.g.,
coastal salt marshes) present in
API or BSA; excluded from
further consideration.

Natural Environment Study
NES 18 June 2022
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 CRPR2 General
Habitat3
Habitat
Present/
Absent4
Rationale
Oregon coast
paintbrush
Castilleja litoralis --/-- 2B.2 Coastal bluff
scrub, Coastal
dunes, Coastal
scrub; sandy
A No known occurrences in API or
BSA. No suitable habitat (e.g.,
sandy coastal bluff and dune
habitats) present in API or BSA;
excluded from further
consideration.

Point Reyes
bird's-beak
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
palustre
--/-- 1B.2 Marshes and
swamps
(coastal salt)
A No known occurrences in API or
BSA. No suitable habitat (e.g.,
coastal salt marshes) present in
API or BSA; excluded from
further consideration.

Whitney's
farewell-to-spring
Clarkia amoena
ssp. whitneyi
--/-- 1B.1 Coastal bluff
scrub, Coastal
scrub
HP Marginal scrub habitat may
occur in the API. See Chapter 4
– Discussion of Special
Status Plants.

Cascade
downingia
Downingia
willamettensis
--/-- 2B.2 Cismontane
woodland (lake
margins),
Valley and
foothill
grassland (lake
margins),
Vernal pools
HP Marginal seasonally wet areas
and grasslands may occur in the
API. See Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special Status
Plants.

Menzies
wallflower
Erysimum
menziesii
FE/SE 1B.1 Coastal dunes A No known occurrences in API or BSA. No critical habitat has
been designated (USFWS
2022). No suitable habitat (e.g.,
coastal dunes) present in API or
BSA; excluded from further
consideration.

No effect.
giant fawn lily Erythronium
oregonum
--/-- 2B.2 Cismontane
woodland,
Meadows and
seeps;
sometimes
serpentinite,
rocky, openings
HP Marginal wet meadows, seeps,
and woodlands may occur in the
API. See Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special Status
Plants.
coast fawn lily Erythronium
revolutum
--/-- 2B.2 Bogs and fens,
Broadleafed
upland forest,
North Coast
coniferous
forest; Mesic,
streambanks
HP Marginal wet and mesic areas
may occur in the API. See
Chapter 4 – Discussion of
Special Status Plants.

Natural Environment Study
NES 19 June 2022
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 CRPR2 General
Habitat3
Habitat
Present/
Absent4
Rationale
minute pocket
moss
Fissidens
pauperculus
--/-- 1B.2 North Coast
coniferous
forest (damp
coastal soil)
A No known occurrences in API or
BSA. No suitable habitat (e.g.,
North Coast coniferous forest)
present in API or BSA; excluded
from further consideration.

Pacific gilia Gilia capitata ssp.
pacifica
--/-- 1B.2 Coastal bluff
scrub,
Chaparral
(openings),
Coastal prairie,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
HP Marginal scrub and grassland
habitat may occur in the API.

See Chapter 4 – Discussion of
Special Status Plants.
dark-eyed gilia Gilia millefoliata --/-- 1B.2 Coastal dunes A No known occurrences in API or BSA. No suitable habitat (e.g.,
coastal dunes) present in API or
BSA; excluded from further
consideration.
short-leaved evax Hesperevax
sparsiflora var.
brevifolia
--/-- 1B.2 Coastal bluff
scrub (sandy),
Coastal dunes,
Coastal prairie
HP Marginal scrub habitat may
occur in the API. See Chapter 4
– Discussion of Special
Status Plants.
glandular western
flax
Hesperolinon
adenophyllum
--/-- 1B.2 Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland,
Valley and
foothill
grassland;
usually
serpentinite
A No known occurrences in API or
BSA. No suitable habitat (e.g.,
serpentine habitat) present in
API or BSA; excluded from
further consideration.
beach layia Layia carnosa FE/SE 1B.1 Coastal dunes,
Coastal scrub
(sandy)
A No known occurrences in API or
BSA. No critical habitat has
been designated (USFWS
2022). No suitable habitat (e.g.,
coastal dunes or scrub) present
in API or BSA; excluded from
further consideration.

No effect.
western lily Lilium
occidentale
FE/SE 1B.1 Bogs and fens,
Coastal bluff
scrub, Coastal
prairie, Coastal
scrub, Marshes
and swamps
(freshwater),
North Coast
A No known occurrences in API or
BSA. No critical habitat has
been designated (USFWS
2022). Marginal scrub and
wetland habitat may occur in the
API but is not expected to
support the species.

Natural Environment Study
NES 20 June 2022
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 CRPR2 General
Habitat3
Habitat
Present/
Absent4
Rationale
coniferous
forest
(openings)
No effect.

Howell's montia Montia howellii --/-- 2B.2 Meadows and
seeps, North
Coast
coniferous
forest, Vernal
pools; vernally
mesic,
sometimes
roadsides
HP Seasonally wet roadsides may
occur in the API. See Chapter 4
– Discussion of Special
Status Plants.

Wolf's eveningprimrose
Oenothera wolfii --/-- 1B.1 Coastal bluff
scrub, Coastal
dunes, Coastal
prairie, Lower
montane
coniferous
forest; sandy,
usually mesic
HP Marginal scrub and grassland
habitat may occur in the API.

See Chapter 4 – Discussion of
Special Status Plants.
seacoast ragwort Packera
bolanderi var.
bolanderi
--/-- 2B.2 Coastal scrub,
North Coast
coniferous
forest;
Sometimes
roadsides
HP Marginal scrub and roadside
habitat may occur in the API.

See Chapter 4 – Discussion of
Special Status Plants.
white-flowered
rein orchid
Piperia candida --/-- 1B.2 Broadleafed
upland forest,
Lower montane
coniferous
forest, North
Coast
coniferous
forest;
sometimes
serpentinite
A No known occurrences within
API or BSA. The BSA is largely
developed and there is no
suitable pristine habitat present
in API or BSA; excluded from
further consideration.

Oregon
polemonium
Polemonium
carneum
--/-- 2B.2 Coastal prairie,
Coastal scrub,
Lower montane
coniferous
forest
HP Marginal scrub and grassland
habitat occurs within API and
BSA. Chapter 4 – Discussion
of Special Status Plants.
dwarf alkali grass Puccinellia
pumila
--/-- 2B.2 Marshes and
swamps
(coastal salt)
A No known occurrences in API or
BSA. No suitable habitat (e.g.,
coastal salt marshes) present in
API or BSA; excluded from
further consideration.

Natural Environment Study
NES 21 June 2022
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 CRPR2 General
Habitat3
Habitat
Present/
Absent4
Rationale
Siskiyou
checkerbloom
Sidalcea
malviflora ssp.
patula
--/-- 1B.2 Coastal bluff
scrub, Coastal
prairie, North
Coast
coniferous
forest; often
roadcuts
HP Scrub and open roadside
habitats may occur within the
API. See Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special Status
Plants.
coast
checkerbloom
Sidalcea oregana
ssp. eximia
--/-- 1B.2 Lower montane
coniferous
forest,
Meadows and
seeps, North
Coast
coniferous
forest
HP Marginal seeps may occur in
API. See Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special Status
Plants.

Hitchcock's blueeyed grassSisyrinchium
hitchcockii
--/-- 1B.1 Cismontane
woodland
(openings),
Valley and
foothill
grassland
HP Marginal habitat (e.g.,
grasslands and openings) may
occur in API. See Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special Status
Plants.
western sandspurreySpergularia
canadensis var.
occidentalis
--/-- 2B.1 Marshes and
swamps
(coastal salt)
A No known occurrences in API or
BSA. No suitable habitat (e.g.,
coastal salt marshes) present in
API or BSA; excluded from
further consideration.

Footnotes:
1 Status: FE = Federal Endangered; SE = State Endangered. 2 California Rare Plant Ranking: 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; Threat Code extensions and their meanings:” .1 - Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat); .2 – Moderately threatened in California (20-80% of occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat); .3 – Not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)” (CNPS 2021). 3 General habitat column information reprinted from CNDDB (February 2021; CDFW 2021c). 4 Habitat Present/Absent: Absent [A] - no habitat present and no further work needed. Habitat Present [HP] -habitat is or may be present. The species may be present. Present [P] - the species is present.

Special Status Invertebrate Species
Special status invertebrate species include species that are (1) listed as threatened or endangered under the CESA or the ESA; (2) proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered; (3) state or federal candidates for listing as Natural Environment Study
NES 22 June 2022
threatened or endangered; and/or (4) identified by the CDFW as SSC, California FP species, or species on their SAL (CDFW 2022).

The USFWS IPaC official species list (generated for the API; Appendix E; March 2022) did not identify any federally-listed invertebrate species in the Project vicinity. The CNDDB RareFind 5 (generated for the Fortuna 7.5” quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads; Appendix B; February 2021) indicates five special status invertebrate species potentially occurring within the 9-quad search area. A discussion of the habitat requirements, potential for species occurrence, avoidance and minimization measures, and potential Project-related impacts to special status invertebrate species is provided in Chapter 4 – Discussion of Special Status Invertebrates of this document. Special status invertebrate species potentially occurring or known to occur in the BSA are listed in the following table.

Table 5 Special Status Invertebrate Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat2
Habitat
Present/
Absent3
Rationale
Mollusks
California Floater Anodonta
californiensis
--/--/SAL Freshwater lakes and
slow-moving streams
and rivers. Taxonomy
under review by
specialists. Generally
in shallow water.

HP No known occurrences within API
or BSA or surrounding 5 miles.

Marginal habitat present in Mill
Creek within API and BSA. See
Chapter 4 – Discussion of
Special Status Invertebrates.

Western Ridged
Mussel
Gonidea
angulata
--/--/SAL Primarily creeks &
rivers & less often
lakes. Originally in
most of state, now
extirpated from Central
& Southern Calif.

HP No known occurrences within API
or BSA or surrounding 5 miles.

Marginal habitat present in Mill
Creek within API and BSA. See
Chapter 4 – Discussion of
Special Status Invertebrates.

Western
Pearlshell
Margaritifera
falcata
--/--/SAL Aquatic. Prefers lower
velocity waters.

HP No known occurrences within API
or BSA or surrounding 5 miles.

Marginal habitat present in Mill
Creek within API and BSA. See
Chapter 4 – Discussion of
Special Status Invertebrates.

Insects
Obscure Bumble
Bee
Bombus
caliginosus
--/--/SAL Coastal areas from
Santa Barbara county
north to Washington
state. Food plant
genera include
Baccharis ssp.,
Cirsium ssp., Lupinus
ssp., Lotus ssp.,
HP Suitable habitat present; see
Chapter 4 – Discussion of
Special Status Invertebrates
Natural Environment Study
NES 23 June 2022
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat2
Habitat
Present/
Absent3
Rationale
Grindelia ssp., and
Phacelia ssp.

Western Bumble
Bee
Bombus
occidentalis
UR/--
/SAL
Once common &
widespread, species
has declined
precipitously from
central California to
southern British
Columbia, perhaps
from disease.

HP Suitable habitat present; see
Chapter 4 – Discussion of
Special Status Invertebrates
Monarch Butterfly
- California
overwintering
population (pop. 1)
FC/--
/SAL
Winter roost sites
extend along the coast
from northern
Mendocino to Baja
California, Mexico.

Roosts located in
wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus,
Monterey pine,
cypress), with nectar
and water sources
nearby.

HP Suitable habitat present; see
Chapter 4 – Discussion of
Special Status Invertebrates
Footnotes:
1 Status: FC = Federal Candidate; SAL = CDFW Special Animals List; UR = federally under review for listing (CDFW 2021a). 2 General habitat column information reprinted from CNDDB (February 2021; CDFW 2021c). 3 Habitat Present/Absent: Absent [A] - no habitat present and no further work needed. Habitat Present [HP] -habitat is or may be present. The species may be present.

Special Status Fish Species
Special status fish species include species that are (1) listed as threatened or endangered under the CESA or the ESA; (2) proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered; (3) state or federal candidates for listing as threatened or endangered; and/or (4) identified by the CDFW as SSC, California FP species, or species on their SAL.

The USFWS IPaC official species list (generated for the API; Appendix E; March 2022), NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region California Species List (generated for the Fortuna 7.5” quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads; Appendix D; February 2021), and CNDDB RareFind 5 (generated for the Fortuna 7.5” quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads; Appendix B; February 2021) identified six federally-listed species, one federal candidate species, and three state SSC with potential to occur in the 9-quad search area. Mill Creek within the BSA contains requisite aquatic habitat for several special status fish species. See Chapter 4 – Discussion of Special Status Fish for general aquatic habitat conservation Natural Environment Study
NES 24 June 2022
measures. Special status fish species potentially occurring or known to occur in the BSA are listed in the following table. Effects determinations have been provided for all federally-listed species.

Table 6: Special Status Fish Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat2 Habitat Present/
Absent3
Rationale
Green Sturgeon Acipenser
medirostris
FT/--
/SSC
These are the most marine
species of sturgeon.

Abundance increases
northward of Point
Conception. Spawns in the
Sacramento, Klamath, &
Trinity Rivers. Spawns at
temps between 8-14 C.

Preferred spawning substrate
is large cobble, but can range
from clean sand to bedrock.

A No known occurrences
within API or BSA. No
suitable habitat present
(Mill Creek is a small
tributary lacking deep
pool habitat required by
this species); excluded
from further
consideration.

No effect.

No in-water work or
channel modification will
occur.

Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus
tridentatus
--/--
/SSC
Found in Pacific Coast
streams north of San Luis
Obispo County, however
regular runs in Santa Clara
River. Size of runs is
declining. Swift-current
gravel-bottomed areas for
spawning with water temps
between 12-18 C.

Ammocoetes need soft sand
or mud.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Fish.

Tidewater Goby Eucyclogobius
newberryi
FE/SE/-- Brackish water habitats along
the California coast from
Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San
Diego County to the mouth of
the Smith River. Found in
shallow lagoons and lower
stream reaches, they need
fairly still but not stagnant
water and high oxygen levels.

A BSA is located at an
inland location. No known
occurrences within API or
BSA. BSA does not
overlap designated
critical habitat (USFWS
2020b). No suitable
habitat (e.g., brackish
water) present in BSA;
excluded from further
consideration.

No effect.

Estuarine habitat absent
in the BSA.

Natural Environment Study
NES 25 June 2022
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat2 Habitat Present/
Absent3
Rationale
Western Brook
Lamprey
Lampetra
richardsoni
--/--
/SSC
Aquatic | Freshwater rivers
and streams.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Fish.

Coast Cutthroat
Trout
Oncorhynchus
clarkii clarkii
--/--
/SSC
Small coastal streams from
the Eel River to the Oregon
border. Small, low gradient
coastal streams and
estuaries. Needs shaded
streams with water
temperatures <18C, and
small gravel for spawning.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Fish.

Coho Salmon -
southern
Oregon /
northern
California ESU
Oncorhynchus
kisutch pop. 2
FT/ST/-- Federal listing refers to
populations between Cape
Blanco, Oregon and Punta
Gorda, Humboldt County,
California. State listing refers
to populations between the
Oregon border and Punta
Gorda, California.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Fish.

No effect.

No in-water work or
channel modification will
occur.

Chinook Salmon
- California
coastal ESU
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha pop.
17 FT/--/-- Federal listing refers to wild
spawned, coastal, spring &
fall runs between Redwood
Cr, Humboldt Co & Russian
River, Sonoma Co
HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Fish.

No effect.

No in-water work or
channel modification will
occur.

Steelhead -
northern
California DPS
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 16
FT/--/-- Coastal basins from
Redwood Creek south to the
Gualala River, inclusive.

Does not include summer-run
steelhead.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Fish.

No effect.

No in-water work or
channel modification will
occur.

Longfin Smelt Spirinchus
thaleichthys
FC/ST/-- Euryhaline, nektonic &
anadromous. Found in open
waters of estuaries, mostly in
middle or bottom of water
column. Prefer salinities of
15-30 ppt, but can be found in
completely freshwater to
almost pure seawater.

A No effect.

Estuarine habitat absent
in the BSA.

Natural Environment Study
NES 26 June 2022
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat2 Habitat Present/
Absent3
Rationale
Eulachon Thaleichthys
pacificus
FT/--/-- Found in Klamath River, Mad
River, Redwood Creek, and
in small numbers in Smith
River and Humboldt Bay
tributaries. Spawn in lower
reaches of coastal rivers with
moderate water velocities and
bottom of pea-sized gravel,
sand, and woody debris.

A The BSA contains
requisite foraging habitat
within Mill Creek.

However, this species is
believed to be extirpated
south of the Klamath
River. This species has
no potential to occur in
the API or BSA; excluded
from further
consideration.

Footnotes:
1 Status: FC = Federal Candidate; FE = Federal Endangered; FE = Federal Threatened; SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened; SSC = State Special Status Species.
2 General habitat column information reprinted from CNDDB (February 2021; CDFW 2021c). 3 Habitat Present/Absent: Absent [A] - no habitat present and no further work needed. Habitat Present [HP] -habitat is or may be present. The species may be present.

Special Status Amphibian Species
Special status amphibian species include species that are (1) listed as threatened or endangered under the CESA or the ESA; (2) proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered; (3) state or federal candidates for listing as threatened or endangered; and/or (4) identified by the CDFW as SSC, California FP species, or species on their SAL.

The USFWS IPaC official species list (generated for the API; Appendix E; March 2022) did not identify any federally-listed amphibian species in the Project vicinity. The CNDDB RareFind 5 (generated for the Fortuna 7.5” quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads; Appendix B; February 2021) indicates there are four special status amphibian species potentially occurring within the 9-quad search area. A discussion of the habitat requirements, potential for species occurrence, avoidance and minimization measures, and potential Project-related impacts to special status amphibian species is provided in Chapter 4 – Discussion of Special Status Amphibians of this document. Special status amphibian species potentially occurring or known to occur in the BSA are listed in the following table.

Table 7: Special Status Amphibian Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat2
Habitat
Present/
Absent3
Rationale
Pacific Tailed
Frog
Ascaphus truei --/--/SSC Occurs in montane
hardwood-conifer, redwood,
A No known occurrences
within the API or BSA. No
Natural Environment Study
NES 27 June 2022
Common Name Scientific Name Status1 General Habitat2
Habitat
Present/
Absent3
Rationale
Douglas-fir & ponderosa
pine habitats. Restricted to
perennial montane streams.

Tadpoles require water
below 15 degrees C.
suitable habitat (e.g.,
high-gradient rocky
streams) present in BSA;
excluded from further
consideration.

Northern Redlegged Frog
Rana aurora --/--/SSC Humid forests, woodlands,
grasslands, and streamsides
in northwestern California,
usually near dense riparian
cover. Generally near
permanent water, but can be
found far from water, in
damp woods and meadows,
during non-breeding season.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Amphibians.

Foothill Yellowlegged FrogRana boylii --/--/SSC Partly-shaded, shallow streams and riffles with a
rocky substrate in a variety
of habitats. Needs at least
some cobble-sized substrate
for egg-laying. Needs at
least 15 weeks to attain
metamorphosis.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Amphibians.

Southern
Torrent
Salamander
Rhyacotriton
variegatus
--/--/SSC Coastal redwood, Douglasfir, mixed conifer, montane riparian, and montane
hardwood-conifer habitats.

Old growth forest. Cold, wellshaded, permanent streams and seepages, or within
splash zone or on mosscovered rocks within trickling
water.

A No known occurrences
within the API or BSA. No
suitable habitat (e.g.,
high-gradient rocky
streams) present in BSA;
excluded from further
consideration.

Footnotes:
1 Status: SSC = State Species of Special Concern.
2 General habitat column information reprinted from CNDDB (February 2021; CDFW 2021c). 3 Habitat Present/Absent: Absent [A] - no habitat present and no further work needed. Habitat Present [HP] -habitat is or may be present. The species may be present.

Special Status Reptile Species
Special status reptile species include species that are (1) listed as threatened or endangered under the CESA or the ESA; (2) proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered; (3) state or federal candidates for listing as threatened or endangered; and/or (4) identified by the CDFW as SSC, California FP species, or species on their SAL.

Natural Environment Study
NES 28 June 2022
The USFWS IPaC official species list (generated for the API; Appendix E; March 2022) did not identify any federally-listed invertebrate species in the Project vicinity. The CNDDB RareFind 5 (generated for the Fortuna 7.5” quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads; Appendix B; February 2021) indicates one additional special status reptile species potentially occurring within the 9-quad search area.

Marine reptiles (i.e., sea turtles) indicated as potentially occurring within the 9- quad search area by the NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region California Species List (generated for the Fortuna 7.5” quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads; Appendix D; February 2021) are not included as there is no suitable marine habitat within the API or BSA. A discussion of the habitat requirements, potential for species occurrence, avoidance and minimization measures, and potential Project-related impacts to special status amphibian species is provided in Chapter 4 – Discussion of Special Status Reptiles of this document. Special status reptile species potentially occurring or known to occur in the BSA are listed in the following table.

Table 8: Special Status Reptile Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Status1 General Habitat2 Habitat
Present/
Absent3
Rationale
Western Pond
Turtle
Emys
marmorata
--/--/SSC A thoroughly aquatic turtle of
ponds, marshes, rivers,
streams and irrigation
ditches, usually with aquatic
vegetation, below 6000 ft
elevation.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Reptiles.

Footnotes:
1 Status: State Species of Special Concern (SSC).
2 General habitat column information reprinted from CNDDB (February 2021; CDFW 2021c). 3 Habitat Present/Absent: Habitat Present [HP] -habitat is or may be present. The species may be present.

Special Status Bird Species
Special status bird species include species that are (1) listed as threatened or endangered under the CESA or the ESA; (2) proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered; (3) state or federal candidates for listing as threatened or endangered; and/or (4) identified by the CDFW as SSC, California FP species, or species on their SAL.

The USFWS IPaC official species list (generated for the API; Appendix E; March 2022) identified seven species with potential to occur in the Project vicinity. The CNDDB RareFind 5 (generated for the Fortuna 7.5” quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads Appendix B; February 2021) indicates there are 14 additional special status bird species potentially occurring within the 9-quad search area. A discussion of the habitat requirements, potential for species occurrence, avoidance and minimization measures, and potential Project-related impacts to special status bird species is provided in Chapter 4 – Discussion of Special Natural Environment Study
NES 29 June 2022
Status Birds of this document. Special status bird species potentially occurring or known to occur in the BSA are listed in the following table.

Table 9: Special Status Bird Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA
Common Name Scientific
Name Status1 General Habitat2
Habitat
Present/
Absent3
Rationale
Cooper's Hawk Accipiter
cooperii
--/--/WL Woodland, chiefly of open,
interrupted or marginal
type. Nest sites mainly in
riparian growths of
deciduous trees, as in
canyon bottoms on river
flood-plains; also, live oaks.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Birds.

Sharp-shinned
Hawk
Accipiter striatus --/--/WL Ponderosa pine, black oak,
riparian deciduous, mixed
conifer, and Jeffrey pine
habitats. Prefers riparian
areas. North-facing slopes
with plucking perches are
critical requirements. Nests
usually within 275 ft of
water.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Birds.

Tricolored
Blackbird
Agelaius tricolor --/ST/SSC Highly colonial species,
most numerous in Central
Valley & vicinity. Largely
endemic to California.

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

A Closest known record is of
an extirpated colony in
Fortuna, within 1 mile of
the API (CDFW 2021b).

No known occurrences
within the API or BSA.

Rare seasonal visitor to
Humboldt County. No
suitable habitat (e.g., open
water and emergent
vegetation) in the BSA;
excluded from further
consideration.

Grasshopper
Sparrow
Ammodramus
savannarum
--/--/SSC Dense grasslands on rolling
hills, lowland plains, in
valleys and on hillsides on
lower mountain slopes.

Favors native grasslands
with a mix of grasses, forbs
and scattered shrubs.

Loosely colonial when
nesting.

A No known occurrences
within the API or BSA.

Rare seasonal visitor to
Humboldt County. No
suitable habitat (e.g.,
native grasslands) in the
BSA; excluded from
further consideration.

Golden Eagle Aquila
chrysaetos
--/--/FP,
WL
Rolling foothills, mountain
areas, sage-juniper flats,
and desert. Cliff-walled
canyons provide nesting
habitat in most parts of
range; also, large trees in
open areas.

A No known occurrences
within the API or BSA. No
suitable habitat (e.g.,
grasslands, large trees for
nesting, etc.) in the BSA;
excluded from further
consideration.

Great Egret Ardea alba --/--/SAL Colonial nester in large trees. Rookery sites located
near marshes, tide-flats,
HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Natural Environment Study
NES 30 June 2022
Common Name Scientific
Name Status1 General Habitat2
Habitat
Present/
Absent3
Rationale
irrigated pastures, and
margins of rivers and lakes.

Discussion of Special
Status Birds.

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias --/--/SAL Colonial nester in tall trees, cliffsides, and sequestered
spots on marshes. Rookery
sites in close proximity to
foraging areas: marshes,
lake margins, tide-flats,
rivers and streams, wet
meadows.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Birds.

Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus
marmoratus
FT/SE/-- Feeds near-shore; nests
inland along coast from
Eureka to Oregon border
and from Half Moon Bay to
Santa Cruz. Nests in oldgrowth redwood-dominated
forests, up to six miles
inland, often in Douglas-fir.

A Closest record is ~5 miles
east of the API on private
timberlands (CDFW
2021b). BSA does not
overlap designated critical
habitat (USFWS 2021a).

No suitable nesting habitat
(old growth coniferous
forest) is present in the
API or BSA; excluded
from further consideration.

No effect.

Required habitat not
present within the BSA.

Mountain Plover Charadrius
montanus
--/--/SSC Short grasslands, freshly
plowed fields, newly
sprouting grain fields, &
sometimes sod farms.

Short vegetation, bare
ground, and flat
topography. Prefers grazed
areas and areas with
burrowing rodents.

A No known occurrences
within the API or BSA.

Rare seasonal visitor to
Humboldt County. No
suitable habitat present in
API or BSA; excluded
from further consideration.

Western Snowy
Plover
Charadrius
nivosus nivosus
FT/--/SSC Sandy beaches, salt pond
levees & shores of large
alkali lakes. Needs sandy,
gravelly or friable soils for
nesting.

A API is located at an inland
location approximately 10
miles from the nearest
extant recorded
population (Humboldt Bay
South Spit; CDFW 2021c).

BSA does not overlap
designated critical habitat
(USFWS 2021a). No
suitable habitat present in
API or BSA; excluded
from further consideration.

No effect.

Required habitat not
present within the BSA.

Western Yellowbilled CuckooCoccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
FT/SE/WL Riparian forest nester,
along the broad, lower
flood-bottoms of larger river
systems. Nests in riparian
A BSA does not overlap
proposed critical habitat
(USFWS 2020b).

Natural Environment Study
NES 31 June 2022
Common Name Scientific
Name Status1 General Habitat2
Habitat
Present/
Absent3
Rationale
jungles of willow, often
mixed with cottonwoods,
with lower story of
blackberry, nettles, or wild
grape.

No effect.

Required habitat not
present within the BSA.

Yellow Rail Coturnicops
noveboracensis
--/--/SSC Summer resident in eastern
Sierra Nevada in Mono
County. Freshwater
marshlands.

A Closest known record
(rare incidental) was from
2013 (of a cat-caught
individual) near the Blue
Ox Mill in Eureka, ~16
miles north of the API
(eBird 2021). The API and
BSA contain requisite
habitat (e.g., marsh) for
this species. However,
Humboldt County is
outside the current
occupied species’ range
(most recent occurrences
from the San Francisco
Bay estuary); excluded
from further consideration.

Snowy Egret Egretta thula --/--/SAL Colonial nester, with nest sites situated in protected
beds of dense tules.

Rookery sites situated
close to foraging areas:
marshes, tidal-flats,
streams, wet meadows,
and borders of lakes.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Birds.

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
FD/SE/FP Ocean shore, lake margins,
and rivers for both nesting
and wintering. Most nests
within 1 mile of water.

Nests in large, old-growth,
or dominant live tree with
open branches, especially
ponderosa pine. Roosts
communally in winter.

A Closest known record is
form the Fortuna
Riverfront, within 0.5 miles
of the API (eBird 2021).

No known occurrences
within the API or BSA. No
suitable nesting habitat
(large dbh trees) or
foraging habitat (large
waterbody) are present in
the API or BSA; excluded
from further consideration.

Black-crowned
Night-heron
Nycticorax
nycticorax
--/--/SAL Colonial nester, usually in
trees, occasionally in tule
patches. Rookery sites
located adjacent to foraging
areas: lake margins, mudbordered bays, marshy
spots.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Birds.

Osprey Pandion
haliaetus
--/--/WL Ocean shore, bays,
freshwater lakes, and larger
streams. Large nests built
in tree-tops within 15 miles
A No known occurrences
within the API or BSA. No
suitable nesting habitat
(large dbh trees) or
Natural Environment Study
NES 32 June 2022
Common Name Scientific
Name Status1 General Habitat2
Habitat
Present/
Absent3
Rationale
of a good fish-producing
body of water.
foraging habitat (large
waterbody) are present in
the API or BSA; excluded
from further consideration.

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia --/ST/-- Colonial nester; nests primarily in riparian and
other lowland habitats west
of the desert. Requires
vertical banks/cliffs with
fine-textured/sandy soils
near streams, rivers, lakes,
ocean to dig nesting hole.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Birds.

Northern Spotted
Owl
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
FT/ST/SSC Old-growth forests or mixed
stands of old-growth and
mature trees. Occasionally
in younger forests with
patches of big trees. High,
multistory canopy
dominated by big trees,
many trees with cavities or
broken tops, woody debris,
and space under canopy.

A Closest known record is of
a nest on private
timberlands approximately

1.75 miles east of the API,
occupied in 1992 with
nearby records as recently
as 2003 (CDFW 2021b).

No known occurrences
within the API or BSA.

BSA does not overlap
designated critical habitat
(USFWS 2021a). The
narrow riparian forest
within the BSA does not
contain suitable habitat
(e.g., mature contiguous
forest with complex
structure) and trafficgenerated noise
(moderate ambient
sounds levels, 71-80
decibels [dB]) along
Kenmar Road likely
discourages nesting
activity adjacent to the
API. No suitable habitat
present in BSA; excluded
from further consideration.

No effect.

Required habitat not
present within the BSA.

Footnotes:
1 Status: FE = Federal Endangered; FD = Federal Delisted; FT = Federal Threatened; SE = State Endangered; ST = State Threatened; FP = CDFW Fully Protected Species; WL = CDFW Watch List Species; SAL = CDFW Special Animals List; SSC = State Species of Special Concern.
2 General habitat column information reprinted from CNDDB (February 2021; CDFW 2021c).

Natural Environment Study
NES 33 June 2022
Common Name Scientific
Name Status1 General Habitat2
Habitat
Present/
Absent3
Rationale
3 Habitat Present/Absent: Absent [A] - no habitat present and no further work needed. Habitat Present [HP] -habitat is or may be present. The species may be present.

Special Status Mammal Species
Special status mammal species include species that are (1) listed as threatened or endangered under the CESA or the ESA; (2) proposed for federal listing as threatened or endangered; (3) state or federal candidates for listing as threatened or endangered; and/or (4) identified by the CDFW as SSC, California FP species, or species on their SAL.

The USFWS IPaC official species list (generated for the API; Appendix E; March 2022) did not identify any federally-listed amphibian species in the Project vicinity. The CNDDB RareFind 5 (generated for the Fortuna 7.5” quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads; Appendix B; February 2021) indicates there are an additional two special status mammal species potentially occurring within the 9- quad search area. Marine mammals indicated as potentially occurring within the 9-quad search area by the NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region California Species List (generated for the Fortuna 7.5” quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads; Appendix D; February 2021) are not included as there is no suitable marine habitat within the API or BSA. A discussion of the habitat requirements, potential for species occurrence, avoidance and minimization measures, and potential Project-related impacts to special status mammal species is provided in Chapter 4 – Discussion of Special Status Mammals of this document. Special status mammal species potentially occurring or known to occur in the BSA are listed in the following table.

Table 10: Special Status Mammal Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur in the Project BSA
Common
Name Scientific
Name Status1 General Habitat2
Habitat
Present/
Absent3
Rationale
Pallid Bat Antrozous
pallidus
--/--/SSC Deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands
and forests. Most common
in open, dry habitats with
rocky areas for roosting.

Roosts must protect bats
from high temperatures.

Very sensitive to
disturbance of roosting
sites.

A No known occurrence
records from API or BSA.

Recent sampling efforts
in coastal Humboldt
County have not
detected this species
(BAMVT 2020). Species
typically occurs in more
inland, arid regions, and
present is not expected
to occur in a coastal,
beach environment; this
species is excluded from
further consideration.

Humboldt
Mountain
Beaver
Aplodontia rufa
humboldtiana
--/--/SAL Coast Range in
southwestern Del Norte
County and northwestern
A No known occurrence
records from API or BSA.

No suitable habitat
Natural Environment Study
NES 34 June 2022
Common
Name Scientific
Name Status1 General Habitat2
Habitat
Present/
Absent3
Rationale
Humboldt County. Variety
of coastal habitats,
including coastal scrub,
riparian forests, typically
with open canopy and
thickly vegetated
understory.
(coniferous forest slopes
adjacent to suffice water)
present in API or BSA;
excluded from further
consideration.

Sonoma Tree
Vole
Arborimus pomo --/--/SSC North coast fog belt from
Oregon border to Somona
County. In Douglas-fir,
redwood & montane
hardwood-conifer forests.

Feeds almost exclusively
on Douglas-fir needles.

Will occasionaly take
needles of grand fir,
hemlock or spruce.

A No known occurrence
records from API or BSA.

No suitable habitat
(coniferous forest)
present in API or BSA;
excluded from further
consideration.

Townsend's
Big-eared Bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
--/--/SSC Throughout California in a
wide variety of habitats.

Most common in mesic
sites. Roosts in the open,
hanging from walls and
ceilings. Roosting sites
limiting. Extremely
sensitive to human
disturbance.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Mammals.

North American
Porcupine
Erethizon
dorsatum
--/--/SAL Forested habitats in the
Sierra Nevada, Cascade,
and Coast ranges, with
scattered observations
from forested areas in the
Transverse Ranges. Wide
variety of coniferous and
mixed woodland habitat.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Mammals.

Hoary Bat Lasiurus
cinereus
--/--/SAL Prefers open habitats or
habitat mosaics, with
access to trees for cover
and open areas or habitat
edges for feeding. Roosts
in dense foliage of medium
to large trees. Feeds
primarily on moths.

Requires water.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Mammals.

Pacific Marten,
Coastal Distinct
Population
Segment
(Humboldt
Marten)
Martes caurina
humboldtensis
FT/SE/SSC Occurs only in the coastal
redwood zone from the
Oregon border south to
Sonoma County.

Associated with latesuccessional coniferous
forests, prefer forests with
low, overhead cover.

A Closest record is
historical (1913) near
Carlotta, ~5.25 miles
east of the API (CDFW
2021c). No known
occurrence records from
API or BSA. BSA does
not overlap proposed
critical habitat (USFWS
2021a). There are no
recent records of this
Natural Environment Study
NES 35 June 2022
Common
Name Scientific
Name Status1 General Habitat2
Habitat
Present/
Absent3
Rationale
species south of the
Klamath River. Current
populations are only
known from coastal
redwood forests in Del
Norte and northern
Humboldt County
(CDFW 2018). No
suitable habitat within the
BSA; species is excluded
from further
consideration.

No effect.

South of known range
and habitat not present.

Yuma Myotis Myotis
yumanensis
--/--/SAL Optimal habitats are open
forests and woodlands with
sources of water over
which to feed. Distribution
is closely tied to bodies of
water. Maternity colonies
in caves, mines, buildings
or crevices.

HP Suitable habitat present;
see Chapter 4 –
Discussion of Special
Status Mammals.

Fisher Pekania
pennanti
--/--/SSC Intermediate to large-tree
stages of coniferous
forests and deciduousriparian areas with high
percent canopy closure.

Uses cavities, snags, logs
and rocky areas for cover
and denning. Needs large
areas of mature, dense
forest.

A No known occurrence
records from API or BSA.

No suitable habitat
present in API or BSA;
excluded from further
consideration.

Footnotes:
1 Status: FPT = Federal Proposed Threatened; SE = State Endangered; SSC = State Species of Special Concern; FP = State Fully Protected Species.
2 General habitat column information reprinted from CNDDB (February 2021; CDFW 2021c). 3 Habitat Present/Absent: Absent [A] - no habitat present and no further work needed. Habitat Present [HP] -habitat is or may be present. The species may be present. Present [P] - the species is present.

Natural Environment Study
NES 36 June 2022
Chapter 4 – Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts, and Mitigation
Habitats and Natural Communities of Special Concern
Habitats and SNCs of Special Concern include the shining willow groves, and aquatic habitat within the waters of Mill Creek. One-parameter and three-parameter wetlands were also delineated within the API (GHD 2021a). ESHA was also found within the portion of the Project located in the Coastal Zone.

Discussion of Shining Willow Groves SNC
Shining Willow Groves are an SNC based on the state ranking of S3.2 (Sawyer et al. 2009, CDFW 2021b).

Survey Results
The southwestern slope of the API is classified as shining willow groves, a SNC. The shining willow groves are located within the Coastal Zone and mapped as a oneparameter wetland. The arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis)-dominated Mill Creek riparian area is not considered an SNC, but riparian habitats are subject to City of Fortuna Streamside Management Area policies and CDFW jurisdiction. See the accompanying Wetland Delineation Report for details on wetlands and waters within the API (GHD 2021a). Planted redwoods and Monterey pines occurring in the Project Area have not been classified as an SNC. Dense thickets of invasive Himalayan blackberry and French broom along Riverwalk Drive are recommended for removal as mitigation for disturbance to the Shining Willow Grove SNC, Mill Creek riparian area, or other sensitive resources. No critical habitat for federally-listed plants or wildlife occurs within the API or BSA.

The shining willow groves were observed along the western extent of the API at the boundary of the agriculture pasture, concentrated near the intersection of Riverwalk Drive and the Highway 101 southbound on-ramp (Appendix A, Figure 2 - API). The shining willow groves contained a diverse mixture of willows at roughly even dominance, with approximately 25% shining willow cover, 22% arroyo willow cover, and 18% Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis) cover. Shining willow, arroyo willow, and Sitka willow are all Facultative Wetland (FACW) indicator species, meaning they usually occur in wetlands, but are occasionally found in non-wetlands (Lichvar et al. 2016). Red alder (Alnus rubra; Facultative [FAC] = Commonly occurs as either a hydrophyte or nonhydrophyte; Lichvar et al. 2016) and other trees also occurred in the area. The shining willow groves are concentrated along the slope above the wet pasture and around a ditch where stormwater runoff collects from southern Riverwalk Drive and Highway 101. Shining willow, arroyo willow, and Sitka willow dominate the canopy along the edge of the agricultural field up to approximately 475 feet west of the Riverwalk Drive and Highway 101 intersection. Associated understory vegetation included high cover (50%) of invasive Himalayan blackberry (FAC), with poison hemlock (Conium maculatum; FAC), spiny sow thistle (Sonchus asper; Facultative Upland [FACU] = Occasionally is a hydrophyte, but usually occurs in uplands; Lichvar et al. 2016), Natural Environment Study
NES 37 June 2022
creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens; FAC), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis; FAC), and creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera; FAC). The strip of willows occurs on an anthropogenically modified slope in a highly altered landscape and the understory is dominated by invasive Himalayan blackberry. Given that the SNC is dominated by wetland indicator species and within the Coastal Zone, it was mapped as a Coastal Commission one-parameter wetland. See the accompanying Wetland Delineation Report (GHD 2021a) for additional details on wetlands and waters that may be subject to Coastal Commission and state water board jurisdiction.

Project Impacts
Portions of the shining willow groves may be temporarily or permanently impacted as a result of construction on the south side of Riverwalk Drive. The footprint of temporary and permanent impacts will be determined as Project design progresses. Temporary and permanent impacts to shining willow groves will be co-located with equivalent impacts to one- and three-parameter wetlands, discussed below.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts
Shining willow groves, including tree and branch removal, shall be avoided to the extent practicable. Exclusion fencing will be used to protect shining willow groves outside the construction footprint. The location of exclusion fencing will be noted in the final construction plan set. No rodenticides, pesticides, or herbicides will be used as part of the Project. During construction, vehicles will not enter or be parked on any vegetated areas outside of designated staging areas or the API.

Compensatory Mitigation
Given the shining willow groves are co-located with one- and three-parameter wetlands, compensatory mitigation will be achieved through wetland mitigation required for the Project, as described below.

Cumulative Impacts
SNC mapping for the cumulative projects summarized in Table 1 is not available; however, each of the considered cumulative projects would also be subject to review under CEQA. As such, any potential impact to SNCs would be addressed through separate requirements for compensatory mitigation. As such, a cumulative impact to SNCs, and specifically the shining willow groves would not result.

Discussion of Aquatic Habitat, Regulated Waters, and Wetlands Aquatic habitat includes the waters of Mill Creek, an anadromous tributary to Strongs Creek and the Eel River. One- and three-parameter wetlands were also delineated within the API (GHD 2021a).

Survey Results
Mill Creek was not surveyed for the purposes of this report, as no in-water work, culvert modification, and/or channel modification will occur.

Natural Environment Study
NES 38 June 2022
A National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) query was completed and a delineation conducted (see Appendix A, Figure 5 – NWI Wetlands). One- and three-parameter wetlands are present within the API, as summarized in Table 11 and shown in Appendix A, Figure 7 – Wetland Delineation (GHD 2021a).

Table 11: Wetlands and Other Waters within the API and Potential Jurisdiction Aquatic Resource
Name
Location (lat/long)
of point or center of
polygon
Aquatic
Resource
Size (ft2
)
Jurisdiction

USACE RWQCB CCC
Wetland 1 (W1T1-
W)

40.576114, -
124.147984;

40.575926, -
124.148328
1,128 No Likely N/A
Wetland 2 (W2T1-
W)

40.575466, -
124.151100
3,425 N/A N/A N/A
Wetland 3 (W3T1-
W, W3T2-W)

40.575926, -
124.148328
13,644 Yes Likely Yes
Mill Creek (OHW) 40.576252, -124.14747;

40.576433, -
124.147678
1,245 Yes Yes N/A
Ditch 1 (OHW) 40.574722, -
124.149895
545 Yes Unlikely Yes
Ditch 2 (OHW) 40.574286, -
124.149774
189 Yes Unlikely Yes
Impoundment A 40.574952, -
124.148307
2,063 No Jurisdictional Status
Impoundment B 40.574952, -
124.148153
109 No Jurisdictional Status
Wetland A 40.574369, -
124.150027
22,087 No No Yes
Wetland B 40.574992, -
124.150257
6,672 No No Yes
Total Wetlands and Other Waters in API 51,107ft2
(1.17 acres)
Natural Environment Study
NES 39 June 2022
Project Impacts
The Project would not modify the existing Mill Creek culvert. Within Mill Creek, in-water work, channel alteration, or riparian removal would not occur. With the implementation of standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction, water quality impacts or changes to the aquatic habits of Mill Creek would not occur. Temporary dewatering would not occur. Thus, impacts to Mill Creek are not expected.

As detailed in GHD (2021b):

A total of 14,772 ft2 (0.34 acres) of three-parameter wetlands occur within the API, but they do not have any surficial hydrological connection with a navigable water, and therefore are not regulated by the USACE (GHD 2021b).

A total of 28,759 ft2 (0.66 acres) of one-parameter wetlands and 564 ft2 (0.01 acres) of intermittent waters (Ditch 1 and Ditch 2) occur within the API and Coastal Zone. All one- to three-parameter wetlands and other waters within the Coastal Zone fall within the jurisdiction of Humboldt County, and are appealable to the CCC within the Appeals Jurisdiction.

The Project would impact delineated one- and three-parameter wetlands within the API.

Construction access and activities would result in temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands. The area of these impacts would be determined as the design progresses.

Accidental spills and release of hazardous material from construction occurring near aquatic environments could occur, which would result in a potential impact to aquatic habitat and water quality.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts
Any monitoring, maintenance, and reporting required by the regulatory agencies (i.e., USACE, RWQCB, and Humboldt County) shall be implemented and completed pursuant to established criteria and/or schedules. All measures contained in Project permits or associated with agency approvals would be implemented in a timely manner.

All exposed mineral soil or stockpiles to remain on-site through the wet season shall be protected from erosion associated with wind and rain (e.g., silt fences, straw bales, straw mulch, and tarps shall be deployed as needed). To avoid accidental spills, refueling and equipment maintenance would occur in designated staging and stockpiling areas. Refueling and equipment maintenance would not occur near regulated waters in the API.

Any delineated wetlands within the API to be protected in place would be surrounded by exclusion fencing, the location of which to be included on the final construction plan set.

Temporary disturbance to delineated wetlands would be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Following construction, any wetlands that are temporarily disturbed will be fully restored to their pre-construction condition or better.

Natural Environment Study
NES 40 June 2022
Compensatory Mitigation
One- and three-parameter wetlands would be impacted as a result of Project construction. For permanent impacts, compensatory mitigation would occur to the satisfaction of jurisdictional agencies and at a ratio of no less than 1:1.2. If required, compensatory mitigation would occur on-site if possible; however, off-site compensatory mitigation may also be necessary. The final locations of any compensatory mitigation areas would be submitted to jurisdictional agencies for approval as part of the Project’s permitting phase.

Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative projects summarized in Table 1do not involve potential impacts to Strongs Creek, Mill Creek, or other regulated waters within the watershed sub-basin. Cumulative impacts would not result.

Special Status Plant Species
As discussed in Chapter 3, based on the USFWS Official Species List generated for the API (Appendix E; March 2022), three federally-listed plant species (also state-listed and CNPS-ranked) are expected to occur within the Project vicinity. However, none of these species are expected to occur within the API or greater BSA given lack of suitable habitat or only marginal habitat in the API, and that they were not observed during two protocol-level botanical surveys conducted in 2021. There are 27 CRPR rank 1 and 2 plant species recorded in the CNDDB and CNPS as known to occur nearby and that the BSA likely provides some level of habitat for: 15 of these species. A discussion of the habitat requirements, potential for species occurrence, survey results, potential Projectrelated impacts, applicable impact avoidance and minimization measures, compensatory mitigation, and cumulative impacts to special status plants species is provided below.

Discussion of Special Status Plant Species
Seaside Bittercress (2B.2)
Seaside bittercress (Cardamine angulata) has a CRPR of 2B.2 which means it is rare or endangered in California and common elsewhere, and the “.2” modifier indicates it is moderately threatened in California. This species is an annual herb in the Mustard family (Brassicaceae) that typically blooms from March through July but may bloom as early as January. This species grows in wet areas in lower montane coniferous forest and North Coast coniferous forest from 50 – 3,000 feet in California (Del Norte, Humboldt, Marin, and Mendocino Counties), Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. Threats may include foot traffic and road maintenance (CNPS 2022).

The closest known record is from 1964, approximately 15 miles north of the API (CDFW 2021b). There are no known occurrences within API or BSA. Marginal wet areas may occur in the API. However, this species was not observed during protocol-level floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a). No impact would result to Seaside bittercress.

Natural Environment Study
NES 41 June 2022
Bristle-stalked Sedge (2B.2)
Bristle-stalked sedge (Carex leptalea) has a CRPR of 2B.2 which means it is rare or endangered in California and common elsewhere, and the “.2” modifier indicates it is moderately threatened in California. This species is a perennial rhizomatous herb in the Sedge family (Cyperaceae) that typically blooms from March through July. This species grows in bogs, fens, meadows, seeps, marshes, and swamps from 0 – 2,296 feet in California (Del Norte, Humboldt, Marin, and Trinity Counties) and most of North America up to Alaska. Major threats include hydrological alterations, logging, and non-native plants (CNPS 2022). This species was last observed in the project vicinity in 1918.

The closest known record is from 1918, approximately 10 miles northwest of the API (CDFW 2021b). There are no known occurrences within API or BSA. Marginal wet areas may occur in the API. However, this species was not observed during protocollevel floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a). No impact would result to Bristle-stalked sedge.

Whitney's Farewell-to-Spring (1B.1)
Whitney's farewell-to-spring (Clarkia amoena ssp. whitneyi) has a CRPR rank of 1B.1, which means it is rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere, and the “.1” modifier indicates it is seriously endangered in California (CNPS 2021b). It is a California endemic annual herb in the evening primrose family (Onagraceae). It grows at 0 - 33 feet in coastal dunes along the coast of Northern California (Humboldt and Mendocino counties), as well as Oregon and Washington (CNPS 2021b). It typically blooms June through October, and is threatened by invasive plants, and disturbance from off-road vehicles and pedestrian trampling (CNPS 2021b).

The closest known record is from 1918, within 1 mile west of the API (CDFW 2021b).

Marginal scrub habitat may occur in the API. However, this species was not observed during protocol-level floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a). No impact would result to Whitney’s farewell-to-spring.

Cascade Downingia (2B.2)
Cascade downingia (Downingia willamettensis) has a CRPR of 2B.2 which means it is rare or endangered in California and common elsewhere, and the “.2” modifier indicates it is moderately threatened in California. This species is an annual herb in the Bellflower family (Campanulaceae) that typically blooms from June through July, but may bloom as late as September (CNPS 2021b). This species grows in lake margins in cismontane woodland, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools from 50 – 3,640 ft (15 – 1,100 m) in California (Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, and Mendocino Counties), Oregon, and Washington (CNPS 2021b).

The closest known record is from 1937, within 0.25 miles of the API (CDFW 2021b).

Marginal seasonally wet areas and grasslands may occur in the API. However, this species was not observed during protocol-level floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a).

No impact would result to Cascade downingia.

Natural Environment Study
NES 42 June 2022
Giant Fawn Lily (2B.2)
Giant fawn lily (Erythronium oreganum) has a CRPR of 2B.2, which means it is rare or endangered in California and common elsewhere, and the “.2” modifier indicates it is fairly endangered in California. It is perennial bulb in the lily family (Liliaceae) that typically blooms from March to June or July (CNPS 2021b). It is primarily found in rocky woodland openings as well as seeps, meadows, and serpentine areas (Baldwin et al. 2012, CNPS 2021b).

The closest known record is from 1918, approximately 15.75 miles northeast of the API (CDFW 2021b). No known occurrences in API or BSA. Marginal wet meadows, seeps, and woodlands may occur in the API. However, this species was not observed during protocol-level floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a). No impact would result to Giant fawn lily.

Coast fawn lily (2B.2)
Coast fawn lily (Erythronium revolutum) has a CRPR of 2B.2, which means it is rare or endangered in California and common elsewhere, and the “.2” modifier indicates it is fairly endangered in California. It is a perennial bulb found in bogs and fens, broad leafed upland forest, and North Coast coniferous forest. It typically blooms from March through July at elevations ranging from 400 to 2800 feet. Primary threats to this species include road maintenance and logging (CNPS 2021b).

The closest known record is from 2011, approximately 12.5 miles southeast of the API (CDFW 2021b). There are no known occurrences in API or BSA. Marginal wet and mesic areas may occur in the API. However, this species was not observed during protocol-level floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a). No impact would result to Coast fawn lily.

Pacific Gilia (1B.2)
Pacific gilia (Gilia capitata ssp. pacifica) is ranked 1B.2 by CNPS, and It is an annual herb most often found in coastal bluff scrub, chaparral, coastal prairie, and valley and foothill grassland. The species thrives in well-drained soil and full sunlight. Pacific gilia is known to California and Oregon, where it typically blooms from April to August, and is found at elevations from near sea level to just over 3,000 feet. The subspecies is threatened by development and recreational activities, and possibly threatened by road construction and logging (CNPS 2021b).

The closest known record is from 1927, within 1 mile of the API (CDFW 2021b).

Marginal scrub and grassland habitat may occur in the API. However, this species was not observed during protocol-level floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a). No impact would result to Pacific gilia.

Short-leaved Evax (1B.2)
Short-leaved evax (Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia) has a CRPR of 1B.2 which means it is rare or endangered throughout its range, and the “.2” modifier indicates it is moderately threatened in California. This species is an annual herb in the Sunflower family (Asteraceae) that typically blooms from March through June. This species grows Natural Environment Study
NES 43 June 2022
in sandy soils in coastal dunes, coastal prairie, and coastal bluff-scrub from 0 – 705 feet in California (Del Norte, Humboldt, Marin, Mendocino, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Sonoma Counties), and Oregon. Major threats include development, competition with non-native plants, foot traffic, and recreational activities (CNPS 2021b).

The closest known record is from 2018, approximately 10 miles northwest of the API (CDFW 2021b). There are no known occurrences in API or BSA. Marginal scrub habitat may occur in the API. However, this species was not observed during protocol-level floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a). No impact would result to Short-leaved evax.

Howell's montia (CRPR 2B.2)
Howell's montia has a CRPR of 2B.2, which means it is rare or endangered in California and common elsewhere, and the “.2” modifier indicates it is fairly endangered in California. It is an annual herb in the Miner's Lettuce family (Montiaceae). This species grows at 0 - 2740 ft in vernally mesic areas as well as occasionally along roadsides within meadows and seeps, North Coast coniferous forest, and vernal pools. It occurs in Northern California (Humboldt and Trinity counties), Oregon, and Washington. It primarily blooms from March to May, but may bloom early in January and February.

Major threats include logging, road construction, road maintenance, vehicles, and competition, trampling, grazing, and potentially non-native plants (CNPS 2021b).

In Humboldt County, this species commonly grows on seasonally wet portions of logging roads or other low-use unpaved roads. There are no records of this species from the Project vicinity. The closest known record is from 2001, approximately 4 miles north of the API (CDFW 2021b). There are no known occurrences in API or BSA.

Seasonally wet roadsides may occur in the API. However, this species was not observed during protocol-level floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a). No impact would result to Howell’s montia.

Wolf's Evening-primrose (1B.1)
Wolf’s evening-primrose has a CRPR rank of 1B.1, which means it is rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere, and the “.1” modifier indicates it is seriously endangered in California (CNPS 2021b). It is a perennial herb in the evening primrose family (Onagraceae). The subspecies grows at 10 - 2625 feet in sandy, usually mesic areas of coastal bluff scrub, dunes, and prairie as well as lower montane coniferous forest within California (Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity counties), Oregon, and Washington (CNPS 2021b). It typically blooms from May through October and is threatened by disturbance from road maintenance and pedestrian trampling, development, invasive plants, and hybridization with non-native Oenothera species (CNPS 2021b).

The closest known record is from 2001, approximately 17.75 miles northwest of the API (CDFW 2021b). There are no known occurrences within the API or BSA. Marginal scrub and grassland habitat may occur in the API. However, this species was not observed during protocol-level floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a). No impact would result to Wolf’s evening-primrose.

Natural Environment Study
NES 44 June 2022
Seacoast Ragwort (2B.2)
Seacoast ragwort has a CRPR rank of 2B.2, which means it is rare or endangered in California and common elsewhere, and the “.2” modifier indicates it is fairly endangered in California (CNPS 2021b). It is perennial rhizomatous herb in the sunflower family (Asteraceae). The varietal grows at 100 – 2,133 feet within coastal scrub and North Coast coniferous forest, as well as occasionally along roadsides in Northern California (Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino counties), Oregon, and Washington (CNPS 2021b). It blooms primarily in May through July but may also be found as early as January through April and as late as August (CNPS 2021b). The species is likely threatened by logging, erosion, and disturbance as a result of road maintenance (CNPS 2021b). Marginal coniferous forest and scrub habitat occur within the API and BSA.

Closest known record is from 1934, approximately 7 miles south of the API (CDFW 2021b). No known occurrences within the API or BSA. Marginal scrub and roadside habitat may occur in the API. However, this species was not observed during protocollevel floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a). No impact would result to Seacoast ragwort.

Oregon Polemonium (2B.2)
Oregon polemonium (Polemonium carneum) has a CRPR rank of 2B.2, which means it is rare or endangered in California and common elsewhere, and the “.2” modifier indicates it is fairly endangered in California (CNPS 2021b). It is a rare perennial herb in the phlox family (Polemoniaceae) and typically blooms from April to September (CNPS 2021b). It grows primarily in openings in moist to dry habitat (Baldwin et al. 2012).

Oregon polemonium can be found in prairie, scrub, and lower montane coniferous forest (CNPS 2021b).

The closest known record is from 1950, within 2 miles of the API (CDFW 2021b).

Marginal scrub and grassland habitat occurs within API and BSA. However, this species was not observed during protocol-level floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a). No impact would result to Oregon Polemonium.

Siskiyou Checkerbloom (1B.2)
Siskiyou checkerbloom (Sidalcea malviflora ssp. patula) has a CRPR rank of 1B.2, which means it is rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere, and the “.2” modifier indicates it is fairly endangered in California (CNPS 2021b). It is a rare perennial rhizomatous herb in the mallow family (Malvaceae) that typically blooms from May to August, but may bloom as early as March (CNPS 2021b). It grows in coastal forests, scrub, prairie, bluff, and edge habitats such as road cuts along the North Coast (Baldwin et al. 2012, CNPS 2021b). Potential threats to this plant include road widening, non-native plants, logging, grazing, and trampling (CNPS 2021b).

The closest known record is from 2020, within 1.5 miles of the API. Scrub and open roadside habitats may occur within the API. However, this species was not observed during protocol-level floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a). No impact would result to Siskiyou checkerbloom.

Natural Environment Study
NES 45 June 2022
Coast Checkerbloom (1B.2)
Coast checkerbloom (Sidalcea oregana ssp. eximia) has a CRPR of 1B.2 which means it is rare or endangered throughout its range, and the “.2” modifier indicates it is moderately threatened in California. This species is a perennial herb in the Mallow family (Malvaceae) that typically blooms from June through August (CNPS 2021b). This species grows in meadows and seeps in North Coast coniferous forest and lower montane coniferous forest from 15 – 4,395 feet in California (Del Norte, Humboldt, Siskiyou, and Trinity Counties). This species is known from approximately ten occurrences and was last seen in the project vicinity in 2015.

The closest known record is from 1937, approximately 8.25 miles northwest of the API (CDFW 2021b). There are no known occurrences within API or BSA. Marginal seeps may occur in API. This species was not observed during protocol-level floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a). No impact would result to Coast checkerbloom.

Hitchcock's Blue-eyed Grass (1B.1)
Hitchcock’s blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium hitchcockii) is a CNPS 1B.1 rare perennial rhizomatous herb found in grassy, vernally moist areas (Baldwin et al. 2012). This species is a perennial rhizomatous herb in the iris family (Iridaceae) that typically blooms in June (CNPS 2021b). It grows in the openings of cismontane woodlands as well as in valley and foothill grasslands (CNPS 2021b). This rare plant, which is primarily differentiated from other similar locally common Sisyrinchium bellum by the unbranched stem, lack of cauline leaves, extensive rhizome, and lack of yellow tepal blotch (Baldwin et al. 2012, CNPS 2021b). Hitcock’s blue-eyed grass is primarily known in California from an occurrence in the Cape Ridge area, and also occurs in southwestern Oregon.

The closest known record is from 1938, approximately 14 miles southwest of the API (CDFW 2021b). There are no known occurrences within API or BSA. Marginal habitat (e.g., grasslands and openings) may occur in API. This species was not observed during protocol-level floristic surveys in 2021 (GHD 2021a). No impacts to this species are anticipated. No impact would result to Hitchcock’s blue-eyed grass.

Survey Results
No special status plants were observed during the two protocol-level, seasonally appropriate floristic surveys conducted in 2021 within the API. See separate Botanical Report for a list of plant species observed on-site (GHD 2021a).

The API and BSA do not overlap designated or proposed critical habitat for any federally-listed plant species.

Project Impacts
Since protocol-level surveys have been completed and no special plant status species were observed, this study concludes the evaluation of potential impacts to special status plant species. Available roadside habitat is generally poor. No impacts to special status plant species are anticipated.

Natural Environment Study
NES 46 June 2022
Avoidance and Minimization Efforts
As no impacts to special status plants are anticipated, no avoidance and minimization efforts are proposed.

Compensatory Mitigation
The proposed Project has been designed such that conservation measures and proposed avoidance and minimization measures shall avoid or minimize potential effects to vegetation to the fullest extent feasible. A small amount of disturbance to vegetation will occur. However, no compensatory mitigation is proposed for special status plant species at this time because rare plant surveys have thus far not identified sensitive species that would be impacted at significant levels, and the temporary disturbance area will be restored in place.

Cumulative Impacts
Special status plant mapping results for the cumulative projects summarized in Table 1 is not available and/or has not been completed for all identified projects; however, each of the considered cumulative projects would also be required to undergo CEQA review.

As such, any potential impact to special status plants would be addressed through separate requirements for compensatory mitigation. As such, cumulative impacts to special status plants would not result.

Special Status Animal Species
Discussion of Special Status Invertebrates
As discussed in Chapter 3, based on the USFWS Official Species List generated for this Project (Appendix E), no federally-listed invertebrate species are expected to occur within the Project vicinity. There are five special status invertebrate species recorded in the CNDDB as known to occur nearby and that the BSA likely provides suitable habitat for. A discussion of the habitat requirements, potential for species occurrence, survey results, potential Project-related impacts, applicable impact avoidance and minimization measures, compensatory mitigation, and cumulative impacts to invertebrate species is provided below.

California Floater (SAL)
A great deal of uncertainty surrounds the taxonomy of this species and its western North American cogeners, Anodonta wahlametensis, Anodonta nuttalliana, and Anodonta oregonensis (NatureServe 2021). The historic range of the California Floater may have spanned from British Columbia to Mexico (NatureServe 2021). It is considered extirpated from the Central Valley of California and its current range is disjunct (NatureServe 2021). Extant populations in California may be limited to the Fall and Pit rivers in Shasta County (NatureServe 2021). One large population (approximately 8,000 individuals) has been recorded in the Eel River (with thousands in a 100-meter span of a river bend (NatureServe 2021). This species is threatened by pollution, water diversion and impoundments, elimination of their fish host species, and eutrophication (NatureServe 2021).

Natural Environment Study
NES 47 June 2022
The closest known record is from an unknown year, approximately 6 miles north of the API in the Elk River (CDFW 2021b). No known occurrences within API or BSA or surrounding 5 miles (CDFW 2021b). Based on suitable aquatic habitat, the species may be present in the BSA within Mill Creek, although no suitable habitat is present in the API. No impact would result to the California Floater.

Western Ridged Mussels (SAL)
Western Ridged Mussels were historically known from rivers and creeks across western North America including California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and British Columbia (Blevins et al. 2020). However, the species has experienced a drastic 43% range reduction, especially within southern California (Blevins et al. 2020). Recent studies have documented their presence in northern California and southern Oregon rivers (Howard 2010).

The closest known record is from 1981, approximately 12.5 miles south of the API (CDFW 2021b). No mussels were recorded at this site during a survey in 2009. Recent survey efforts were conducted within the Eel River watershed (Howard 2010). Based on suitable aquatic habitat, the species may be present in the BSA within Mill Creek, although no suitable habitat is present in the API. No impact would result to the Western Ridged Mussel.

Western Pearlshell (SAL)
The Western Pearlshell is an aquatic freshwater mussel. Its geographic distribution spans the western U.S. including Alaska, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming (NatureServe 2021). The mussel tends to prefer low velocity water. This species is primarily threatened by water diversion, pollution, and siltation (NatureServe 2021).

The closest known record is from 2000, approximately 8.6 miles north of the API in the Elk River (CDFW 2021b). Based on suitable aquatic habitat, the species may be present in the BSA within Mill Creek, although no suitable habitat is present in the API.

No impact would result to the Western Pearlshell.

Obscure Bumble Bee (SAL)
Individuals can live approximately one year (Hatfield et al. 2014). They occur in coastal habitat within the fog-belt from British Columbia to southern California (Koch et al. 2012, Hatfield et al. 2014). Preferred plants for foraging include the following genera:

Baccharis, Cirsium, Lupinus, Lotus, Grindelia, Phacelia (Koch et al. 2012). Their populations have experienced severe declines range wide. These declines are poorly understood, largely because they overlap with Bombus vosnesenskii, a common bee that is difficult to distinguish from B. caliginosus in the field (Xerces Society 2020).

The closest known record is from 1968 in Ferndale, approximately 6 miles west of the API (CDFW 2021c). Recent records are from 2014 near Pamplin Grove, approximately 10 miles southeast of the API (Bumble Bee Watch 2021). The API and BSA fall within the species current range (Hatfield et al. 2014). In addition, the API and BSA is within Natural Environment Study
NES 48 June 2022
the coastal fog belt and includes several of the species' food plants. No impact would result to the Obscure Bumble Bee.

Western Bumble Bee (SAL)
Western Bumble Bees were historically widespread in coastal valleys and foothills throughout western North America. However, the species has experienced precipitous declines and they are now regionally rare. Western Bumble Bees are habitat generalists but require reliable sources of nectar plants and pollen resources (blooming periods from spring through fall). Meadow complexes are a preferred habitat type (DoW 2015).

Colonies are typically located underground in rodent burrows (BumbleBee Watch 2021).

The closest known record is from 1970 in Fortuna, within 1 mile of the API (CDFW 2021b). There are no recent documented occurrences of this species within the BSA or nearby (BumbleBeeWatch 2021, CDFW 2021b). Although the API and BSA fall within the species’ pre-2002 range (according to ICUN Redlist), the range has contracted significantly in the last decade and now primarily includes the intermountain west and cascade regions of the US (Hatfield et al. 2015). This being the case, the species is not expected to occur in the API or BSA during construction. No impact would result to the Monarch Buttery.

Monarch Butterfly (Federal Candidate)
The Monarch Butterfly - California overwintering population (pop. 1) was proposed for listing under the federal ESA in 2014 (Xerces Society 2014). Critical habitat has not been designated or proposed (USFWS 2022).

Monarchs are distributed across North America in the spring and summer months. The Continental Divide splits their overwintering populations: those on the eastern side typically overwinter in Mexico, while those on the western side overwinter in California.

There are over 400 known overwintering sites along the coast of California from Mendocino County to Baja California, Mexico (Pelton et al. 2016). Individuals begin arriving at their overwintering sites in October and remain as late as early March (Marriott 1997). Mating begins during warm days in late January, and subsequently females begin dispersing inland to lay their eggs on their obligate host plant, milkweed (Asclepias spp.; Marriott 1997). They rely on milkweed for larval development and various nectar plants for adult food. Threats to their populations include breeding habitat loss and pesticide use, as well as loss to their overwintering habitat (Pelton et al. 2016).

From population data collected at overwintering sites, scientists estimate that the population has experienced a 74% decline since the late 1990s (Pelton et al. 2016).

Monarchs are relatively rare in Humboldt County, although a few observations have been reported generally concentrated between Trinidad and Fortuna from 2015 to 2021 (iNaturalist 2021). The closest known (research grade) record is from July 2016 in Fortuna (iNaturalist 2021). No Monarch roosts have been recorded in Humboldt County despite community science surveys since 1997 (Xerces Society 2022). The APE does not include habitat suitable for Monarch overwintering. Given the lack of suitable overwintering habitat within the APE, this species is highly unlikely to occur and the Project would have no effect on the Monarch.

Natural Environment Study
NES 49 June 2022
Survey Results.

No special status invertebrates were observed during the 2021 site visits. However, this survey was not targeted towards detection of the full range of invertebrates. Some nectar sources that could be utilized by Obscure Bumble Bee and Western Bumble Bee were observed. No other targeted surveys for these species or incidental occurrence data are known from the BSA (Bumble Bee Watch 2021, iNaturalist 2021).

The API and BSA do not overlap designated or proposed critical habitat for any federally-listed invertebrate species.

Project Impacts
Vegetation removal will be limited to minor roadside vegetation and will include minor mowing and minor brush removal. No impacts to large areas of nectar sources or open meadow are expected. The Project is not expected to result in any impacts to the Obscure Bumble Bee, Western Bumble Bee, or Monarch Butterfly if present.

Given that no in-water work within Mill Creek would occur, direct impacts to aquatic mollusks would not result. Standard BMPs would be implemented to avoid indirect impacts associated with sedimentation and accidental spills.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts
Project design (including staging and stockpile locations) considered minimization of impacts to vegetation and sensitive wildlife habitat during design. No further avoidance or minimization measures are proposed as no suitable habitat is present for special status insects or aquatic mussels in the API (habitat may only be present in the greater BSA, where no direct impacts to vegetation/nectar sources or Mill Creek will occur).

Compensatory Mitigation
The proposed Project has been designed such that Project-specific conservation measures and avoidance and minimization measures shall effectively avoid or minimize to the greatest extent feasible, impacts to sensitive habitat and wildlife resources. As no impacts to special status invertebrates or their habitat is expected, no compensatory mitigation is proposed.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project will not facilitate further development in the area. In addition, with implementation of the recommended avoidance and minimization measures, the Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to special status invertebrates.

Discussion of Special Status Fish
As discussed in Chapter 3, the BSA contains suitable habitat for federally and state listed anadromous salmonids as well as state special status Pacific Lamprey and summer-run Steelhead Trout within Mill Creek. A discussion of the habitat requirements, potential for species occurrence, survey results, potential Project-related impacts, applicable impact avoidance and minimization measures, compensatory mitigation, and cumulative impacts to fish species is provided below.

Natural Environment Study
NES 50 June 2022
Pacific Lamprey (SSC)
Pacific Lamprey, Entosphenus tridentatus formerly Lampetra tridentata, is a primitive fish lacking true fins and jaws of true fishes (Streif 2007, Stillwater Sciences 2010).

Pacific Lamprey range from the Japan to the Bering Sea in Alaska and along the west coast of North America to central Baja, California (Stillwater Sciences 2010).

Pacific Lamprey are anadromous with typical spawning from March through July (Stillwater Sciences et al. 2016). Both sexes build redds (nests) where eggs are deposited by moving stones with their mouths, typically in riffles of gravel-bottomed streams and upstream of quality ammocoete (larval lamprey) habitat. Ammocoetes hatch within approximately 19 days depending on water temperature (Streif 2007).

Upon hatching, ammocoetes move downstream where they settle into silty sandy substrates (Streif 2007). They remain in these areas, often in colonies, for two to seven years filter feeding primarily on algae until they metamorphose into macropthalmia (juveniles; Streif 2007). As macropthalmia, they emigrate downstream to the ocean (Streif 2007). They mature into adults where they are parasitic on a variety of fishes.

Adults return to their natal streams following one to three years in the marine environment (Streif 2007). There may be two major life strategies in which some adults spawn immediately upon returning to freshwater and other adults may overwinter in freshwater before spawning (Streif 2007, Stillwater Sciences et al. 2016).

Threats include limits to passage (e.g., dams), diversions, urban development, mining, pollution, estuary modification, stream and floodplain degradation, declines in prey abundance, predation by non-native species, and overharvest (Streif 2007, Stillwater Sciences and Wiyot Tribe 2017).

Pacific Lamprey are common in the Eel River year-round, and are known to occur in the Strongs Creek watershed (UC Davis 2021a). Suitable rearing and migratory habitat and potentially spawning habitat are present for Pacific Lamprey in Mill Creek within the BSA. Based on suitable aquatic habitat, the species may be present in the BSA within Mill Creek, although no suitable habitat is present in the API. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, the project would have no impact on Pacific Lamprey.

Western Brook Lamprey (SSC)
The Western Brook Lamprey is a small (total length typically less than 18 centimeters [7 inches]) non-migratory lamprey that resides in freshwater (69 FR 77158, UC Davis 2021b). They inhabit coastal streams along the Pacific Coast from Alaska to California (CTUIR 2004). The species occurs in many of the same habitats and has been considered in conjunction with Pacific Lamprey in conservation efforts (i.e., petition to be listed; 69 FR 77158, Nawa et al. 2003). Despite these similarities, Western Brook Lamprey differ in being non-migratory and non-parasitic. Both lamprey species have otherwise similar life histories, including being semelparous (adults die after spawning).

Additionally, ammocoetes are nearly indistinguishable (69 FR 77158).

Spawning typically occurs March-July (69 FR 77158), often involving spawning groups (12 individuals have been documented at a single nest) and nests may be laid on top of Natural Environment Study
NES 51 June 2022
each other (CTUIR 2004). Both sexes build redds (nests), by moving stones with their mouths, typically in riffles of gravel-bottomed streams (USFWS unk. yr.). A given female may lay 1,100-5,500 eggs (69 FR 77158). Ammocoetes hatch within approximately 10 days, dependent on water temperature (CTUIR 2004, UC Davis 2021b, 69 FR 77158).

Upon hatching, ammocoetes move downstream where they settle into silty substrates in “backwater” areas (69 FR 77158). They remain in these areas, often in very high densities, for two to seven years filter feeding on algae and detritus until they metamorphose into adults (69 FR 77158). Adult metamorphosis occurs February-July (69 FR 77158). However, their gonads are not fully developed at this metamorphosis; they will burrow into the stream during the winter months until emerging in the spring to spawn (69 FR 77158). After reaching sexual maturation, all feeding stops as their small, poorly developed oral disc and teeth are non-functional (69 FR 77158). Adults die after spawning.

This species is of particular cultural importance to many native indigenous tribes along the Pacific Coast (CTUIR 2004). Their populations are threatened by stream/floodplain and water quality degradation, overharvest, predation by nonnative freshwater fish, dredging, and dewatering (USFWS unk. yr.).

Western Brook Lamprey are known to occur in the Strongs Creek watershed (UC Davis 2021a). Suitable rearing and migratory habitat and potentially spawning habitat are present for Western Brook Lamprey in Mill Creek within the BSA. Based on suitable aquatic habitat, the species may be present in the BSA within Mill Creek, although no suitable habitat is present in the API. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, the project would have no impact on Western Brook Lamprey.

Coastal Cutthroat Trout (SSC)
The Coastal Cutthroat Trout ranges from the southernmost extent of its range in the Eel River (California) to Prince Williams Sound in Alaska. Life history strategies are more variable than for most salmonids. Moyle (2002) and Trotter (1989, 1997) recognized four main life history groupings including sea run, lacustrine, riverine, and stream resident. Ecological requirements are similar to those of Steelhead, and where the two species co-occur. Coastal Cutthroat Trout usually occupy smaller tributary streams (Moyle et al. 2008). Unlike most salmon, and similar to Steelhead, this species may spawn more than once. Adults commonly enter streams during the fall and feed on eggs from other salmons' redds. Spawning can occur from December through May. Young Cutthroat Trout may spend up to two weeks in the gravel before emerging and from one to nine years in freshwater before migrating to estuaries and ocean in the spring.

Coastal Cutthroat Trout usually spend less than one year in salt water before returning to spawn. Juveniles and adults are carnivorous, feeding mostly on insects, crustaceans, and other fish throughout their lives. In freshwater, adult Cutthroat Trout typically reside in large pools while the young reside in riffles, most commonly in upper tributaries of small rivers. Coastal Cutthroat Trout utilize a wide variety of habitat types during their complex life cycle. They spawn in small tributary streams, and utilize slow flowing backwater areas, low velocity pools, and side channels for rearing of young. Good forest canopy cover, in-stream woody debris, and abundant supplies of insects are crucial for the young Cutthroat Trout's survival. During the estuarine or ocean phase of Natural Environment Study
NES 52 June 2022
life, Cutthroat Trout utilize tidal sloughs, marshes, and swamps as holding areas and feeding grounds.

Despite widespread decline throughout its range, Coastal Cutthroat Trout populations are present in the Eel River as well as lower Eel River tributaries (CDFW 2015).

Additionally, the species is known to occur in the Strongs Creek watershed (UC Davis 2021a). The closest known occurrence record is from 1990 in the Eel River (0.35 miles west of the API) and its tributaries (CDFW 2021c). Suitable rearing and migratory habitat is present for Coastal Cutthroat Trout in Mill Creek within the BSA. However, no spawning habitat (based on lack of graveled stream bottom in Mill Creek) is present in the BSA. Based on suitable aquatic habitat, the species may be present in the BSA within Mill Creek, although no suitable habitat is present in the API. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, the project would have no impact on Coastal Cutthroat Trout.

Coho Salmon - southern Oregon / northern California ESU Coho Salmon (FT/ST) The southern Oregon/northern California coast Coho Salmon (SONCC) Coho Salmon ESU was federally-listed as a threatened effective June 5, 1997 (62 FR 24588). The listing status was reaffirmed effective August 29, 2005 (70 FR 37159) and April 14, 2014 (79 FR 20802). Critical habitat was designated for SONCC Coho Salmon, effective June 4, 1999. Critical habitat includes all accessible reaches between and including the Mattole River (California) and Elk River (Oregon) (64 FR 24049). This ESU is also state listed as threatened under the CESA.

The SONCC ESU is defined as all Coho Salmon naturally produced in streams between Punta Gorda in northern California (Humboldt County) and Cape Blanco in southern Oregon (70 FR 37160). Adult Coho Salmon enter rivers from late summer to mid-winter with most spawning occurring in early to mid-winter. Eggs incubate for one to one and a half months during winter. Fry emerge and occupy shallow areas with vegetative cover.

Juvenile Coho Salmon rear in freshwater for over a year (some for two years) before migrating to the ocean in spring (Weitkamp et al. 1995, NMFS 2014). Juveniles and yearlings spend various amounts of time in freshwater/estuary transition zones. Length of stay by an individual averages about one to two months, with spring being the heaviest time of use. Adults typically spend the next two years in the ocean before returning to their home streams to spawn (Wallace 2010). Marine invertebrates, such as copepods, euphausids, amphipods, and crab larvae, are the primary food sources for Coho Salmon when they first enter saltwater. Fish represent an increasing proportion of the diet as Coho Salmon grow and mature (Moyle 2002).

Freshwater habitat requirements for juvenile Coho Salmon include cool water temperatures (53.6-57.2 ºF is optimal), clear water, riparian vegetation that provides shade, clean silt-free gravel for spawning, in-stream large woody debris, availability of food (invertebrates), and overwintering habitat consisting of large off-channel pools with complex cover or small spring-fed tributary streams (Moyle 2002). Coho Salmon from Humboldt Bay tributaries that rear in the estuary grow larger than their cohorts that reared farther upstream, which suggests that a stream/estuary ecotone is an important overwintering and rearing habitat for juvenile Coho Salmon (Wallace and Allen 2009).

Natural Environment Study
NES 53 June 2022
Population declines and extirpations in individual streams and tributaries have occurred due to widespread degradation of freshwater habitats from activities such as timber harvest, road building, grazing and mining activities, urbanization, stream channelization, dam construction, wetland filling or draining, beaver trapping, and water withdrawals and diversions for irrigation (NOAA Fisheries 2011). These activities have resulted in changes to channel morphology and substrate, loss and degradation of estuaries, wetlands, and riparian areas, declines in water quality (e.g., elevated pH and water temperatures, reduced dissolved oxygen, altered stream fertility and biological communities, and toxics), altered stream flows, and fish passage impediments such as dams and road crossings (NOAA Fisheries 2011).

Despite drastic declines, the Eel River supports populations of Coho Salmon (Yoshiyama and Moyle 2010). However, Coho Salmon are not known to occur in the Strongs Creek watershed historically or currently (UC Davis 2021a). This species is unlikely to be present within the BSA in Mill Creek, but given the absence of fish passage barriers between the Eel River and the BSA, presence cannot be ruled out.

With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, the project would have no impact and no effect on Coho Salmon.

Chinook Salmon – California Coastal ESU (FT)
The California Coastal (CC) Chinook Salmon ESU was listed as threatened, effective November 15, 1999 (64 FR 50394). The listing was updated effective August 29, 2005 (70 FR 37159) and April 14, 2014 (79 FR 20802). Critical habitat was designated for Chinook Salmon (Coastal California ESU), effective January 2, 2006. Designated critical habitat includes riverine and estuarine habitat in Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake, Napa, Glenn, Colusa, and Tehama counties (70 FR 52487).

The California Coast Chinook Salmon (California coastal ESU) ranges from Redwood Creek in Humboldt County south to the Russian River in Sonoma County. California Coast Chinook Salmon spawn and rear in coastal and interior rivers in northern California. Ocean-type Chinook (fall run) rear for less than one year in freshwater, while stream-type Chinook (spring run) remain in freshwater for one year or more before emigrating to forage in coastal and marine zones of California for two to five years (Healey 1991). Currently, only fall-run Chinook appear to be extant in the DPS. These Chinook Salmon typically migrate to the ocean within their first year from April through July (NOAA Fisheries 2007). The ideal temperature range for rearing, smolting, and migrating (seaward) Chinook Salmon appears to be 50° to 55° F (Rich 1997). Habitat requirements for spawning also include clean, loose gravel, a lack of fine sediment, cool water, and unimpeded passage to the ocean. After spawning, females bury fertilized eggs in gravel and guard them until they die. Rearing habitat is characterized by the presence of pools, off-stream channels, and riparian cover.

The destruction and modification of historic spawning habitat, fish passage barriers, over-harvesting, decreased floodplain connectivity and function, as well as reduced stream flow and predation are considered moderate to very high threats to this ESU.

Land use activities (logging, road construction, streambank alterations, etc.), water diversions and overutilization of rivers and streams for recreational purposes are also Natural Environment Study
NES 54 June 2022
have contributed to the decline of the ESU. The main factors limiting this Chinook Salmon ESU are low abundance, low distribution, and negative population trends.

Predation by pikeminnow in the Eel River and genetic integrity are considered significant threats to the population (NOAA Fisheries 2007).

Despite drastic declines, the Eel River supports populations of Chinook Salmon (Yoshiyama and Moyle 2010). Chinook Salmon are known to occur in the Strongs Creek watershed (UC Davis 2021a), and recreational fishermen have reported three catches in Strongs Creek near the mouth with the Eel River (Fishbrain 2021). This species is unlikely to be present within the BSA in Mill Creek, but given the absence of fish passage barriers between the Eel River and the BSA, presence cannot be ruled out. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, the project would have no impact and no effect on Chinook Salmon.

Steelhead, Northern California DPS (FT/SE)
Steelhead (northern California DPS) was listed as threatened, effective August 7, 2000 (65 FR 36074). This listing was reaffirmed, effective February 6, 2006 (at which point two hatchery stocks were added; these are no longer active) (71 FR 833), and again on April 14, 2014 (79 FR 20802). Both summer and winter-run Steelhead are included in this DPS. NOAA Fisheries recently announced that a petition to list summer-run Steelhead as a unique DPS was not warranted (85 FR 6527). Critical habitat was designated for Steelhead (northern California DPS), effective January 2, 2006.

Designated critical habitat includes riverine and estuarine habitat in Humboldt, Trinity, Mendocino, Sonoma, Lake, Glenn, Colusa, and Tehama counties (70 FR 52487).

Northern California summer Steelhead within four North Coast watersheds (including the Eel River) were recently listed as state endangered under CESA as of June 16, 2021.

The Northern California Steelhead (northern California DPS) occupies river basins from Redwood Creek in Humboldt County to the Gualala River (near the Mendocino/Sonoma County line). Both summer and winter-run Steelhead are included in this DPS.

Steelhead spend their adult lives in marine environments, returning to freshwater at the age of four or five to spawn, usually in their stream of origin. Winter-run, sexually mature, Steelhead populations migrate from the ocean to freshwater rivers and streams in the fall/winter, spawn, and quickly return to marine habitat. In contrast, summer-run populations migrate to freshwater habitat in the late spring/summer, spend several months in freshwater (reaching sexual maturity during this time), and then spawn in the winter (NMFS 2016).

Steelhead is the anadromous form of rainbow trout. Unlike salmon, Steelhead do not necessarily die after spawning. Eggs are deposited in redds constructed in gravel, and (for winter run fish) hatch after three to 14 weeks in later winter through spring. The hatchlings, or alevins, emerge from the gravel after an additional two to five weeks (Moyle 2002). During the egg and alevin stages, survival depends in part on the presence of clean, well-oxygenated gravel (excessive siltation contributes to mortality at these stages) (Barnhart 1991, Stillwater Sciences 2006). Juveniles remain in fresh water for one or two years before returning to saltwater, with emigration typically Natural Environment Study
NES 55 June 2022
occurring from March through June. A second year of growth is thought to contribute to a much higher probability of survival in the open ocean (Stillwater Sciences 2006). Less is known about the life history of summer run Steelhead, although adult fish are believed to enter rivers in May (Yoshiyama and Moyle 2010).

In the Northern California DPS, the decline of Steelhead has been attributed to factors such as watershed disturbances, including logging on steep slopes, grazing, road building, water diversions, and severe habitat degradation caused by timber harvest and intensive agricultural practices. These factors have resulted in decreased flows, loss of riparian habitat, channel widening, and increased siltation and water temperatures.

Despite this decline, north coast rivers and streams have the greatest amount of Steelhead habitat in California. Importantly, summer-run Steelhead adults rely upon cold-water refuges to oversummer in (CalTrout un. yr., NMFS un. yr). The most abundant populations of Steelhead are in the Klamath/Trinity River system (Barnhart 1991, Stillwater Sciences 2006).

Juvenile Steelhead (not distinguishable to run type) have been documented in Strongs Creek as recently as 2009 (CDFG 2009). Both winter-run and summer-run Steelhead are found in the Eel River (NFS 2020). Recreational fishermen have reported four catches of this species in nearby Jameson Creek, another tributary to Strongs Creek (Fishbrain 2021). Suitable rearing and migratory habitat is present for Steelhead in Mill Creek within the BSA. However, no spawning habitat (based on lack of graveled stream bottom in Mill Creek) is present in the BSA. Based on suitable aquatic habitat, the species may be present in the BSA within Mill Creek, although no suitable habitat is present in the API. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, the project would have no impact and no effect on Northern California Steelhead.

Survey Results
Although no fish surveys were conducted as part of this environmental review, previous stream inventory reports have been completed by CDFG in Mill Creek (overlapping the BSA; CDFG 2004) and in Strongs Creek (downstream; CDFG 2009). There is marginal habitat (based on low flows and sedimented channel) for salmonids within Mill Creek and no fish passage barriers exist between the API and Strongs Creek, where Steelhead have been recorded.

The presence of Coho Salmon, Chinook Salmon, Steelhead, and Pacific Lamprey is well documented in the Eel River (CDFW 2021b).

The Eel River and its tributaries are considered EFH for Chinook Salmon and Coho Salmon (NOAA 2021a). Chinook and Coho Salmon are managed under the Pacific Coast Salmon Fisheries Management Plan (NOAA Fisheries 2021c). The Eel River and its tributaries is also considered critical habitat for Coho Salmon, Chinook Salmon, and Steelhead (NOAA 2021b).

Project Impacts
Given that no in-water work within Mill Creek would occur, direct impacts to anadromous fish would not result. Standard BMPs would be implemented to avoid Natural Environment Study
NES 56 June 2022
indirect impacts associated with sedimentation and accidental spills. Table 12 provides a summary of potential impacts to fisheries resources and habitat associated with permanent roadway restoration.

Table 12: Impacts to Fish and Habitat Resources
Description and Likelihood of Impacts
Description of Potential Impact Anticipated Level of Effect:
(None/Minimal/Moderate/High)
Loss or Modification of Juvenile Rearing Habitat None
Loss of Spawning Habitat None
Loss of Riparian Habitat None
Hydroacoustic Effects None
Increased Turbidity and Suspended Sediment Less than significant with BMPs Impaired Fish Passage during Construction None
Potential Spill Hazard Less than significant with BMPs
Injury and Mortality of Juveniles during Construction None Loss or Modification of Juvenile Rearing Habitat
Given no in-water work, culvert replacement or modification, and channel alternation would occur, the loss or modification of juvenile rearing habitat would not occur.

Loss of Spawning Habitat
Given no in-water work, culvert replacement or modification, and channel alternation would occur, the loss or modification of spawning habitat would not occur.

Loss of Riparian Habitat
Tree removal along Mill Creek at the upstream and downstream end of the culvert crossing under Kenmar Road would not occur. There would be no loss of riparian habitat.

Hydroacoustic Effects
Noise effects would be limited to repaving and related construction activities on the roadway surface. Construction-related noise would be similar to the existing background noise on the roadway, which includes frequent passenger and commercial traffic at the interchange. Given the noise setting would not be substantially different, hydroacoustic effects would not impact special status salmonids and other special status fish species.

Increased Turbidity and Suspended Sediment
Increased turbidity and suspended sediments have the potential to enter Mill Creek during construction. Avoidance and minimization measures are recommended to minimize risks related to habitat sedimentation.

Impaired Fish Passage During Construction
Natural Environment Study
NES 57 June 2022
Given no in-water work, culvert replacement or modification, and channel alternation would occur, impairment of fish passage would not occur.

Potential Spill of Hazardous Materials
Potential spills of hazardous materials (i.e., oil, grease, fuels, and coolants) could have deleterious effects on fisheries resources downstream of the Project. Additionally, operating construction equipment in or adjacent to any watercourse, whether it is wet or dry, poses the risk of serious environmental damage if a spill were to occur. The Project requires daily on-site refueling of construction equipment. As a result of that activity, minor fuel and oil spills can occur, and there is always the risk of larger releases.

Without rapid containment, such materials can be extremely difficult to clean up in their entirety, when taking into consideration the size of a spill and its proximity to flowing water. Oils, fuels, and other toxic contaminants can have deleterious effects on fisheries resources, with the risk being substantially elevated when spills are near streams or other waterbodies. Safeguards to prevent spills in the BSA are critical because of the Project’s relationship to a fish-bearing stream (Mill Creek). Avoidance and minimization measures are recommended to minimize risks related to the accidental spill of hazardous materials.

Injury and Mortality of Fisheries Resources
Given no in-water work, dewatering, or fish relocation would occur, injury and mortality of fisheries resources would not occur.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts
Avoidance and minimization efforts include:
• Sediment and/or erosion control shall be established along Kenmar Road adjacent to the upstream and downstream ends of the Mill Creek culvert crossing. The location of sediment and/or erosion control measures will be included on the final construction plan set.
• Equipment shall be cleaned of deleterious materials before being delivered to the job site.
• Equipment shall be staged, and materials shall be stockpiled outside Mill Creek riparian habitat, in designated staging and stockpile areas. • Any construction equipment operating adjacent to a stream shall be inspected daily for leaks. Any oil, fuel, and grease residue that has the potential to fall from machinery shall be removed and properly disposed of. Refueling and equipment maintenance would occur in designated staging and stockpiling areas only. • Spill containment booms shall be available on-site at all times during construction operations and/or staging of equipment or during fueling when work occurs over Natural Environment Study
NES 58 June 2022
live waterbodies. Fueling trucks shall at all times be equipped with sealed spill kits.
• The awarded contractors shall develop and implement site-specific BMPs, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and emergency spill control plan. The awarded contractor shall be responsible for immediate spill containment and cleanup, as well as proper disposal of hazardous materials and BMPs used during spill recovery.

Compensatory Mitigation
The proposed Project has been designed such that Project-specific conservation measures and avoidance and minimization measures shall effectively avoid or minimize, to the greatest extent feasible, affects to fisheries and water resources. It is not anticipated that other compensatory mitigation would be required.

Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative projects summarized in Table 1 do not involve aquatic work, avoiding the potential to impact fisheries resources. Thus, a cumulative impact to fisheries resources would not result.

Discussion of Special Status Amphibians
As discussed in Chapter 3, based on the USFWS Official Species List generated for this Project (Appendix E), no federally-listed amphibian species are expected to occur within the Project vicinity. There are two special status amphibian species recorded in the CNDDB as known to occur nearby and that the BSA likely provides suitable habitat for: the Northern Red-legged Frog and Foothill Yellow-legged Frog. A discussion of the habitat requirements, potential for species occurrence, survey results, potential Projectrelated impacts, applicable impact avoidance and minimization measures, compensatory mitigation, and cumulative impacts to amphibian species is provided below.

Northern Red-legged Frog (SSC)
Northern Red-legged Frogs occur along the west coast of North America from British Columbia to California. The geographic range split between the Northern and California Red-legged Frog species occurs just south of Elk Creek in Mendocino County where both species overlap (Nafis 2021, AmphibiaWeb 2021). Northern Red-legged Frogs are typically found near freshwater sources (e.g., wetlands, ponds, streams, etc.). However, they can range widely and inhabit damp places far from water. Northern Red-legged Frogs reproduce in water from December to February in Humboldt County, with some breeding occurring as late as March. Preferred egg laying locations are in “vegetated shallows with little water flow in permanent wetlands and temporary pools” (Nafis 2021).

Northern Red-legged Frogs are relatively common in and near coastal portions of Humboldt County.

The closest known occurrence record is from1993 on private timberlands, approximately 4.15 miles south of the API (CDFW 2021). The BSA includes suitable Natural Environment Study
NES 59 June 2022
breeding, foraging, and overwintering habitat, especially within the riparian habitat and wetlands surrounding Mill Creek (see Appendix F). With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, potential impacts to the Northern Red-legged Frog would be less than significant.

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (SSC)
Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs occur from sea level to elevations of 7,000 feet and range from the Willamette River in Oregon south to the Upper San Gabriel River in California, including the coast ranges and Sierra Nevada Foothills (Stebbins 2003, NatureServe 2021). The species prefers open to partially shaded, perennial streams with rocky substrate, often near riffles. These rivers and streams are typically bordered by chaparral, riparian habitat, mixed conifer forest, or wet meadows. Streams are usually small to mid-size with shallow pools and slow-moving water (CBD 2012). They are also found at river edges, in calm pools, and vegetated backwaters (CBD 2012, NatureServe 2021). Rocky, cobble substrate (3 in or larger) is preferred, particularly for egg laying sites (CBD 2012).

Breeding activity typically occurs from March through May with some regional variation (breeding in northern California is reported to occur from April through June; USFS 1997). Breeding coincides with a decrease in stream and river flows during the spring, following periods of winter storms and runoff (NatureServe 2021). Adult frogs congregate on river and stream gravel bars during this time, with oviposition occurring in stream and river margins (USFS 1997). Eggs are laid in masses (may include up to 3,000 eggs per mass) and attached to gravel or rocks (USFS 2016, Nafis 2021, NatureServe 2021). Eggs may be covered with a layer of silt, potentially to hide them from predators. Hatching time occurs in five to 27 days and is dependent on water temperature (Nafis 2021). Tadpoles are not known to overwinter, and larvae undergo metamorphosis during the summer (USFS 2016, NatureServe 2021). Fidelity to breeding sites has been reported in this species (USFS 2016).

The closest known occurrence record, including adults, juveniles, and young of the year, is from 2018 at the mouth of Strongs Creek on the Eel River near the Fortuna Wastewater Treatment Plant, approximately 1 mile northwest of the API (CDFW 2021c).

The BSA includes requisite foraging and overwintering habitat within Mill Creek.

However, no breeding habitat (e.g., sunny gravel/cobble river bars). With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, potential impacts to the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog would be less than significant.

Survey Results
During the reconnaissance level biological survey, GHD Botanist Kelsey McDonald, noted the habitat conditions within the BSA are suitable for several state special status amphibian species. Specifically, Mill’s Creek appears to include requisite foraging and overwintering habitat for Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs. Riparian and moist woodlands and herbaceous seeps within the API and BSA include suitable habitat for Northern Red-legged Frogs. One common amphibian species was observed on-site during 2021 site visits (Appendix G, Table 13: Wildlife Species Detected On-site). No other amphibian surveys or incidental occurrence data are known from the BSA.

Natural Environment Study
NES 60 June 2022
The API and BSA do not overlap designated or proposed critical habitat for any federally-listed amphibian species.

Project Impacts
Northern Red-legged Frogs and Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs may occur in the BSA, but are unlikely to be not present in the API; therefore, impacts to these two species would be less than significant.

The proposed Project has the potential to result in adverse impacts to the aforementioned amphibian species for the reasons identified below:
• Construction related impacts could have in an adverse impact via direct mortality or injury (e.g., due to grading, ground disturbance, or operation of equipment).

The potential for direct injury is likely low since the majority of impacts will be restricted to previously disturbed areas and work would occur in late summer or fall outside of peak surface activity periods for these species. Implementation of various avoidance and minimization measures will minimize the potential for direct injury.
• Certain activities related to the Project could result in disturbance to vegetation and soil. Vegetation removal and soil disturbances can accelerate erosion processes in the API/BSA and increase the potential for sediment to enter nearby streams. Excessive sedimentation into streams has the potential to reduce habitat quality for amphibians and other sensitive species (e.g., decreasing availability of potential food items including aquatic invertebrates and filling interstitial spaces in substrate).
• Construction activities typically include the on-site refueling and maintenance of equipment. As a result, minor fuel and oil spills may occur as well as a risk of large-scale releases. Without rapid containment and clean up, these materials can be potentially toxic depending on the location of the spill in proximity to surface water features.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts
As well as adhering to the sediment reduction measures and efforts to minimize disturbances to vegetation, the footprint of the proposed Project, when in proximity to wetlands or aquatic habitat, will be restricted to the minimum area necessary.

Within seven days prior to the start of construction, a qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction survey for special status amphibians within the API. Any special status amphibians found will be relocated to nearby suitable habitat outside of the API.

Compensatory Mitigation
The proposed Project has been designed such that Project-specific conservation measures and avoidance and minimization measures shall effectively avoid or minimize, to the greatest extent feasible, impacts to amphibians and their habitat. It is not anticipated that other compensatory mitigation will be required.

Natural Environment Study
NES 61 June 2022
Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project will not facilitate further development in the area. Most impacts to Northern Red-legged Frogs and Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs, potentially found in the API/BSA, if any, will be avoided or minimized. Projects considered for cumulative effects, summarized in Table 1, do not involve work in or near aquatic environments suitable for amphibians. Thus, cumulative impacts would not result.

Discussion of Special Status Reptiles
As discussed in Chapter 3, based on the USFWS Official Species List generated for this Project (Appendix E), no federally-listed reptile species are expected to occur within the Project vicinity. There is one special status reptile species recorded in the CNDDB as known to occur nearby and that the BSA is likely to provide suitable habitat for: the Western Pond Turtle. A discussion of the habitat requirements, potential for species occurrence, survey results, potential Project-related impacts, applicable impact avoidance and minimization measures, compensatory mitigation, and cumulative impacts to reptile species is provided below.

Western Pond Turtle (SSC)
Western Pond Turtles occur in a variety of permanent and semi-permanent freshwater aquatic habitats including lakes, rivers, ponds, creeks, and marshes. Nesting occurs on land in areas of loose to hard-packed soils on south or west facing slopes (Rathbun et al. 1992, Reese and Welsh 1997). The species is frequently observed basking on exposed banks, logs, and rocks. Winter activity is possible but limited to unusually warm, sunny days. Normally pond turtles are dormant during winter months on the north coast, which typically involves the turtle burrowing into loose substrate above the high water mark (Thomson et al. 2016).

The closest known record is from 2020 approximately 3 miles north of the API (iNaturalist 2021). The API and BSA include suitable aquatic habitat within the Mill Creek. However, there is only very limited upland habitat available in the BSA that may be suitable for nesting. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, potential impacts to the Western Pond Turtle would be less than significant.

Survey Results
No special status reptiles were observed during the 2021 site visits. Given the presence of suitable habitat within Mill Creek, it is assumed that Western Pond Turtles could be present in the API and/or BSA during construction. No other reptile surveys or incidental occurrence data are known from the BSA.

The API and BSA do not overlap designated or proposed critical habitat for any federally-listed reptile species.

Project Impacts
The proposed Project has the potential to result impacts to Western Pond Turtle for the reasons identified below and has thus incorporated avoidance and minimization measures to ensure the potential impact remains less than significant:

Natural Environment Study
NES 62 June 2022
• Construction related impacts could have in an adverse impact via direct injury (e.g., due to operation of equipment in or adjacent to stream channels where flowing, standing, or sub-surface water is present). The potential for direct injury is likely low since the majority of impacts will be restricted to the previously disturbed road prism or areas directly adjacent to the road prism, and the lower slope. Work at the toe of slope would be completed after dewatering. Implementation of various avoidance and minimization measures will minimize the potential for direct injury. • Certain activities related to the Project could result in localized disturbances to vegetation and soil. Vegetation removal and soil disturbances can accelerate erosion processes in the API/BSA and increase the potential for sediment to enter nearby streams. Excessive sedimentation into streams has the potential to reduce habitat quality for semi-aquatic reptiles and other sensitive species (e.g., decreasing availability of potential food items including aquatic invertebrates and filling interstitial spaces in substrate).
• Construction activities typically include the on-site refueling and maintenance of equipment. As a result, minor fuel and oil spills may occur as well as a risk of largescale releases. Without rapid containment and clean up, these materials can be potentially toxic depending on the location of the spill in proximity to surface water features.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts
As well as adhering to the sediment reduction and spill prevention measures, and efforts to minimize disturbances to vegetation, the footprint of the proposed Project when in proximity to wetlands or aquatic habitat will be restricted to the minimum area necessary.

Within seven days prior to the start of construction, a qualified biologist will conduct a pre-construction survey for special status wildlife within the API. Any special status reptiles found will be relocated to nearby suitable habitat outside the API.

Compensatory Mitigation
The proposed Project has been designed such that Project-specific conservation measures and avoidance and minimization measures shall effectively avoid or minimize, to the greatest extent feasible, impacts to reptiles and their habitat. It is not anticipated that other compensatory mitigation will be required.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project will not facilitate further development in the area. Most impacts to Northern Red-legged Frogs and Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs, potentially found in the API/BSA, if any, will be avoided or minimized. Projects considered for cumulative effects, summarized in Table 1, do not involve work in or near aquatic environments suitable for semi-aquatic reptiles. Thus, cumulative impacts would not result.

Natural Environment Study
NES 63 June 2022
Discussion of Special Status Birds
As discussed in Chapter 3, based on the USFWS Official Species List generated for this Project (Appendix E), seven federally-listed bird species are expected to occur within the Project vicinity. However, none of these species are expected to occur within the API or greater BSA (see justification for exclusion in Table 9). There are seven state special status avian species recorded in the CNDDB as known to occur nearby and that the BSA likely provides suitable habitat for. A discussion of the habitat requirements, potential for species occurrence, survey results, potential Project-related impacts, applicable impact avoidance and minimization measures, compensatory mitigation, and cumulative impacts to avian species is provided below.

Cooper’s Hawk (WL)
Cooper’s Hawks are year-round residents across most temperate areas in North America. In California, migrants from more northern climes (southern Canada) pass through the state during the fall months (August-November). Some of these northern populations of Cooper’s Hawks likely winter in the state. Cooper’s Hawks may be found in a variety of forested habitats included deciduous, mixed, or evergreen forests in urban, suburban, or rural areas. Cooper’s Hawk populations have increased over the past few decades in urban and suburban areas, likely as a result of readily available prey populations in these habitats (e.g., European Starling and Rock Pigeon flocks).

Cooper’s Hawks build their nests in any number of tree species including pines, oaks, firs, eucalyptus, etc. Nest site selection is most likely related to dense prey availability in the surrounding area as well as canopy cover and the adjacent habitat structure. Their nests are constructed out of sticks and bark and may be built on top of existing squirrel or other raptor nests. Cooper’s Hawks prey on a variety of small bird and mammal species including European Starlings, Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura), Rock Pigeons, Deer Mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), squirrels, and hares. (Rosenfield 2020).

There are numerous records from the Project vicinity (surrounding 5 miles; eBird 2021).

Suitable nesting and foraging habitat are present within the BSA. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, potential impacts to the Cooper’s Hawk would be less than significant.

Sharp-shinned Hawk (WL)
Sharp-shinned Hawks are year-round residents across most densely forested areas of western and eastern North America. In California, migrants from more northern climes (southern Canada) pass through the state during the fall months (August-November).

Some of these northern populations of Sharp-shinned Hawks winter in the state. Sharpshinned Hawks may be found in a variety of forested habitats including coniferous forests, deciduous forests, woodlots, and transitional/forested edges. They prefer to nest in dense stands of a diversity of tree species. Nests are constructed out of dead twigs and placed against a tree trunk on a horizontal limb. Sharp-shinned Hawks primarily prey on small forest birds and mammals. In more urban/developed areas, Sharp-shinned Hawks hunt at bird feeders. (Bildstein and Meyer 2000).

Natural Environment Study
NES 64 June 2022
There are numerous records from the Project vicinity (surrounding 5 miles; eBird 2021).

Suitable nesting and foraging habitat are present within the BSA. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, potential impacts to the Sharp-shinned Hawk would be less than significant.

Great Egret (SAL)
Great Egrets are year-round residents in western California, with breeders concentrated in the Klamath and Warner basin in Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, along the coast in Humboldt County, the San Francisco Bay area, Monterey County, the Salton Sea, and the Central Valley. This species favors wetlands, estuaries, lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, marshes, and tidal flats. Great Egrets utilize a variety of substrates for nesting including trees, woody vegetation, or artificial nest platforms. Nests platforms are typically constructed of locally available sticks and vegetation. Great Egrets nest communally or in mixed-species colonies. They are opportunistic foragers, wading in shallow water to feed on fish, amphibians, and invertebrates. They also hunt on shore for reptiles, birds, and small mammals. (Mccrimmon Jr. et al. 2020).

There are numerous records from the Project vicinity (surrounding 5 miles; eBird 2021).

Suitable foraging habitat is present within the API and BSA, especially within Mill Creek; marginal nesting habitat may be present within the BSA (e.g., large Eucalyptus trees on to the southeast of the API). With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, potential impacts to the Great Egret would be less than significant.

Great Blue Heron (SAL)
Great Blue Herons are year-round residents in the majority of coastal and central California. Notable exceptions include the Sierras and the very southeastern desert regions of the state. Great Blue Herons are extremely adaptable to a variety of habitats including most saltwater and freshwater bodies, agricultural land, wetlands, as well as commercial and residential areas such as golf courses. Nesting habitat includes trees, bushes, or artificial structures. Nest platforms are typically constructed out of locally available sticks and lined with material such as grass, moss, and reeds. Great Blue Herons are colonial nesters in mixed-species colonies. They are opportunistic foragers, wading in shallow water to feed on fish, amphibians, and invertebrates. They also hunt on shore for reptiles, birds, and small mammals. Additionally, they are known to scavenge carrion. (Vennesland and Butler 2020).

There are numerous records from the Project vicinity (surrounding 5 miles; eBird 2021).

Bank Swallows (ST)
Bank Swallows breed in most of North America at low elevations in suitable habitat.

Breeding ranges extend from Alaska to Northern California, and occasionally occurs in the southern half of the U.S.A. Wintering grounds occur along the western coast of Central America. In California, Bank Swallows are found in Siskiyou, Shasta, Yolo, Del Natural Environment Study
NES 65 June 2022
Norte, Humboldt, and Lassen Counties. Bank Swallows favor open habitat associated with water features such as coastlines, streams, rivers, lake banks, wetlands, agricultural areas, prairies, and riparian woodlands. Bank Swallows generally nest colonially along stream/river banks in burrows excavated perpendicular to the bank.

These burrows are lined with grasses, straw, leaves, feathers, and other organic material. Bank Swallows capture insects on the wing but will also consume aquatic insects and larvae. (Garrison and Turner 2020).

The closest known record is from 2010, within 0.25 miles west of the API at the Fortuna Riverfront (eBird 2021). Suitable foraging habitat is present in the API and BSA. No available muddy banks/cliffs for nesting are present in the API or BSA. With the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, potential impacts to the Bank Swallow would be less than significant.

Survey Results
A total of thirteen common avian species (protected by the MBTA and FGC) were observed flying through or over the API during 2021 site visits (Appendix G, Table 13:

Wildlife Species Detected On-site). Mill Creek within the API and BSA includes suitable foraging habitat for numerous avian species including Great Egrets, Great Blue Herons, and Bank Swallows among others. The riparian habitat surrounding Mill Creek although narrow likely provides suitable nesting habitat for various avian species such as Cooper’s Hawks or Sharp-shinned Hawks as well as other common bird species. Most nearby habitat was low, mowed fields. No other avian surveys or incidental occurrence data are known from the BSA.

The API and BSA do not overlap designated or proposed critical habitat for any federally-listed avian species.

Project Impacts
The Project is expected to have no effect on the Marbled Murrelet, Western Snowy Plover, Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Western DPS), and Northern Spotted Owl. The Project will have no effect on designated critical habitat for the Marbled Murrelet, Western Snowy Plover, Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Western DPS), or Northern Spotted Owl. With implementation of avoidance and minimization measures, any potential Project-related impacts to Cooper’s Hawks, Sharp-shinned Hawks, Great Egrets, Great Blue Herons, Bank Swallows, and other nesting migratory bird species are expected to be, at most, temporary and minimal. With the incorporation of avoidance and minimization measures, potential impacts to nesting migratory bird species would be less than significant.

As described above, common, protected migratory bird species may nest in the API or greater BSA. Construction-related disturbance (noise and visual disturbance, as well as possible nest destruction during clearing and grubbing) during the nesting season could result in the loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment.

Loss of fertile eggs or any activities resulting in nest abandonment may have the potential to affect these species. However, most disturbances will occur in the roadway or directly adjacent to the roadway, where nesting habitat does not occur. Additionally, Natural Environment Study
NES 66 June 2022
the removal of vegetation shall be mostly limited to grasses, forbs, and a minor amount of scrub along the edges of the roadway and the stockpiling/staging area and a more extensive area of scrub on the lower slope. The shining willow groves habitat, which is co-located with one- and three-parameter wetlands, would be impacted, as discussed above. Riparian habitat in the BSA would not be impacted by the Project. It is more likely that the majority of nesting activity will occur outside of the API itself, in adjacent habitat within the BSA. Project implementation will be concluded in as short a timeframe as is reasonable to minimize long-term disturbance to migratory and resident nesting birds.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts
The following measures shall be implemented to avoid or minimize the potential for Project-related impacts on protected avian species potentially nesting adjacent to the API:
• Contractors shall attempt to remove trees and other vegetation that could potentially contain nesting birds outside the bird nesting season (March 15 to August 15). If vegetation removal occurs outside the bird nesting season, no further mitigation is necessary. If vegetation removal or construction work occur adjacent to suitable nesting habitat between March 15 and August 15 a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys within the vicinity of the Project, to check for nesting activity of native birds and to evaluate the site for presence of raptors and special status bird species. As specified by CDFW, “a qualified wildlife biologist shall be defined as a person who is 1) knowledgeable in distribution, habitat, nesting behavior, and life history of northern California birds; 2) can correctly identify bird species found in northern California; 3) has conducted previous field surveys of nesting birds; and 4) is knowledgeable in survey protocols and has obtained the necessary state and federal authorization for any potential take of listed birds, if necessary.” The qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct at minimum a one-day pre-construction survey within the 7-day period prior to vegetation removal and ground-disturbing activities. If ground disturbance and vegetation removal work lapses for seven days or longer during the breeding season, a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a supplemental avian preconstruction survey before Project work is reinitiated. • If active special status and MBTA nests are detected within the construction footprint or up to 500 feet from construction activities, the qualified wildlife biologist shall flag a buffer around each nest (assuming property access). Construction activities shall avoid nest sites until the qualified wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged or nesting activity has ceased. If nests are documented outside of the construction footprint, but within 500 feet of the construction area, buffers will be implemented as needed (buffer size dependent on species). In general, the buffer size for common species would be determined on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the CDFW and, if applicable, with USFWS. Buffer sizes will take into account factors such as (1) noise and human disturbance levels at the construction site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity; (2) distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the construction site and the nest; and (3) sensitivity of individual nesting species and Natural Environment Study
NES 67 June 2022
behaviors of the nesting birds. An absolute minimum buffer size of 30 feet is recommended as a starting point of discussion for common species, with larger buffers expected for special status species and raptors. • If active nests are detected during the survey within the construction footprint or surrounding 500 feet, the qualified wildlife biologist shall monitor all nests at least once per week to determine whether birds are being disturbed. Activities that might, in the opinion of the qualified wildlife biologist, disturb nesting activities (e.g., excessive noise), shall be prohibited within the buffer zone until such a determination is made. If signs of disturbance or distress are observed, the qualified wildlife biologist shall immediately implement adaptive measures to reduce disturbance. These measures may include, but are not limited to, increasing buffer size, halting disruptive construction activities in the vicinity of the nest until fledging is confirmed or nesting activity has ceased, placement of visual screens or sound dampening structures between the nest and construction activity, reducing speed limits, replacing and updating noisy equipment, queuing trucks to distribute idling noise, locating vehicle access points and loading and shipping facilities away from noise-sensitive receptors, reducing the number of noisy construction activities occurring simultaneously, and/or reorienting and/or relocating construction equipment to minimize noise at noisesensitive receptors.

Compensatory Mitigation
The proposed Project has been designed such that Project-specific conservation measures and avoidance and minimization measures shall effectively avoid or minimize to the greatest extent feasible, affects to birds and their habitat. It is not anticipated that other compensatory mitigation will be required.

Cumulative Impacts
The proposed Project will not facilitate further development in the area. With implementation of the recommended avoidance and minimization measures, the proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on special status birds.

Discussion of Special Status Terrestrial Mammals
As discussed in Chapter 3, based on the USFWS Official Species List generated for this Project (Appendix E), no federally-listed mammalian species are expected to occur within the Project vicinity. There is one special status mammal species recorded in the CNDDB as known to occur nearby and that the BSA likely provides suitable habitat for:
the North American Porcupine. A discussion of the habitat requirements, potential for species occurrence, applicable impact avoidance and minimization measures, potential Project-related effects, and cumulative effects to mammalian species is provided below.

North American Porcupine (SAL)
The North American Porcupine are primarily nocturnal but can sometimes be seen during the day. Their range extends across mainland Canada, Alaska, and the western and northeastern United States (Reid 2006). They use a wide variety of habitats, but are most common in montane conifer, Douglas fir, alpine dwarf‐shrub (Sweitzer 2013). A population in Del Norte County, centered in Tolowa Dunes State Park, is especially Natural Environment Study
NES 68 June 2022
known to concentrate in riparian areas. Porcupines are herbivores and feed on a variety of plant materials depending on the season (Appel et al. 2017, SNZ and CBI 2019).

They feed on berries, seeds, grasses, leaves, roots and stems during the spring and summer (SNZ and CBI 2019). In contrast, they primarily feed on evergreen needles and tree bark during the winter.

The closest known record is from 2016 along Highway 101, approximately 4.75 miles south of the API (CDFW 2021c). Suitable habitat for this species is limited in the API (narrow strip of riparian vegetation); however, they may to occur in the greater BSA.

With the incorporation of avoidance and minimization measures, the potential impact to North American Porcupine would be less than significant.

Survey Results
No special status mammals were observed during the 2021 site visits. No other mammalian surveys or incidental occurrence data are known from the BSA.

The API and BSA do not overlap designated or proposed critical habitat for any federally-listed mammalian species.

Project Impacts
The API does not provide suitable foraging or denning habitat for the North American Porcupine. However, habitat within the greater BSA may serve as suitable habitat for these species. However, the following avoidance and minimization measures are recommended to ensure potential impacts remain less than significant.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts
The Project footprint shall be restricted to the minimum necessary. Deep steep-sided excavations will be covered or ramped if left overnight, to avoid the risk of a nocturnally dispersing terrestrial mammals (e.g., North American Porcupine) becoming trapped.

Food waste and other trash shall be removed from the site at the end of each work day to avoid attractants. Pets (e.g., dogs) will not be permitted on the construction site.

Compensatory Mitigation
The proposed Project has been designed such that Project-specific conservation measures and avoidance and minimization measures shall effectively avoid or minimize to the greatest extent feasible, affects to terrestrial mammals and their habitat. It is not anticipated that other compensatory mitigation will be required.

Discussion of Special Status Bats
As discussed in Chapter 3, based on the USFWS Official Species List generated for this Project (Appendix E), no federally-listed bat species are expected to occur within the Project vicinity. There are three special status bat species recorded in the CNDDB Natural Environment Study
NES 69 June 2022
as known to occur nearby: Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Hoary Bat, and Yuma Myotis. A discussion of the habitat requirements, potential for species occurrence, applicable impact avoidance and minimization measures, potential Project-related effects, and cumulative effects to mammalian species is provided below.

The BSA likely provides suitable roosting habitat for foliage and tree roosting bats (will roost in woodpecker holes, under loose bark, and basal hollows as well as other cavities). In addition, open water in the vicinity (Mill Creek) likely serves as a foraging area for several species (and sources of water for species that need to drink freshwater regularly).

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (SSC)
Townsend’s Big-eared Bats are medium-sized bats, distinguished from other cooccurring bat species by their large ears and a two-pronged horseshoe-shaped lump on the muzzle. The species occurs throughout the western U.S. and Canada. In California, the species is found throughout the state with the exception of the high elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range (CDFW 2016). Townsends’ Big-eared Bats are typically associated with coastal redwood forests, foothill oak woodlands, inland deserts, pinyonjuniper and pine forests, and mixed coniferous-deciduous forests (Erickson et al. 2002, CDFW 2016). The species roosts colonially in a variety of structures including hollow trees, buildings (barns), mines, and lava tubes. Roost site fidelity is high. Maternity colonies (of females) occur between March and June (CDFW 2016). Males roost singly (Erickson et al. 2002). Females give birth to a single pup per year between May and July. The species winters in mixed sex groups in caves and lava tubes. Townsend’s Big-eared Bats feed primarily on moths (Erickson et al. 2002, CDFW 2016).

The closest known recent record is from 2018 near Fickle Hill, approximately 20.75 miles north of the API (BAMVT 2021). Additionally, an historic (1949) record exists near Falk, approximately 7.5 miles north of the API (CDFW 2021c). Suitable roosting habitat may be present in the BSA, and foraging habitat may be present in the API and BSA.

With the incorporation of avoidance and minimization measures, potential impacts to Townsend’s Big-eared Bat would remain less than significant.

Hoary Bat (SAL)
The Hoary Bat is a relatively large bat with brown to rufous fur with a white “frosting” on the tips (SBDWG 2004). They are found throughout North, Central and South America but not usually in great densities (SBDWG 2004, NatureServe 2020). The species is found throughout California with the exception of xeric desert habitats in the southeast.

The species breeds in inland forest habitat and winters along the coast and in the southern portion of the state. The species engages in seasonal movements which results in sexual segregation during the warmer months (males are found in greater numbers in western portions of the state while the females are more common in the northeast). Hoary Bats migrate between the summer and winter ranges from September through November. Mating occurs during migration or on the wintering grounds.

Females give birth to one to four pups in May through July of the following year (Harris et al. 2008a).

Natural Environment Study
NES 70 June 2022
Preferred habitat includes a mosaic of forested habitat for roosting and open/edge habitat for foraging. Hoary Bats are insectivorous and feed primarily on moths (usually over water or over the forest canopy). The species roosts solitarily in dense tree foliage typically near water (species requires water for drinking) (SBDWG 2004, Harris et al. 2008a). Threats to the species include deforestation, wind energy developments (common source of mortality for the species), and reduced prey from over application of pesticides (NatureServe 2020).

The closest known recent record is from 2018 in Humboldt Redwoods State Park, approximately 17.75 miles south of the API (BAMVT 2021). Additionally, an historic (1934) record exists from Ferndale, approximately 5.75 miles west of the API (CDFW 2021c). Suitable roosting habitat may be present in the BSA, and foraging habitat may be present in the API and BSA. With the incorporation of avoidance and minimization measures, potential impacts to Hoary Bat would remain less than significant.

Yuma Myotis (SAL)
The Yuma Myotis is a medium-sized bat with light to dark brown fur and a paler underbelly (NorCalBats 2017). The species is widespread and common throughout western North America from southern British Columbia to southern Mexico (NatureServe 2021). In California, the species is widespread throughout the state except for the desert regions. The species is thought to engage in seasonal and possibly elevational migratory movements (Harris et al. 2008b). The species feeds on moths and insects over water and other open habitat types (NatureServe 2021). Roosts include bridges, swallow nests, rock crevices, tunnels, tree cavities, and buildings (NatureServe 2021). The species mates during the fall. Females form maternity roosts in April and give birth to one pup between May through July (NatureServe 2021).

Maternity roots may include several thousand individuals and are most common in mines and caves (Harris et al. 2008b). Threats to the species include roost disturbance, roosting habitat loss, and reduced prey from over application of pesticides (NatureServe 2021).

The closest known occurrence record is from 1999 in Humboldt Redwoods State Park, approximately 11 miles south of the API (CDFW 2021c). Suitable roosting habitat may be present in the BSA, and foraging habitat may be present in the API and BSA. With the incorporation of avoidance and minimization measures, potential impacts to Yuma Myotis remain less than significant.

Survey Results
No special status bats were observed during the 2021 site visits. However, the site visits occurred during daylight hours when bat activity is known to be very low, and the survey methods were not focused on documenting bat presence. No data collection has occurred in the immediate Project vicinity (nearest bat monitoring efforts have occurred in Humboldt Redwoods State Park, approximately 17 linear miles south of the API, and surrounding Arcata, approximately 20 miles north of the API; BAMVT 2021).

Nonetheless, the BSA contains suitable habitat for a variety of special status bats (Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Hoary Bat, and Yuma Myotis), and it is anticipated that Natural Environment Study
NES 71 June 2022
there is moderate potential for these special status bat species to occur in the API and BSA during Project implementation.

The API and BSA do not overlap designated or proposed critical habitat for any federally-listed bat species.

Project Impacts
The API is unlikely to provide high-quality foraging and roosting habitat for sensitive bat species. However, the greater BSA is likely to provide foraging and roosting habitat for bats. As only small trees (<12-inch diameter at breast height [dbh]) will be removed during Project implementation, it is unlikely that any physical impacts to bat or bat roosting sites will occur. Additional avoidance and minimization measures for sensitive bat species and roosts are detailed below. With the incorporation of avoidance and minimization measures, potential impacts to special status bats would remain less than significant.

Avoidance and Minimization Efforts
Should nighttime work occur, Project-related lighting shall be minimized and focused on active construction aeras, and areas needed for safety, security or other essential requirements.

Compensatory Mitigation
The proposed Project has been designed such that Project-specific conservation measures and avoidance and minimization measures shall effectively avoid or minimize to the greatest extent feasible, affects to special status bats and their habitat. It is not anticipated that other compensatory mitigation will be required.

Natural Environment Study
NES 72 June 2022
Chapter 5 – Conclusions and Regulatory Determinations
Federal Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary
An USFWS official species list for the API was received on December 11, 2020 and updated on March 30, 2022 (USFWS 2022; Appendix E). Seven federally threatened, endangered, or candidate species, including one threatened mammal (Pacific Marten), four threatened bird species (Marbled Murrelet, Northern Spotted Owl, Western Snowy Plover, Yellow-billed Cuckoo), one candidate insect (Monarch Butterfly), and one endangered plant species (western lily) were indicated as having potential presence in the API. The CNDDB RareFind 5 database search for the Project quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads (CDFW 2021b; Appendix B) indicated an additional two federallylisted plant species (both endangered) as having potential presence in the Project vicinity (9-quad search area): Menzies’ wallflower and Beach layia. The proposed Project will have no effect on these species and their associated critical habitat.

An official NOAA Fisheries species list for the Project quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads was obtained on December 11, 2020 (NOAA Fisheries 2020; Appendix D). Four species and their associated critical habitat were indicated as having potential presence in the Project vicinity (9-quad search area): Green Sturgeon (southern DPS), Coho Salmon (southern Oregon / northern California ESU, Chinook Salmon (Coastal California ESU) and Steelhead (northern California DPS). The CNDDB RareFind 5 database search for the Project quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads (CDFW 2021b; Appendix B) indicated an additional federally-listed fish species as having potential presence in the Project vicinity (9-quad search area): Tidewater Goby. Given no inwater work, culvert replacement or modification, and channel alternation would occur, the Project will have no effect on these species or their associated critical habitat.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Consultation Summary
EFH is designated for species managed within Fisheries Management Plans under the MSFCMA. The Pacific Coast Salmon Fisheries Management Plan (PCS FMP) addresses EFH for Pacific salmonid species. EFH for Pacific salmonids is designated within the BSA of the proposed Project (e.g., Mill Creek, tributary of Strongs Creek and the Eel River). Mill Creek passes through a double box culvert under Kenmar Road within the eastern extent of the API and BSA.

The PCS FMP was created to promote sustainable salmon harvest and fisheries management across a broad geographic region. According to the PCS FMP, freshwater EFH includes “all water bodies currently or historically occupied by [Pacific Fisheries Management Council] PFMC-managed salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California; including aquatic areas above all artificial barriers that are not specifically excluded” (75 FR 75449). The plan manages Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), and Pink Salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha). Steelhead are not managed under a FMP, and are thus not discussed further here. Although Coho Salmon have not recently been documented in Mill Creek Natural Environment Study
NES 73 June 2022
(or Strongs Creek), Mill Creek is still considered to be EFH under the PCS FMP and is managed as such.

The PCS FMP designates five Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs), which include complex channels and floodplain habitats, thermal refugia, spawning habitat, estuaries, and marine and estuarine submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). The PFMC is “guided by the principle that there should be no net loss of the productive capacity of marine, estuarine, and freshwater habitats that sustain commercial, recreational, and tribal salmon fisheries beneficial to the nation” (PFMC 2014). According to the PCS FMP, adverse effects to EFH may include “direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality or quantity of EFH” (PFMC 2014).

No HAPCs were observed within the area of Mill Creek that overlaps the BSA during the reconnaissance-level Project surveys. However, it should be noted that the Stream Inventory Report of the creek indicates that Mill Creek should be managed for anadromous salmonids and some suitable habitat features are present (CDFG 2004).

As a result of construction activities, the following adverse effects could potentially occur to EFH:
• Increased turbidity and suspended sediment from work on the Kenmar Road shoulder, immediately adjacent to Mill Creek; and
• Potential contaminant releases from equipment adjacent to Mill Creek.

As no work will occur within Mill Creek or below the top of bank, no effects associated with in-water work are expected. Effects to EFH, if any, resulting from potential for sediment and contaminants to enter the creek, would be minimized through implementation of key avoidance and minimization measures (Chapter 4 – Aquatic Habitat, Regulated Waters, and Wetlands) during Project implementation, and diligent monitoring for stormwater damage post-construction will ensure that Project effects on EFH, if any, would be insignificant. No consultation with NOAA Fisheries on EFH is anticipated.

California Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary
The CESA states that all native species of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, and their habitats, threatened with extinction and those experiencing a significant decline which, if not halted, would lead to a threatened or endangered designation, will be protected or preserved. The CDFW is mandated to protect and preserve such sensitive resources and their habitats. However, CESA also allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects. CESA emphasizes early consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered, and threatened species and to develop appropriate mitigation planning to offset project-caused losses of listed species. No incidental take of CESA-listed species would occur in association with this Project.

Natural Environment Study
NES 74 June 2022
Wetlands and Other Waters Coordination Summary
The Project includes temporary and permanent impacts to jurisdictional and nonjurisdictional one- and three-parameter wetlands. All wetlands delineated within the Coastal Zone will be subject to compensatory mitigation requirements as required by the County of Humboldt through the Coastal Development Permit approval process, to be no less than 1:1.2. Other impacted wetlands, located both inside and outside the Coastal Zone, and jurisdictional to the NCRWQCB and/or the USACE will also be subject to compensatory mitigation requirements to the satisfaction of each agency, to be no less than 1:12.

Invasive Species
Implementation of Prevention of Spread of Invasive Species measures (see Chapter 4 – Special Status Plants) will avoid and minimize the spread of invasive species as required by Executive Order 13112. Invasive Himalayan blackberry and French broom were noted throughout the BSA (GHD 2021a). Removal of these invasive species is recommended for incorporation into the compensatory wetland mitigation that will be required of the Project.

Other
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
Several avian species protected under the MBTA have the potential to nest within the BSA. Avoidance and minimization measures (detailed in Chapter 4 – Discussion of Special Status Birds) will be implemented to avoid adverse effects on migratory birds.

California Fish and Game Code (FGC)
In addition to being protected by the MBTA, avian species are protected under FGC Sections 3503 and 3503.5 (protection of birds’ nests) and 3513 (taking of MBTA birds).

Several species have the potential to nest within the BSA. Avoidance and minimization measures (detailed in Chapter 4 – Discussion of Special Status Birds) will be implemented to avoid adverse effects on migratory birds.

The proposed Project does not include work within any stream which has the potential to alter the bed, channel, or bank of said stream. Additional coordination or regulations (beyond those discussed throughout this NES) are not applicable at this time. However, should the scope of the Project change significantly, enforcement of further regulations may be necessary for Project implementation.

California Coastal Act
The portion of the Project within the Coastal Zone will be subject to the requirements of a Coastal Development Permit, to be issued under the County of Humboldt via their Local Coastal Program.

Natural Environment Study
NES 75 June 2022
Chapter 6 – References
AmphibiaWeb. 2021. AmphibiaWeb. University of California, Berkeley, California, USA. http://amphibiaweb.org (03/16/2021)
Appel, C. L., W. J. Zielinski, F. V. Schlexer, R. Callas, and T. Bean. 2017.

Distribution of the North American Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) in northern California. Western Wildlife 4:17-28.

Baldwin, B. D. 2012. The Jepson Manual, Second Edition. University of California Press. Berkeley, California, USA.

Barnhart, R. A. 1991. Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss. Pages 324-336 in J. Stolz and J. Schnell, editors. The Wildlife Series: Trout. Stackpole Books.

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.

Bat Acoustic Monitoring Visualization Tool (BAMVT). 2021. A companion to BatAmp. Conservation Biology Institute, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. https://visualize.batamp.databasin.org/ (02/22/2021)
BestPlaces. 2021. Climate in Fortuna, California.
https://www.bestplaces.net/climate/city/california/fortuna#:~:text=Fortuna%2C %20California%20gets%2049%20inches,inches%20of%20snow%20per%20y ear. (02/19/2020)
Bildstein, K. L. and K. D. Meyer. 2021. Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), version 1.0. S. M. Billerman, B. K. Keeney, P. G. Rodewald, and T. S.

Schulenberg, editors. The birds of world online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.shshaw.01 (02/24/2021) Blevins, E., S. Jepsen, and S. Selvaggio. 2020. Petition to list the Western Ridged Mussel (Gonidea angulata) as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act, 16 USC § 1531 et seq. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Bumble Bee Watch. 2021. Bumble Bee Sightings Map. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon, USA.
https://www.bumblebeewatch.org/ (02/24/2021)
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2004. Stream inventory report:

Mill Creek. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Fortuna, California, USA.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. Stream inventory report:

Strongs Creek. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Fortuna, California, USA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015. Fish Species of Special Concern Accounts, 3rd Edition. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fisheries Branch, West Sacramento, Natural Environment Study
NES 76 June 2022
California, USA. Available at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/SSC/Fishes
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2016. A status review of Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in California – report to the Fish and Game Commission. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, California, USA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021a. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento, California, USA. https://wildlife.ca.gov/data/BIOS (02/19/2021)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2021b. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) RareFind 5. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento, California, USA.
https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/rarefind/view/RareFind.aspx (2/19/2021) California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2022. Special Animals List as of January 2022. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento, California, USA. (01/01/2022)
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021a. A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California, USA. http://www.cnps.org/cnps/vegetation/ (01/12/2021)
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2021b. CNPS Inventory of Rare Plants.

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California, USA. https://www.cnps.org/rare-plants/cnps-inventory-of-rare-plants (02/19/2021) California Trout (CalTrout). Unknown year. Northern California Coast Summer Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss. CalTrout, San Francisco, California, USA. https://caltrout.org/pdf/N-CA%20Coast%20Summer%20Steelhead.pdf (04/14/2021)
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). 2012. Petition to list 53 amphibians and reptiles in the United States as Threatened or Endangered Species under the Endangered Species Act. CBD, Tucson, Arizona, USA.

Chinnici, S., D. R. Dill, D. Bigger, D. Early and L. Diller (unpubl. data). Golden Eagle Surveys, Habitat Characteristics, and Nest Monitoring in Del Norte and Humboldt Counties, CA. Humboldt Redwood Company, Scotia, California; Natural Environment Study
NES 77 June 2022
Deputy District Ranger, Lower Trinity Ranger District, Six Rivers National Forest; Willow Creek, California; Green Diamond Resource Company, Korbel, California, USA.

Collins, B. W. 2004. Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service for instream fish relocation activities associated with fisheries habitat restoration program projects conducted under Department of the Amery (Permit No. 22323N) within the United States Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District during 2002 and 2003. California Department of Fish and Game, Northern California and North Coast Region, Fortuna, California, USA.

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR). 2004. Species of Interest: Pacific and Western Brook Lamprey and Freshwater Mussels Detailed Life History, Distribution, Abundance, and Other Information. CTUIR, Pendleton, Oregon, USA.

Data Basin. 2021a. Habitat Conservation Plans. Conservation Biology Institute, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
https://databasin.org/maps/new/#datasets=c116dd0d32df408cb44ece185d98 731c (5/1/2021)
Data Basin. 2021b. Essential Connectivity Areas of California (USA). Conservation Biology Institute, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. https://databasin.org/ (5/1/2021) Defenders of Wildlife (DoW). 2015. A petition to list the western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) as an endangered, or alternatively as a threatened, species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act and for the designation of critical habitat for this species. Submitted to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Defenders of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Downie, S. T., C. W. Davenport, E. Dudik, F. Yee, and J. Clements (multidisciplinary team leads). 2002. Mattole River Watershed Assessment Report.

State of California, Resources Agency and Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, California, USA.

Erickson, Gregg A., E. D. Pierson, et al. 2002. Bat and Bridges Technical Bulletin (Hitchhiker Guide to Bat Roosts). State of California, Department of Transportation, Sacramento, California, USA.
eBird. 2021. eBird: an online database of bird distribution and abundance. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. http://www.ebird.org (04/07/2021 Fishbrain. 2021. Strongs Creek. Stockholm, Sweden. https://fishbrain.com/fishingwaters/q5aUTFK8/strongs-creek (5/27/2021) Forsman, E. D. 1976. A preliminary investigation of the spotted owl in Oregon.

M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Forsman, E. D., E. C. Meslow, and H. M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the Spotted Owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64.

Natural Environment Study
NES 78 June 2022
Franklin, A. B., J. P. Ward, R. J. Gutiérrez, and G. I. Gould, Jr. 1990. Density of Northern Spotted Owls in northwest California. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:1-10.

Garrison, B. A., and A. Turner. 2020. Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia), version 1.0.

S. M. Billerman, editor. In the birds of the world online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.banswa.01 (04/14/2021)
GHD (GHD Inc.). 2016. Environmental Constraints Analysis in support of the Fortuna Highway 101/Riverwalk Area Connectivity Project. GHD, Eureka, California, USA.

GHD (GHD Inc.). 2021a. Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project Wetland Delineation Report. Prepared for the City of Fortuna. GHD, Eureka, California, USA.

GHD (GHD Inc.). 2021b. Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project Botanical Report. Prepared for the City of Fortuna. GHD, Eureka, California, USA.

GHD (GHD Inc.). 2021c. Kenmar Road and Highway 101 Interchange Project Description. Prepared for the City of Fortuna. GHD, Eureka, California, USA.

Harris, J., P. Brown, D. Alley, and R. Duke. 2008a. Life history – Yuma Myotis.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group, Sacramento, California, USA.

Harris, J., P. Brown, D. Alley, and R. Duke. 2008b. Life history – hoary bat. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, Sacramento, California, USA. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2341&inline=1 Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, R. Thorp, L. Richardson, and S. Colla. 2014. Bombus caliginosus. The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List of Threatened Species 2014, Gland, Switzerland.
https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2014-3.RLTS.T44937726A69000748.en (11/30/2020)
Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Thorp, R., Richardson, L., Colla, S., and S. Foltz Jordan. 2015. Bombus occidentalis. The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List of Threatened Species 2015, Gland, CH. e.T44937492A46440201. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-

2.RLTS.T44937492A46440201.en (11/30/2020)
Healey, M. C. 1991. The life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). C. Groot and L. Margolis, editors. Life history of Pacific salmon.

University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Natural Environment Study
NES 79 June 2022
Hobbs, D. F. 1937. The natural reproduction of quinnat salmon, brown and rainbow trout in certain New Zealand waters. New Zealand Marine Department Fisheries Bulletin 6:1-104.

Howard, J. K. 2010. Sensitive freshwater mussel surveys in the Pacific Southwest Region: assessment of conservation status. Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, California, USA.
iNaturalist. 2021. Observations. iNaturalist Department, California Academy of Sciences and National Geographic Society, San Francisco, California, USA. https://www.inaturalist.org (02/24/2021)
Jepsen, S. 2009. Species fact sheet for Western Ridged Mussel. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon, USA
Koch, J., J. Strange, and P. Williams. 2012. Bumble bees of the Western United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Francisco, California, USA.

Levine Fricke Recon (LFR). 2004. Draft Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study, Lodi Central Plume Area, Lodi, California, prepared for Guild Cleaners, Inc. and Downey Brand LLP.

Lichvar et al. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. U.S.

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/search/asset:asset?t:ac=$N/1012381 (04/30/2021)
Marriott, D. 1997. Where to see the Monarchs in California, first edition. The Monarch Program, California Monarch Studies, Inc.

McCrimmon Jr., D. A., J. C. Ogden, G. T. Bancroft, A. Martínez-Vilalta, A. Motis, G. M. Kirwan, and P. F. D. Boesman. 2020. Great Egret (Ardea alba), version

1.0. S. M. Billerman, editor. In birds of the world online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.greegr.01 (02/24/2021)
Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, USA.

Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, E. D. Wikramanayake, and J. E. Williams. 1995.

Fish species of special concern. State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California, USA. Final report for contract, (2128IF).

Moyle, P.B., J. A. Israel, and S. E. Purdy. 2008. Salmon, steelhead, and trout in California: Status of an emblematic fauna. A report commissioned by California Trout. California Trout, San Francisco, California, USA.

Natural Environment Study
NES 80 June 2022
Nafis, G. 2021. CaliforniaHerps: A guide to the amphibians and reptiles of California. http://www.californiaherps.com (02/24/2021) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Unknown year. Northern California Steelhead. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, NMFS, Southwest Region, Arcata, California, USA. https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/data-andtools/Salmon_CVA/pdf/Salmon_CVA_Name_Northern_California_steelhead. pdf (02/24/2021)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service’s final programmatic biological opinion of NOAA Restoration Center’s proposed funding and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed permitting of restoration projects within the National Marine Fisheries Service’s Northern California Office jurisdictional area. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, NMFS, Arcata, California.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2014. Final Recovery Plan for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). National Marine Fisheries Service.

Arcata, California, USA.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2016. Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast recovery domain 5-year review: summary and evaluation of Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon ESU. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest region, Arcata, California, USA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2007.

Federal recovery outline for the evolutionarily significant unit of California coastal Chinook Salmon. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Rosa, California, USA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2011. 5-year review: summary and evaluation of southern Oregon/northern California coast Coho Salmon ESU. Southern Oregon/northern California coast recovery domain. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Long Beach, California, USA.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2020. West Coast Region California Species List. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
https://archive.fisheries.noaa.gov/wcr/maps_data/california_species_list_tools .html (12/11/2020)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2021a.

Essential fish habitat mapper. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Natural Environment Study
NES 81 June 2022
Fisheries, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/application/efhmapper/index.html (02/24/2021) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2021b.

Critical Habitat-Salmon and Steelhead (all West Coast). U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Fisheries, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. https://www.Fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/map/critical-habitat-Salmon-andsteelhead-all-west-coast (03/30/2021) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. 2021c.

Salmon and steelhead fisheries on the West Coast.
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/west-coast/sustainable-fisheries/salmon-andsteelhead-fisheries-west-coast (04/19/2021) Native Fish Society (NFS). 2020. New Science Shines Light on Eel River Steelhead Ecology. NFS, Oregon City, Oregon, USA.

NatureServe. 2021. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version

7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA. http://explorer.natureserve.org (4/14/2021)
Nawa, R. K., J. E. Vaile, P. Lind, T. M. K. Nadananda, T. McKay, C. Elkins, B.

Bakke, J. Miller, W. Wood, K. Beardslee, and D. Wales. 2003. A petition for rules to list: Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata); River Lamprey (Lampetra ayresi); Western Brook Lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni); and Kern Brook Lamprey (Lampetrahubbsi) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/fish/Pacific_lamprey/pdfs/petition.pd f (10/15/2020)
NorCalBats. 2017. Bat Information. Northern California Bats, Davis, California, USA. http://norcalbats.org/tag/yuma-myotis/ (4/14/2021) Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2014. Appendix A to the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery. Identification and description of essential fish habitat, adverse impacts, and recommended conservation measures for salmon.

PFMC, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Pelton, E., S. Jepsen, C. Schultz, C. Fallon, and S. H. Black 2016. State of the Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in California. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.

Rathbun, G. B., N. Seipel, and D. Holland. 1992. Nesting behavior and movements of western pond turtles. Clemmys marmorata. Southwestern Naturalist 37:319-324.

Reese, D. A., and H. H. Welsh, Jr. 1997. Use of terrestrial habitat by western pond turtles, Clemmys marmorata: implications for management. Proceedings of an international conference on conservation, restoration, and management of tortoises and turtles. State University of New York, Albany, New York, USA.

Natural Environment Study
NES 82 June 2022
Rich, A. A. 1997. Testimony of Alice A. Rich, Ph.D. regarding water rights applications for the Delta Wetlands Project. California Department. of Fish and Game Exhibit DFG-7. Submitted to State Water Resources Control Board.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evans. 2009. A manual of California vegetation, second edition. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California, USA.

Shuford, W. D., G. W. Page, and C. M. Hickey. 1995. Distribution and abundance of Snowy Plovers wintering in the interior of California and adjacent states.

Western Birds 26:82-98.

Spencer, W.D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. RustigianRomsos, J. Strittholt, M. Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California essential habitat connectivity project: A strategy for conserving a connected California.

California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highways Administration.

South Dakota Bat Working Group (SDBWG). 2004. South Dakota bat management plan. South Dakota Bat Working Group, Wildlife Division, South Dakota, USA.

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Stillwater Sciences. 2006. Upper Penitencia creek: limiting factors analysis. Final technical report. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, Oakland, California, USA.

Stillwater Sciences. 2010. Pacific lamprey in the Eel River basin: a summary of current information and identification of research needs. Prepared for the Wiyot Tribe, Loleta, California. Stillwater Sciences, Arcata, California, USA.

Stillwater Sciences and Wiyot Tribe Natural Resources Department. 2017. Status, distribution, and population of origin of green sturgeon in the Eel River: results of 2014–2016 studies. Prepared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries Species Recovery Grants to Tribes, Silver Springs, Maryland, USA. Stillwater Sciences, Arcata, California and Wiyot Tribe, Natural Resources Department, Loleta, California, USA.

Streif, B. 2007. Pacific Lamprey Fact Sheet. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Fish and Wildlife Service Office, Oregon, USA.

Thomson, R. C., A. N. Wright, and H. B. Shaffer. 2016. California amphibian and reptile species of special concern. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.

Trotter, P. C. 1989. Coastal Cutthroat Trout: a life history compendium.

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118(5):463-473.

Natural Environment Study
NES 83 June 2022
Trotter, P.C. 1997. Sea-run cutthroat trout: life history profile. Pages 7-15 in J.D.

Hall, P.A. Bisson and R.E. Gresswell, editors. Sea-run cutthroat trout: biology, management, and future conservation. American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Tuttle, D. C., R. Stein, and G. Lester. 1997. Snowy plovers nesting on Eel River gravel bars, Humboldt County. Western Birds 28:174-176.

UC Davis. 2021a. Fish Species by Watersheds: 'Strongs Creek-Eel River180101051102'. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Davis, California, USA.
http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/location/?ds=698&reportnumber=1293&catcol=4712 &categorysearch=%27Strongs%20Creek%2DEel%20River%2D18010105110 2%27 (5/27/2021)
UC Davis. 2021b. Western Brook Lamprey. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Davis, California, USA. http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/species/?uid=177&ds=698 (05/27/2021) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual, Tech. Rep 4-87-1. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Unknown year. Western Brook Lamprey Fact Sheet. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Fish and Wildlife Service Office, Oregon, USA. https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/WesternBrookLamprey_fi nal.pdf (05/27/2021)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Habitat Conservation Plan for the Properties of The Pacific Lumber Company, Scotia Pacific Holding Company, and Salmon Creek Corporation. Established February 1999, Revised 12 August 2015. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California, USA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021a. ECOS - Environmental Conservation Online System. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California, USA. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/ (04/07/2021)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2021a. National Wetland Mapper. U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, District of Columbia, USA. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html (04/07/2021) Natural Environment Study
NES 84 June 2022
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2022. IPaC - Information for Planning and Consultation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California, USA. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (03/30/2022)
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 1997. Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) natural history. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, California, USA.

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2016. Foothill Yellow-legged Frog conservation assessment in California. General Technical Report: PSW-GTR-248. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, California, USA. Western Bat Working Group. 2017. Western Bat Species. Western Bat Working Group, Rapid City, South Dakota, USA. http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/ (04/14/2021)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. USGS 11469000 MATTOLE R NR PETROLIA CA gage record. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, Sacramento, California, USA. https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/dv/?site_no=11469000&agency_cd= USGS&referred_module=sw (04/21/2021)
Vennesland, R. G. and R. W. Butler. 2020. Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), version 1.0. A. F. Poole, editor. In the birds of the world online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.grbher3.01 (11/30/2020)
Wallace, M. 2010. Juvenile Coho Salmon use of the tidal portions of Humboldt Bay tributaries. Presented at the Humboldt Bay Symposium, April 23, 2010.

Eureka, California, USA.

Wallace, M. and S. Allen. 2009. Juvenile salmonid use of the tidal portions of selected tributaries to Humboldt Bay, California. Final Report for contract P0610522. State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Pacific States Marine Fisheries, Oroville, California, USA.

Weitkamp, L. A., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G.

Kope, and R. S. Waples. 1995. Status review of Coho Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-24. NMFS, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.

Xerces Society. 2014. Before the Secretary of the Interior – Petition to Protect the Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus plexippus) under the Endangered Species Act. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Natural Environment Study
NES 85 June 2022
Xerces Society. 2020. Western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis). Xerces Society, Portland, Oregon, California, USA. https://xerces.org/endangeredspecies/species-profiles/at-risk-bumble-bees/western-bumblebee#:~:text=Bombus%20occidentalis%20occurs%20along%20the,Pacific%20 Northwest%20and%20into%20Alaska (11/30/2020)
Xerces Society. 2022. Find an Overwintering Site. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, Oregon, USA.
https://www.westernmonarchcount.org/find-an-overwintering-site-near-you/ (03/02/2022)
Yoshiyama, R. M., and P. B. Moyle. 2010. Historical review of Eel River anadromous salmonids, with emphasis on Chinook salmon, coho salmon and steelhead. University of California, Center for Watershed Sciences, Davis, California, USA. A Report Commissioned by California Trout, San Francisco, California, USA.

Natural Environment Study
NES 86 June 2022
Appendix A - Figures
Natural Environment Study
NES 87 June 2022
Appendix B - CNDDB Database Search Results
Natural Environment Study
NES 88 June 2022
Appendix C - CNPS Database Search Results
Natural Environment Study
NES 89 June 2022
Appendix D - NOAA FISHERIES Official Species List
Natural Environment Study
NES 90 June 2022
Appendix E - USFWS IPAC Official Species List
Natural Environment Study
NES 91 June 2022
Appendix F – Site Visit Photographs
Natural Environment Study
NES 92 June 2022
Appendix G - On-site Wildlife Species List
Table 13: Wildlife Species Detected On-site
Common Name Scientific Name Special Status
Avian Species
Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura MBTA/FGC
Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata MBTA/FGC
Red-shouldered Hawk (2) Buteo lineatus MBTA/FGC
Chestnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens MBTA/FGC
Hutton’s Vireo Vireo huttoni MBTA/FGC
Pacific Wren Troglodytes pacificus MBTA/FGC
White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys MBTA/FGC
Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura MBTA/FGC
Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis MBTA/FGC
American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos MBTA/FGC
Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia MBTA/FGC
Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla MBTA/FGC American Robin Turdus migratorius MBTA/FGC
Amphibian Species
Pacific Chorus Frog Pseudacris regilla None
Key:

MBTA = federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
FGC = California Fish and Game Code, including the California Migratory Bird Protection Act Natural Environment Study
NES 93 June 2022
Appendices
City of Fortuna Kenmar Road and US 101 Interchange Project This document is in draft form. The contents, including any opinions, conclusions or recommendations contained in, or which may be implied from, this draft document must not be relied upon. GHD reserves the right, at any time, without notice, to modify or retract any part or all of the draft document. To the maximum extent permitted by law, GHD disclaims any responsibility or liability arising from or in connection with this draft document.

Appendix F
Wetland Delineation Report
Kenmar Road/Highway 101
Interchange Project
Wetland Delineation Report
September 2021
Revised: October 2022
GHD | WetlandDelineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 11214735 | i Table of Contents

1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1 Project Description....................................................................................................................1 Summary...................................................................................................................................1 Regulatory Background ............................................................................................................2

1.3.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................2

1.3.2 State ....................................................................................................................................3

1.3.3 Eel River Area Local Coastal Plan ......................................................................................4

2. Methodology........................................................................................................................................5 Wetland Delineation Approach .................................................................................................5 Botanical methodology..............................................................................................................5 Soils Methodology.....................................................................................................................6

2.3.1 Existing Soils Information....................................................................................................6 Hydrology Methodology ............................................................................................................7

3. Results ................................................................................................................................................8 Three-Parameter Wetlands ......................................................................................................8

3.1.1 Wetland 1 (“W1”).................................................................................................................8

3.1.2 Wetland 2 (“W2”).................................................................................................................9

3.1.3 Wetland 3 (“W3”)...............................................................................................................10 Other Waters of the U.S. and/or State....................................................................................10

3.2.1 Mill Creek...........................................................................................................................10

3.2.2 Other Intermittent Waters ..................................................................................................11 One-Parameter Wetlands .......................................................................................................11

3.3.1 Shining Willow Groves ......................................................................................................11

3.3.2 Non-native Pasture............................................................................................................12 Other Non-Jurisdictional Features ..........................................................................................12

3.4.1 Impoundments...................................................................................................................12 Uplands Sampling Points........................................................................................................13

3.5.1 Upland 1 ............................................................................................................................13

3.5.2 Upland 2 ............................................................................................................................13

3.5.3 Upland 3 ............................................................................................................................13

3.5.4 Upland 4 ............................................................................................................................14

4. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................14

5. Special Terms and Conditions ..........................................................................................................15 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................................15 Scope and Limitations.............................................................................................................15

6. References........................................................................................................................................15 GHD | WetlandDelineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 11214735 | ii Appendices
Appendix A – Figures
Figure 1. Project Location Map
Figure 2. Regional Map
Figure 3. Wetland Delineation
Figure 4. Coastal Zone Location Map
Figure 5. NRCS Soils Map
Figure 6. NWI Wetlands
Figure 7. FEMA Flood Zones
Appendix B – Data Sheets
Appendix C – On-site Plant List
Appendix D – Rapid Assessment Forms
Appendix E – Site Photographs
Appendix F – NRCS Custom Soil Resource Report
Appendix G – Record of Climatological Observations and WETS Table GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 1

1. Introduction
GHD prepared this wetland delineation report of wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. and/or State, and accompanying appendices on behalf of the City of Fortuna, in support of the proposed Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project (Project) within the city of Fortuna (Appendix A Figure 1). This report supports the Project’s environmental documentation, permitting, and construction planning as deemed appropriate. The proposed Project Area includes the proposed construction area, staging areas and area around access routes to construct the proposed interchange improvement between Kenmar Road and Highway 101 (Appendix A Figure 2). This report is subject to, and must be read in conjunction with, the limitations set out in Section 5, Special Terms and Conditions, and the assumptions and qualifications contained throughout the report.

Project Description
The City of Fortuna (City) proposes to install two proposed roundabout improvements at the US 101 Kenmar Interchange. One roundabout is located at the intersection of Kenmar Road , Eel River Drive, and the US 101 northbound ramps. The second roundabout is located at the intersection of Kenmar Road, Riverwalk Drive, and US 101 southbound ramps. The proposed roundabouts consist of both single and/or double lanes, with access to Kenmar Road, Highway 101, and its adjacent streets, Eel River Drive and Riverwalk Drive.

Summary
GHD conducted the wetland delineation fieldwork on February 24, 2021 and April 8, 2021. The delineation was conducted within the Project Area (or Project Study Boundary [PSB]), as shown in Appendix A, Figure 2. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) three-parameter wetlands were mapped based on wetland indicative vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. The western extent of the Project overlaps the Coastal Zone, specifically within the Appeal and Local Jurisdictions, which is regulated by Humboldt County under the Eel River Area Plan under the Coastal Act (the Appeal Jurisdiction may be appealed to the Coastal Commission). Therefore oneparameter wetlands were also mapped per the Eel River Area Plan. Both three- and one-parameter wetlands, and Other Waters of the U.S, were mapped as shown in Appendix A, Figure 3.

The wetland delineation identified potenital three-parameter wetlands with hydric soil, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrology indicators located west of Mill Creek, along the boundary between the agricultural pasture and Riverwalk Drive and Highway 101, and noth of Riverwalk Drive in roadside areas. The total area of three-parameter wetlands within the Project Area is 13,234 ft2(0.30 acres) (Figure 3). Mill Creek flows under Kenmar Road and was delineated by marking Ordinary High Water (OHW) indicators in the field; this perennial stream occupies 1,245 ft2 of the Project Area. Mill Creek flows into Strongs Creek north of the Project Area boundary. Two intermittent roadside ditches flow west of Highway 101 and were delineated by marking OHW indicators in the field, and occupy 545 ft2 (Ditch 1), and 188 ft2(Ditch 2). These ditches flow into the low-elevation pasture (below Wetland 3), where water either collects and percolates into the water table (during the dry season), or outlets into the Eel River via a drainage swale and culvert to the northwest (during the rainy season).

The Project Area also contains potential one-parameter wetlands within the Coastal Zone based on the dominance of Facultative (FAC) or wetter vegetation. Wetlands with at least one parameter GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 2 (vegetation, soils, or hydrology) may be regulated within the Coastal Zone. One-parameter wetlands within the Coastal Zone included willow thickets characterized by shining willow (Salix lasiandra), Arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis), and the upper edge of the nonnative pasture. Shining willow groves are considered Sensitive Natural Communities (SNCs). Areas with FAC or wetter dominant vegetation may be regulated under the Eel River Area Plan as oneparameter wetlands. Sensitive Natural Communities and/or riparian areas may also be regulated as upland Enviornmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) when they are within the Coastal Zone.

Regulatory Background

1.3.1 Federal
Waters of the United States
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 40 CFR § 230.3 states the following:

The term waters of the United States means:
(1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
(i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or
(ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce;
(4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition;
(5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section; (6) The territorial sea;
(7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. (40 CFR § 230.3).

Wetlands Definition
40 CFR § 230.3 continues and defines, “(t) The term wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas” (40 CFR § 230.3).

GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 3 Wetlands Delineation Manual
The 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Weltand Delineation Manual provides guidelines and methods to determine whether an area is a wetland subject to federal regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The manual specifies that wetland hydrology, soil, and vegetation indicators must be present to identify a wetland (USACE 1987, p. 10). In addition, the Wetlands Delineation Manual states, “If hydrophytic vegetation is being maintained only because of maninduced wetland hydrology that would no longer exist if the activity (e.g., irrigation) were to be terminated, the area should not be considered a wetland,” (USACE 1987).

Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Wetland Classification Standard The Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (FGDC 2013), based on Cowardin et al. (1979), states that wetlands must have at least one of the three wetland attributes: predominantly hydrophytic vegetation, predominantly hydric soil, and hydrology.

However, they state that all available information should be used, and all three attributes should be considered if they are present (FGDC 2013).

1.3.2 State
The State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) April 2019 Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State says the following:

An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.

The Water Code defines “waters of the state” broadly to include “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” “Waters of the state” includes all “waters of the U.S.” The following wetlands are waters of the state:

1. Natural wetlands,

2. Wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the state, and

3. Artificial wetlands that meet any of the following criteria:
a. Approved by an agency as compensatory mitigation for impacts to other waters of the state, except where the approving agency explicitly identifies the mitigation as being of limited duration;
b. Specifically identified in a water quality control plan as a wetland or other water of the state; c. Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape; or d. Greater than or equal to one acre in size, unless the artificial wetland was constructed, and is currently used and maintained, primarily for one or more of the following purposes (i.e., the following artificial wetlands are not waters of the state unless they also satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3a, or 3b):
i. Industrial or municipal wastewater treatment or disposal, ii. Settling of sediment,
iii. Detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial stormwater permitting program,
iv. Treatment of surface waters,
v. Agricultural crop irrigation or stock watering,
GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 4 vi. Fire suppression,
vii. Industrial processing or cooling,
viii. Active surface mining – even if the site is managed for interim wetlands functions and values,
ix. Log storage,
x. Treatment, storage, or distribution of recycled water, or xi. Maximizing groundwater recharge (this does not include wetlands that have incidental groundwater recharge benefits); or
xii. Fields flooded for rice growing.

All artificial wetlands that are less than an acre in size and do not satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3.a, 3.b, or 3.c are not waters of the state. If an aquatic feature meets the wetland definition, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the wetland is not a water of the state” (SWRCB 2019).

The February 2020 Draft Guidance State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State further clarifies as follows:

Human activity can cause changes to the surrounding landscape (e.g., grading activities, road construction, direct hydromodification) such that wetlands form where wetlands did not previously exist. Where such artificial wetlands are now a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape, and are not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, they are waters of the state. By requiring that the wetlands are relatively permanent, the framework excludes wetlands that are temporary or transitory. That they are part of the natural landscape also indicates the relative permanence of the wetlands and suggests that the wetland is self-sustaining without ongoing operation and maintenance activities, and provides similar ecosystem services as natural wetlands. By way of example, this category of wetlands includes situations where water flow is permanently redirected as the result of human activity, such as grading in another area, such that new wetlands form in areas that were previously dry. These wetlands may not be natural wetlands because they result from human activity and they were not formed by modifying a water of the state (rather they were an indirect result), but nevertheless they take on the function of natural wetlands such that they should be considered waters of the state. This category would not include artificial wetlands constructed for specific purposes listed in section II.3.d because the construction of the artificial wetlands would be too recent to be deemed “historic” and the artificial wetland would likely require ongoing maintenance such that they would not be deemed “relatively permanent,” and/or the artificial wetland is not part of the “natural landscape” (SWRCB 2020).

1.3.3 Eel River Area Local Coastal Plan
See Appendix A, Figure 5 for the portion of the Project Area that is within the Appeal and Local Jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone, which is regulated by Humboldt County under the Eel River Area Local Coastal Plan (Eel River Area Plan) under the the Coastal Act. The Appeal Jurisdiction is appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

The Eel River Area Plan (certified in 1982) uses the Coastal Act definition of wetlands (Ch.3, p.30), and states “No land use or development shall be permitted in areas adjacent to coastal wetlands, called Wetland Buffer Areas, which degrade the wetland or detract from the natural resource value” (Ch.3, p.31, Humboldt County 2014). The Local Coastal Plan provides specific examples of ESHA within the Eel River Area coastal zone (Ch.3, p.28):
a. Environmentally sensitive habitats within the Eel River Planning Area include:

GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 5 (1) Rivers, creeks, and associated riparian habitats;
(2) Estuaries, sloughs, and wetlands;.
(3) Rookeries for herons and egrets;
(4) Harbor seal pupping areas;
(5) Critical habitats for rare or endangered species listed on State or Federal lists.

2. Methodology
Wetland Delineation Approach
GHD environmental scientists conducted the wetland delineation on February 24, 2021 and April 8, 2021, with an additional hydrology check after heavy rains on March 10, 2021 and site visit on April 27, 2021. In early August 2022, the Project Area boundary was modified slightly based on advanced engineering design. Misha Schwarz, Professional Wetland Scientist and Certified Professional Soil Scientist, revisited the site on the September 9, 2022 to investigate the change in the Project Area with regard to one and three-parameter wetlands. To define a wetland, the USACE requires that vegetation, soil, and hydrology (three-parameters) all show wetland attributes (USACE 1987; USACE 2010). The CCC requires only one-parameter of the three to be present in order to define the site as a wetland (14 CCR 13577). The wetland delineation used USACE criteria from the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (USACE 2010). The current standard field forms provided by the USACE (2010) were used to collect vegetation, soils, and hydrology data (Appendix B).

In potential three-parameter wetland areas, vegetation, soil, and hydrology data were collected in a transect across the upland/wetland boundary with two plots (upland/wetland) per transect. The naming convention used on datasheets to designate upland or wetland plots associated with a transect is -U or -W, respectively.

One-parameter and three-parameter wetland/upland boundaries and plots were mapped in the field with a Eos Arrow 100 Submeter Global Positioning System (GPS) Reciever with Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) and an iPad running ArcGIS Collector software. The wetland/upland boundary was recorded with the GPS unit as needed to map the wetland’s spatial extent. The points were then connected in the office using ArcMap software for figure creation and the boundaries were clipped to the extent of the Project Area.

Each three-parameter wetland area was designated with a number (e.g., W1). The wetland points were also labeled with their respective wetland number. In addition to the wetland sampling points, two upland sampling points were described. These were labeled beginning with a “U” and numbered in sequence (e.g., U1, U2). The upland sampling points were completed to confirm and document the absence of any wetland indicators (soils, hydrology, and vegetation). Appendix B contains all datasheets recorded during the delineation.

Botanical methodology
Vegetation data collection consisted of listing the dominant species in the herbaceous, shrub, and tree layer within a standard-sized plot determined by the strata layer. Nomenclature follows The Jepson Manual (Baldwin et al. 2012), which was cross-walked to federal standard nomenclature to GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 6 identify the indicator status. The species’ wetland indicator status for the Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region was denoted in the respective column, using the standard reference:

State of California 2016 Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al. 2016). This list classifies species based on the probability that they are found in wetlands (USACE 1987) as follows:
• Obligate (OBL): almost always in wetlands (99% probability) • Facultative Wetland (FACW): usually occurring in wetlands (67% to 99% probability) • Facultative (FAC): commonly occurring in wetlands and uplands (34% to 66% probability of occurring in wetlands)
• Facultative Upland (FACU): usually occurring in uplands (1% to 33% probability of occurring in wetlands)
• Upland (UPL): upland obligate, rarely in wetlands (1% in wetlands) Species that do not appear on the list are considered to be in the upland category (Lichvar et al. 2016). Standard procedures for documenting hydrophytic vegetation indicators were used per the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010). A complete list of plants documented at the site with respective wetland indicator status is included as Appendix C. Vegetation communities that may be regulated under the Coastal Act, and/or the Eel River Area Plan were documented according to the Manual of Calfornia Vegetation at the Alliance level (Sawyer et al. 2009). Sensitive Natural Communities overlapping the Project Area that may qualify as oneparameter wetlands were characterized using Rapid Assessment protocol (Appendix D). Site photographs have been included as Appendix E. The separate Botanical Report will contain the location and extent of mapped vegetation alliances and Sensitive Natural Communities within the Project Area.

Soils Methodology
Hydric soils were defined based on the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2010) procedures in combination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) definitions presented in Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA/NRCS 2018). Soil pits were dug to an approximate depth of 14 inches. Data on soil color, texture, and redoximorphic features were recorded. Any observed redoximorphic features (iron concentrations) were noted along with their percentage within the soil matrix, and care was taken to distinguish chromas of 1 and 2 indicative of an iron-depleted soil within 12 inches of the soil surface (USACE 2010; USDA/NRCS 2016).

The Munsell Soil Color Book (COLOR, M. 2000) was used to describe the soil colors for the entire depth of the test pit. Moist, natural soil aggregate (ped) surfaces, which had not been crushed, were used to determine the soil’s color. Soils with low chroma were verified as being hydric or upland with Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (Version 8.2, 2018).

2.3.1 Existing Soils Information
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) identifies three soil units within the Project Area (Figure 5 in Appendix A and NRCS report in Appendix F). A brief map unit description, as generated by the NRCS, is provided for each soil unit GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 7 below (NRCS 2021). Although NRCS soil mapping is informative, the scale is generally too broad to definitively characterize potential wetlands. Please see the full report included as Appendix F for complete details.

Dungan, 0 to 2 percent slopes
The Dungan 0 to 2 percent slopes map unit composition contains: 85% Dungan and similar soils, and 15% minor components (consisting of 7% Ferndale, 5% Arlynda and 3% Russ). Dungan soils can be found on alluvial fans and fan remnants and floodplain steps, and the parent material is alluvium derived from mixed sources. Dungan consists of silt loam in the top horizons, with fine sandy loam followed by silty clay loam at the deepest horizon. Dungan has a land capability classification (LCC) of 1 if irrigated, and 2s if not irrigated, and is not rated as a hydric soil. They are well drained, and the depth to water table is 39-61 inches. This soil type is located in the western and southern extent of the Project and overlaps into the Coastal Zone (see Figure 5).

Fiedler-Petellen-Nanningcreek complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes The map unit composition is as follows: 32% Fiedler and similar soils, 28% Petellen and similar soils, 25% Nanningcreek and similar soils, and 15% minor components (consisting of 10% Rootcreek, and 5% Salmoncreek). Fiedler, Petellen and Nanningcreek soils can be found on mountain slopes, and the parent material is colluvium derived from conglomerate and colluvium derived from sandstone (for Nanningcreek). Fiedler consists of organic matter and loam in the top horizons (down to 20 inches). Petellen consists of an organic layer above gravelly loam, and very cobbly loam (down to 60 inches). Nanningcreek consists of loam to approximately 20 inches depth, with sandy clay loam beneath it down to approximately 60 inches. Fiedler, Petellen and Nanningcreek soils are not rated as hydric soils. Fiedler and Petellen soils are well drained and depth to water table is more than 80 inches. Nanningcreek soil is considered moderately well drained and the depth to the water table is 20 to 39 inches. This soil complex is located in the eastern extent of the Project and is outside of the Coastal Zone (see Figures 4 and 5).

Urban land-Friendlycity association, 0 to 2 percent slopes The map unit composition is as follows: 65% Urban land, residential, 25% Friendlycity and similar soils, and 10% minor components (consisting of 4% Canalschool, 3% Carlotta, and 3% Ferndale).

Urban land, residential, and Friendlycity occur on terraces and alluvial fans, and Friendlycity soil originates from alluvium derived from metamorphic and sedimentary rock. The typical soil profile of Urban land, residential, is not listed. The typical soil profile of Friendlycity includes silt loam to approximately 6 inches followed by silty clay loam to approximately 55 inches. Urban land and Friendlycity soils are not hydric soils, and Friendlycity soils are considered moderately well drained and the typical depth to water table is 20-39 inches. This soil association comprises 82% of the Project and is located in the central portion of the Project boundary, within and outside of the Coastal Zone (see Figure 5).

Hydrology Methodology
GHD delineated wetlands within the area on February 24th and April 8 th
, 2021, during and near the
end of the wet season, respectively. An additional field check for hydrology indicators and hydrological connectivity was conducted on March 10, 2021 after a period of high precipitation. A WETS table showing climate data for the Woodley Island, Eureka Station is provided in Appendix G. Aerial photography and the National Wetland Inventory Mapper were referenced before conducting fieldwork (Appendix A, Figure 6) (NWI 2021). The flood hazard map is also included in Appendix A, Figure 7 (FEMA 2021). Wetland hydrology indicators, such as drainage patterns, GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 8 material deposits, soil saturation, high water table, or surface water presence, were recorded in the field.

The northeastern portion of the Project Area is surficially hydrologically connected to the lower Eel River watershed via Mill Creek. The remainder of the Project Area drains via a network of ditches and culverts to an agricultural field used for grazing, where water percolates the soil and drains subsurface to the Eel River. High levees surrounding the Eel River likely prevent runoff from the pasture and adjacent Kenmar interchange into the Eel River.

3. Results
Weather conditions during field visits were mostly clear and sunny, and the February survey took place following a period of wet weather (3.14 inches of precipitation recorded within the previous two weeks). The Project Area contains two three-parameter, USACE jurisdictional wetlands, and two one-parameter wetlands that meet CCC and local requirements based only upon hydrophytic vegetation (FAC or wetter). The Project Area boundary was modified after this wetland delineation, and an additional three-parameter wetland (“W2”) was formerly within the Project Area boundary and not is not included the Project Area but is included in this report and figures. Willow thickets along the western slope, and the upper edge of the non-native pasture occurring in the Coastal Zone were mapped as one-parameter wetlands based on the dominant vegetation. Upland sampling points were also described within areas of planned disturbance to confirm and document the absence of wetland indicators in these areas. Appendix A Figure 3 shows the results of the three-parameter wetland delineation, other waters, and one-parameter wetlands within the Coastal Zone. Summaries and potential jurisdictional status of each wetland or other water is presented in Table 3-1 below.

Three-Parameter Wetlands
A small patch of three-parameter wetlands were observed in the northern portion of the Project Area (“W1”), and a larger patch of three-parameter wetlands was observed in the western extent of the Project Area (“W3”). Wetland 2 (“W2”) is located north of W3, and is outside of the Project Area boundary (see Appendix A, Figure 3). Summaries of each three-parameter wetland are provided below, and square footage is provided in Table 3-1. Please see the USACE Data Forms in Appendix B for more details.

3.1.1 Wetland 1 (“W1”)
Wetland 1 was identified north of Kenmar Road around the gated portion of Fortuna Millsite in the northeastern portion of the Project Area. Wetland 1 was observed outside of the Coastal Zone.

Wetland 1 consists of two extents which are hydrologically connected by a culvert under Eel River Drive. The eastern extent is a constructed depression which appeared to collect runoff from surrounding pavement within the depression. The western extent also appeared to be a depression, however did not resemble to be a constructed depression like the eastern extent. During large storm events, Wetland 1 may overflow into an upland ditch located to the west (Up-3). Hydrological connection between Wetland 1 and the upland ditch was not observed during the delineation or hydrology check after heavy rains on March 10, 2021. Wetland 1 terminates near the rail line to the west. Wetland 1 was observed to collectively occupy 1,128 ft2 of the Project Area.

The area around the eastern extent of Wetland 1 contained mature and young shining willow and Arroyo willow trees, and is thereby classified according to the Cowardin classification system as a GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 9 Palustrine Forested wetland (PFO). The area around the remainder of Wetland 1 (western extent) was dominated by shrubs and is thereby classified according to Cowardin classification system as Palustrine Scrub-Shrub (PSS) (FGDC 2013). Wetland 1 consisted of saturated soil with hydrophytic vegetation adjacent to the ponded water. The vegetation was characterized by Arroyo willow (FACW), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus, FAC), and bog rush (Juncus hesperius, FACW). Soil in Wetland 1 consisted of a Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) with a top horizon (0-3”) of organic material, above a horizon (3-10”) of sandy silt with gravel with a matrix color of Gley1 3/10Y with no redoximorphic features.

Indicators of wetland hydrology at the site included a high water table (A2), and saturation (A3).

Please see attached data form for sample point W1T1-W in Appendix B for additional details.

Wetland 1 should not be considered under the jurisdiction of the USACE because it is constructed, it is less than one acre, and was not hydrologically connected to a navigable waterway. Wetland 1 is likely to be under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB because it is an artificial wetland that resulted from historic human activity that has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape and is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance (Water of the State definition 3(c)).

Wetland 1 is not within the jurisdiction of Humboldt County’s Local Coastal Program or appealable to the CCC because it is outside the Coastal Zone (see Table 3-1).

3.1.2 Wetland 2 (“W2”)
Wetland 2 was observed to occupy 3,425 ft2 and was identified along and adjacent to a gravel access road in an agricultural field formerly within the western extent of the Project Area (and currently located outside of the Project Area boundary). The Project would have no effect on Wetland 2, and therefore details on Wetland 2 are provided for informational purposes only.

Wetland 2 appeared as a constructed feature that has a seasonal surficial hydrological connection with the Eel River, a navigable water. No rooted woody vegetation was observed along the access road, and this area is classified according to Cowardin classification system as a Palustrine Emergent wetland with persistent vegetation (PEM1c) (FGDC 2013). Predominantly outside the Project Area, the agricultural field is largely classified as Palustrine Emergent freshwater wetland (PEM1c) according to the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapper (USFWS 2021). A small area within the Project Area southwest of the interchange is included in the Palustrine Emergent freshwater wetland complex mapped by NWI.

The vegetated area around Wetland 2 contained herbaceous and hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil and wetlands hydrology. Vegetation at the sample plot location was characterized by tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis, FACW), waxy mannagrass (Glyerica declinata, FACW), hairy buttercup (Ranunculus sardous, FAC), pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium, OBL), creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera, FAC), and common spikerush (Eleocharis palustris, OBL). Wetland 2 met the criteria for the hydric soil indicator Redox Dark Surface (F6). Soil was described as very dark with redoximorphic features atop (and in some areas mixing with), an old gravel road bed. Soil consisted of a top horizon (0-2.5”) of gravelly silty loam with a matrix color of 10YR 2/1 and 2% redoximorphic features with a color of 7.5YR 5/8), a very gravelly silt loam horizon (2.5-6”) with the same matrix color (10YR 2/1) and 30% redoximorphic features with the same color (7.5YR 5/8), and a gravelly aggregate base (6-10”) with the same matrix color (10YR 2/1) and 15% redoximorphic features of the same color (7.5YR 5/8).

Wetland hydrology indicators included Surface Water (A1), and Algal Mat or Crust (B4). It was noted that surface water was previously observed in February and March (2021), and the seasonally ponded wetland had no surface water by the April 8th delineation. Wetland 2 is GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 10 ephemerally connected to Wetland 3, and drainage into Wetland 3 was observed after heavy rains on March 10, 2021. Algae was present, and it was located in a low geomorphic position between artificial berms. Please see attached data form for sample point W2T1-W in Appendix B for additional details.

3.1.3 Wetland 3 (“W3”)
Wetland 3 was identified in the western extent of the Project Area and was observed in a lowland agricultural field that collects water draining from the culverted ditch under Riverwalk Drive. Wetland 3 was observed within 13,644 ft2 of the Project Area. Rooted vegetation was not observed in this area, and it may be classified according to Cowardin classification system as a Palustrine Emergent wetland with persistent vegetation (PEM1) (FGDC 2013).

Wetland 3 was observed within the low-lying agriculture field, which is classified as Palustrine Emergent freshwater wetland (PEM1c) according to the NWI mapper (USFWS 2021). Wetland 3 was also observed to be hydrologically connected to flow from Ditch 2 which drains to Wetland 3.

The vegetation in Wetland 3 consisted of colonial bentgrass (Agrostis capillaris, FAC), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis, FAC), white clover (Trifolium repens, FAC), hairy buttercup (FAC), creeping buttercup (Ranunculus repens, FAC), curly dock (Rumex crispus, FAC), pennyroyal (OBL), bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus, FAC), and wild geranium (Geranium dissectum, UPL).

Soils met the criteria for hydric soil indicator Redox Dark Surface (F6). The upper horizon (0-4”) consisted of silty loam with a matrix color of 10YR 3/1, and the lower horizon (4-13”) consisted of silty loam with the same matrix color (10YR 3/1) however also contained 10% redoximorphic features which had a color of 7.5YR 3/4. Wetland hydrology was indicated by the presence of saturated soil and surface water observations during February and March 2021, however the site was dry at April 8, 2021 field visit. Secondary indicators Drainage Patters (B10) and Geomorphic Position (D2) were observed. Please see attached data forms for sample point W3T1-W and W3T2- W in Appendix B for additional details.

Wetland 3 was observed in a low position within the pasture south of Wetland 2. As described above, Wetland 2 is ephemerally connected to Wetland 3, as was observed after heavy rains on March 10, 2021. A drainage swale exists between Wetlands 2 and 3 which drains to the Eel River via a culvert. Therefore it can be expected that during heavy precipitation events, surface flow from Wetland 3 drains via the drainage swale to the Eel River. During dry weather or intermittent rains, its expected that surface water percolates through Wetland 3 or the adjacent agricultural pasture to the water table. Therefore, due to the intermittent connection of Wetland 3 to the Eel River, Wetland 3 is considered jurisdictional by the USACE. Wetland 3 is also likely to be considered under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB because it is an artificial wetland that resulted from historic human activity that has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape and is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance (Water of the State definition 3(c)). Wetland 3 is located within the Coastal Zone and is therefore within the jurisdiction of the County’s Eel River Area Plan and is appealable to the CCC (see Table 3-1).

Other Waters of the U.S. and/or State

3.2.1 Mill Creek
A small portion of Mill Creek is located within the northeastern extent of the Project Area, where it passes under a bridge beneath Kenmar Road. Mill Creek flows for approximately 800 feet until the confluence with Strongs Creek , located outside of the Project Area. Ordinary High Water (OHW) was mapped with a GPS in the field to define the edges of Mill Creek on both sides of Kenmar GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 11 Road based on slope-break and vegetation indicators to mark the extent of waters within the Project Area. A total of 1,245 ft2 of perennial waters was mapped under Kenmar Road within the Project Area, and this may be classified according to the Cowardin system as Riverine Lower Perennial Unconsolidated Bottom (R2UB). Mill Creek flows into Strongs Creek and ultimately to the Eel River, and therefore is under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and RWQCB. Mill Creek is outside of the Coastal Zone and is therefore not under the jurisdiction of Humboldt County’s Local Coastal Program or appealable to the CCC (see Table 3-1).

The riparian area around Mill Creek was assessed for wetland indicators (Riparian-1, Up-2). The riparian area contained hydophytic vegetation but did not contain hydric soil or hydrology indicators.

The Mill Creek riparian area is dominated by Arroyo willow (FACW), shining willow (FACW), and red alder (FAC), but it was not mapped as a one-parameter wetland because it is located outside the Coastal Zone.

3.2.2 Other Intermittent Waters
Two intermittently flowing ditches that exhibited Ordinary High Water features were identified within the Project Area. The two ditches appear to flow seasonally alongide Riverwalk Drive and through a culvert under Riverwalk Drive to the wet pasture below (Wetland 3). Ditch 1 (northern) and Ditch 2 (southern) appeared to have been constructed to convey stormwater around the intersection of Riverwalk Drive and Highway 101, and they drain into the agricultural field associated with Wetland

3. Ordinary High Water was mapped with a GPS in the field on both sides of the ditches based on slope-break and vegetation indicators to mark the extent of waters within the Project Area. Ditch 1 (545 ft2) and Ditch 2 (189 ft2) support intermittent seasonal waters within the Project Area. Both ditches may be classified according to the Cowardin system as Riverine Intermittent Unconsolidated Bottom (R4UB). Ditch 1 and Ditch 2 are intermittently hydrologically connected to a navigable waterway via Wetland 3, and therefore are under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Ditch 1 and Ditch 2 are likely to be considered within the jurisdiction of the RWQCB because although they are artificial waterways that resulted from historic human activity that has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape, they are not likely subject to ongoing operation and maintenance (Water of the State definition 3(c)). Approximately 375 ft2 of Ditch 1 and the entirety of Ditch 2 are within the Coastal Zone and are therefore within the jurisdiction of the County’s Eel River Area Plan and appealable to the CCC (see Table 3-1).

One-Parameter Wetlands
One-parameter wetlands which overlapped the Project Area within the Coastal Zone include the shining willow alliance (FACW), and the upper margins of wet pasture (FAC species). Areas with FAC or wetter dominant vegetation may be regulated under the Eel River Area Plan as oneparameter wetlands and are appealable to the CCC. Vegetated one parameter wetlands are not considered Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State and therefore are not under the jurisdiction of the USACE or RWQCB (see Table 3-1).

3.3.1 Shining Willow Groves
Shining willow (FACW) alliance was observed along the boundary of the agriculture pasture concentrated near the intersection of Riverwalk Drive and the Highway 101 southbound on ramp, located along the western extent of the Project Area in Wetland A and Wetland B (Appendix A, Figure 3). The shining willow alliance contained a diverse mixture of willows at approximately even dominance, with approximately 25% shining willow cover, 22% arroyo willow cover, and 18% Sitka willow cover. Red alder (Alnus rubra, FAC) and other trees also occurred in the area. The shining GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 12 willow alliance was concentrated along the slope above the wet pasture and around Ditch 1, where stormwater runoff collects from southern Riverwalk Drive, Highway 101 and culvert outflows.

Shining willow, Arroyo willow and Sitka willow are all Facultative Wetland indicator species, meaning they usually occur in wetlands, but are occasionally found in non-wetlands. Shining willow, Arroyo willow and Sitka willow dominate the canopy along the edge of the agricultural field up to approximately 475 feet west of the Riverwalk Drive and Highway 101 intersection. Associated understory vegetation included high cover (50%) of invasive Himalayan blackberry (FAC), with poison hemlock (Conium maculatum, FAC), spiny sowthistle (Sonchus asper, FACU), creeping buttercup (FAC), Kentucky bluegrass (FAC), and creeping bentgrass (FAC). As discussed above, three-parameter wetlands Wetland 2 and Wetland 3 were mapped within the shining willow alliance canopy along the agricultural field (Appendix A Figure 3). The shining willow alliance was observed to be growing close to the margins of proposed roads and ground disturbance areas, and select trees may need to be removed under the Project. The shining willow alliance is rated as “Vulnerable” in the state (S3 G4) and it is considered a Sensitive Natural Community. Within the Coastal Zone and Eel River Area Plan, shining willow is expected to be considered a oneparameter wetland.

3.3.2 Non-native Pasture
The grazed agricultural field west of the interchange was observed to be primarily dominated by facultative non-native pasture species in both 3-parameter and 1-parameter wetland areas, including colonial bentgrass (FAC), Kentucky bluegrass (FAC), and white clover (FAC). No visible change in species dominance occured along the elevational change between 3-parameter and 1- parameter wet pasture areas.

Other Non-Jurisdictional Features

3.4.1 Impoundments
Two impoundments are located adjacent to remnant train tracks in the central eastern portion of the Project Area. The impoundments are surrounded by gravel and collect seasonal stormwater runoff from Eel River Drive. There was no observation of surface hydrologic connectivity to a creek, wetland or other waterway. An investigation of soils and vegetation along Impoundment 1 showed that the area did not meet 3-parameter wetland criteria. The impoundments do not have any regulatory status (see Table 3-1).

Table 3-1. Wetlands and Other Waters within the Delineated Area and Potential Jurisdiction
Aquatic Resource Name
Location (lat/long) of point
or center of polygon
Aquatic
Resource
Size (ft2)
Jursidiction

USACE RWQCB CCC
Wetland 1 (W1T1-W)

40.576114, -124.147984;

40.575926, -124.148328
1,128 No Likely N/A
Wetland 2 (W2T1-W) 40.575466, -124.151100 3,425 N/A N/A N/A Wetland 3 (W3T1-W,
W3T2-W)

40.575926, -124.148328 13,644 Yes Likely Yes
GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 13 Aquatic Resource Name
Location (lat/long) of point
or center of polygon
Aquatic
Resource
Size (ft2)
Jursidiction

USACE RWQCB CCC
Mill Creek (OHW)

40.576252, -124.14747;

40.576433, -124.147678
1,245 Yes Yes N/A
Ditch 1 (OHW) 40.574722, -124.149895 545 Yes Likely Yes Ditch 2 (OHW) 40.574286, -124.149774 189 Yes Likely Yes Impoundment A 40.574952, -124.148307 2,063 No Jurisdictional Status Impoundment B 40.574952, -124.148153 109 No Jurisdictional Status Wetland A 40.574369, -124.150027 22,087 No No Yes
Wetland B 40.574992, -124.150257 6,672 No No Yes
Total Wetlands and Other Waters in Project Area
47,682 ft2
(1.09 acres)
Uplands Sampling Points
Upland sampling points were also collected to characterize areas that are likely to be affected by the Project. No wetlands were detected within the areas characterized by the following upland points, which are also located outside of the Coastal Zone (Table 3.2).

3.5.1 Upland 1
The Upland 1 sample point was located in the northeastern extent of the Project Area. This area is a low point in a shallow swale near the Kenmar Road and Fortuna Boulevard intersection, and contains willows and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus). The site was dominated by Arroyo willow (FACW), California blackberry (FACU), western sword fern (Polystichum munitum, FACU), and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica, FAC). Soils did not show hydric soil characteristics, and contained a matrix color of 10YR 3/1 and 2.5Y 3/2 with approximately 2% redoximorphic features located greater than 12 inches from the surface. The site did not show any primary indicators of wetland hydrology.

3.5.2 Upland 2
The Upland 2 sample point was located approximately three feet from the OHWM on the south side of the Kenmar Road bridge atop Mill Creek. The sample point was dominated by red alder (FAC), Himalayan blackberry (FAC), and California blackberry (FACU). The soil consisted of loam with a color of 10YR 3/2 with no redoximorphic features, and it did not show hydric soil indicators. No hydrological indicators were present.

3.5.3 Upland 3
The Upland 3 sample point was located in the center of a constructed drainage ditch in the northern segment of the Project Area, between the Highway 101 northbound on ramp and Eel River Drive.

The sample point was dominated by California blackberry (FACU), with a minor amount of coast GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 14 twinberry (Lonicera involucrata, FAC), and Robert’s geranium (Geranium robertianum, FACU). The soil consisted of clay loam, and hydric soil indicators were observed due to the presence of indicator F7 (Depleted Dark Surface); however, no primary hydrology indicators were present.

3.5.4 Upland 4
The Upland 4 sample point was within a ditch located west of the Highway 101 southbound off ramp. Vegetation in the upland ditch included some hydrophytic species but did not pass the Dominance Test. Vegetation at Upland 4 included shining willow (FACW), California blackberry (FACU), Himalayan blackberry (FAC), common mustard (Brassica rapa, FACU), posion hemlock (FAC), wild teasle (FAC), and bullthistle (Cirsium vulgare, FACU). The soil consisted of silty clay loam with a color of 2.5Y 3/1 with less than 1% of redoximorphic features, and is not considered a hydric soil. Hydrological indicators were present, including saturation (A3) approximately 4 inches from the surface, and secondary indicators including water-stained leaves (B9) and geomorphic position (D2) were present.

Table 3.2 Upland Sampling Point Locations
Sampling Point Name Location (lat/long)
Upland 1 (Up1) 40.576293, -124.147537
Upland 2 (Up2) 40.576293, -124.147537
Upland 3 (Up3) 40.575743, -124.148573
Upland 4 (Up4) 40.574764, -124.149742

4. Conclusions
The wetland delineation for the City of Fortuna’s Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project, completed on February 24, 2021 with follow up visits on March 10, 2021, April 8, 2021 and April 27, 2021, determined the extent of wetlands and other waters within the Project Area based on hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology using methods and indicators outlined in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region (USACE 2010). Mill Creek, a perennial water of the U.S. and state, flows through a bridge under Kenmar Road within the Project Area. A total of 18,197 ft2(0.42 acres) of thee-parameter wetlands have been maped for this Project, with 14,772 ft 2 (0.34 acres) of
three-parameter wetlands occur within the Project Area, of which one has intermittent surficial hydrological connection to the Eel River (W3) and one does not (W1) (Appendix A Figure 3).

Wetland 3 (and Ditches 1 and 2 which drain to Wetland 3) are anticipated to be under the jurisdiction of the USACE due to the intermittent surficial hydrologic connection with the Eel River.Data forms are attached showing sample plot data collected in transects across wetland boundaries and additional upland sampling points (Appendix B).

Vegetation communities with FAC or wetter dominant vegetation are subject to Humboldt County and CCC jurisdiction as one-parameter wetlands under the Coastal Act and the Eel River Area Plan. One-parameter wetlands overlapping the Project Area are shown as Wetland A and B on Figure 3 (Appendix A) and include shining willow groves, and non-native pasture. A total of 28,759 ft2(0.66 acres) of one-parameter wetlands and 564 ft2(0.01 acres) of intermittent waters (Ditch 1 and Ditch 2) occur within the Coastal Zone. All one- to three-parameter wetlands and other waters GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 15 within the Coastal Zone fall within the jurisdiction of Humboldt County, and are appealable to the CCC within the Appeals Jurisdiction (see Figure 4).

5. Special Terms and Conditions
Purpose of this Report
GHD prepared this report for the City of Fortuna (City), and the City may only use and rely on this report for the purpose agreed upon between GHD and the City, as set out in the scope and contract for work effort reported herein. GHD Inc. is not liable for any action arising out of the reliance of any third party on the information contained within this report. GHD otherwise disclaims responsibility to any entity other than the City arising in connection with this report. GHD also excludes implied warranties and conditions, to the extent legally permissible.

Scope and Limitations
This report does not authorize any individuals to develop, fill, or alter the delineated wetlands.

Verification of the delineation by jurisdictional agencies is necessary prior to the use of this report for planning and development purposes. A USACE, agency-stamped, delineation map, and a jurisdictional approval letter are required to signify confirmation of delineation results. In situations where a field investigation determines that no jurisdictional wetlands occur, jurisdictional concurrence with these findings is recommended.

The delineation conclusions were based on the information available during the period of the investigation, which took place February 24th, March 10th, April 8th, and April 27th, 2021. The opinions, conclusions, and any recommendations in this report are based on conditions encountered and information reviewed by the date of preparation of the report. Site conditions may change after the date of this report. GHD does not accept responsibility arising from, or in connection with, any change to the site conditions. GHD is also not responsible for updating this report if the site conditions change unless contracted to do so.

The services undertaken by GHD in connection with preparing this report were limited to those specifically detailed in the report and are subject to the scope limitations set out in the report.

The opinions, conclusions, and any recommendations in this report are based on the information obtained from and testing undertaken at or in connection with specific sample points. Conditions at other locations of the site may be different from the conditions found at the specific sample points.

6. References
Baldwin, B. D. 2012. The Jepson Manual, Second Edition. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

California Coastal Commission (CCC). 2011. Definition and Delineation of Wetlands in the Coastal Zone. Briefing, San Francisco, CA: State of California—Natural Resources Agency.

California Coastal Commission (CCC). 2013. LCP Update Guide, Section 4. Environmentally Sensitive Habitats and Other Natural Resources. San Francisco, CA: State of California— Natural Resources Agency.

GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 16 COLOR, M., 2000. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Year 2000 revised washable edition. GretagMacbeth Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021. FEMA Flood Map Service Center.

Accessed February 2021. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2013. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC. http://fws.gov/wetlands/Documents/Wetlands-and-Deepwater-Habitats-Classification-chart.pdf Humboldt County Planning Department. 2014. Eel River Area Plan of the Humboldt County Local Coastal Program. Certified by the State Coastal Commission April 8, 1982, date of this edition: December 2014. Available at:
https://humboldtgov.org/DocumentCenter/View/50843/Eel-River-Area-Local-Coastal-Plan Lichvar et al. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. United States Army Corps of Engineers. http://acwc.sdp.sirsi.net/client/search/asset:asset?t:ac=$N/1012381.

NOAA Regional Climate Centers. 2021. AgCIS. Accessed April 2021. http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/ NRCS, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2021. Web Soil Survey. Accessed April 2021. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.

NWI, National Wetlands Inventory. 2021. National Wetlands Inventory mapper. Accessed February 2021. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evans. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.

SWRCB, State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. "Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State." Procedures, Sacramento, CA. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/procedures_conformed .pdf.

SWRCB, State Water Resources Control Board. 2020. Draft Guidance for the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State.

Guidance, Sacramento, CA: State Water Resources Control Board. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/cwa401/docs/guidance_02142020.p df.

USACE. 1987. Wetlands Delineation Manual, Tech. Rep 4-87-1. Waterways Experiment Station, United States Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:

Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region (Version 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

USACE. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2020. The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States”. Final Rule, Environmental Protection Agency USDA/NRCS. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F. Berkowitz (eds). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.

GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 11214735 Appendices
GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 11214735 Appendix A – Figures
0 300 600 900
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11214735
Date 2/15/2021
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road/ US 101 Interchange Project
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
o
Data source: CNDDB, November 5th, 2018; World_Transportation: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors World Imagery (Clarity): Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Created by: jlopez4 \
\ghdnet\ghd\US\Eureka\Projects\561\11214735\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\11214735_PES\11214735_P - 11214735_001_Regional
Legend
Project
Boundary
Roads
Regional Map
Eel
River
FIGURE 2
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11214735
Date 2/15/2021
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
o
Data source: World_Transportation: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors World Imagery (Clarity): Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community World_Topo_Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), \
\ghdnet\ghd\US\Eureka\Projects\561\11214735\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\11214735_PES\11214735_P - 11214735_002_Project_Location
Legend
Project Boundary
Project Location Map
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road/ US 101 Interchange Project
Fortuna
Eel
River
FIGURE 1

40.571917,
.124.152147
Paper Size ANSI A
100 200 300
Feet
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizootal Datum: North American 1983
Gnd: NAO 1983 StatePiane Gallfom1a I FIPS 0401 Feet
N
$ \~US\Etxeka'Pro;ects\56 11 4735\G S\Maps\Oelrverables\ 12 4735_Wetlaod Dei\11 214735_Kertna~_We!kn:!_Dei_Rel!S.apx POrt date: 12 Sep2022 - 11:00
City of Fortuna
Legend
Project Boundary (17.60
acres)
1ft Contours (NAVD88)
5ft Contours (NAVD88)
• Control Points
• Upland Points
• Transect Points
• Rapid Assesment Points
Impoundments (0.05 acres)
~ 1-Parameter Wetlands
(0.66 acres)
- 3-Parameter Wetlands
(0.42 acres)
Other Water of the US (0.05
acres)
OHWM (0.05 acres)
Costal Zone
Appeal Jurisdiction
Ken mar Road/ US 101 Interchange Project
Project No. 11214735
Revision No.

Date April 2021
Wetland Delineation FIGURE 3 Datasot.ree: NAIP 2020, WOOcl_Transportaton: E.sri, tt:RE, GeoTedlrdog!es, loc.. Createcl by:IOPez4 0 100 200 300
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11214735
Date 2/15/2021
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road/ US 101 Interchange Project
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
o
Data source: CNDDB, November 5th, 2018; World Imagery (Clarity): Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community World_Topo_Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community. Created by: jlopez4 \
\ghdnet\ghd\US\Eureka\Projects\561\11214735\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\11214735_PES\11214735_P - 11214735_007_Location CCC
Legend
Project
Boundary
Coastal Zone:

Appeal
Jurisdiction
Costal Zone
Boundary
Costal Zone:

Local
Jurisdiction
Coastal Zone Boundary
FIGURE 4
1010
340
340
210
210
210
FIGURE 4
0 75 150 225 300
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11214735
Date April 2021
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road/ US 101 Interchange Project
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
o
\ Data source: World Imagery (Clarity): Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Created by: jlopez4 \ghdnet\ghd\US\Eureka\Projects\561\11214735\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\11214735_Wetland_Del\112 Print date: 30 Apr 2021 - 13:53
Legend
Project Boundary
NRSC Soil Map Units
210 - Dungan,
0-2% slopes
340 - FiedlerPetellenNanningcreek
complex, 15-30%
slopes
1010 - Urban landFriendlycity
association, 0-2%
slopes
NRCS Soils Map
0 100 200 300
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11214735
Date 2/15/2021
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road/ US 101 Interchange Project
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
o
Data source: CNDDB, November 5th, 2018; NWI Wetlands: Source: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Esri World Imagery (Clarity): Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Created by: jlopez4 \
\ghdnet\ghd\US\Eureka\Projects\561\11214735\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\11214735_PES\11214735_P - 11214735_005_NWI
Legend
Project
Boundary
NWI Wetlands
Marine
Estuarine
Palustrine
Riverine
Lacustrine
NWI Wetlands
FIGURE 6
0 100 200 300
Feet
Project No.

Created by: jlopez4
\
\ghdnet\ghd\US\Eureka\Projects\561\11214735\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\11214735_PES\11214735_P - 11214735_004_FEMA
Legend
Project
Boundary
Flood Hazard Zones
1% Annual
Chance Flood
Hazard
Regulatory
Floodway

0.2% Annual
Chance Flood
Hazard
FEMA Flood Zones
FIGURE 7
GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 11214735 Appendix B – Data Sheets
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: '6eD ~_.{ \ YlW Cft..-~ '\<.... City/County: _,r,_,o~(-\vr1~.!...1...§06-~---- Sampling Date: W t..( fl...v\ Applicant/Owner: C 0 l-l< ,),/'\ .S State: CA Sampling Point: LJ111 L .. ...J lnvestigator(s): ~ ""' ( D<?(\ a\ A \b . \J.I\ ~t<. Section, Township, Range: ---------------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Crostlvc\:eJ. :)l....l?\(.. Local relief (concave, convex, none): __...~C ... :t:J/\Iiii!...!~C...s~:a<:-..,;::....... _ _ Slope(%): & ·. , Subregion (LRR): -------------- Lat: --------- Long:--------- Datum:----- Soil Map Unit Name:-----------------------,------ NWI classification:--------- Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No __ (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation_, Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances• present? Yes L No-. __ Are Vegetation --· Soil __ , or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ye:=± No_ / Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ___ Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks:L2e~~ C-CV\~~-('\..> ~~-! ·- ~~CX'~ (CfD..\.- (V\~ ovc:rfl~ t"\\-o+ d-\+ c.A--·1f\ ~~~· ~fU~5 o" c..cl(<>c..1- cvno{t ~CY"" 'SU{"'\~i~ ~vV\..V'\ · VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.
free Stratum (Plot size: j 1tV\ ""- l

1. ~; .. ;u.v la:>i.-a.<v:& ca_
Absolute Dominant Indicator
o/o.Cover ~ Status
;10 ___]___~

2. -----......,..- ./ ------------------------

3. - ---- --- ---------------------

4.--------------------......... - ------- w
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 1 11\1\ L1. &-a-\ \Y Ia:~:,-, ;:VJJ"' 4- rJ • • +"

2. 1<;-U?U,\ .::l.cVV\.0...,() IC\ C\ , .:)
s
B
=Total Cover _'{_,____ ~(1:
~'1-~C... 3. _________________ ------.- - --

4.---------------- ---------- 5.----------- ---------- ----- 1 ~ =Total Cover \M-1.- )
Yt.os~ n ) -s
Herb Stratum (Plot size:

1. Q~,.('o(,r:, e£ ....l.N-=--_FC\.r A. ~.."
Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
(A)
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AlB)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total% Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x1= ___ _
FACW species ___ _ x2= ___ _
FAC species x3= ___ _
FACU species x4= ___ _
UPL species x5=----,--
Column Totals: ____ (A) _ ___ (B)

2. --------------------------- h-:--:-_:::_:r;.ev~a;le~n~c~e~ln~d~e;_x_::==~B~/~A_::-:.-:======-~

3.------------------------- -- Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:

4. --------------------------- _ 1- Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

5. --------------------------- 7 2- Dominance Test Is >50%

6. ____ ,:_ _____________ --------- _ 3- Prevalence Index Is S3.01

7. ------------------___ ------ _ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

8. --------------------- ------ _ 5- Wetland Non-Vascular Plants' 9· ------------------ ---- --- -- _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1 0· ------------------ 11ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

11. ------------------:-. ------..,.\- ------ be present, unless disturbed or problematic. _'-+_Jj.:....__= Total Cover 1--------------------l
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: _____ )

1. - 2.---------------------=Total Cover
&J duff
Hydrophytlc
Vegetation
Present? Yes___:/_ No __
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Y corps of Engineers us Arm Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0 ..,
'
SOIL s a mpling Point· t.....)\ "fll-c..J
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Feature~

1.!2$02 Remarks (in{<hes} QQIO[ (moi§t} ~ Color (mQilill __L_ ...IYmL Texture C>-:--. ev~ - ------ - - ~a~$\~~ I
"S.-\U \ JDX ,ot:Y; .. b..noe I ':! ~ovc..\ ------ ' . ' --- ------ --- ------ --- ------ --- ------ --- ------ --- ------ 'Type: C=Conoentratlon, D-Deoletion. RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Llnlno. M=Matrix.

Hydric Soli Indicators: (Applicable to all LRR.s, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) - 2 em Muck (A10)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black His tic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) = Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) "iJ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) • _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndlcators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1} _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7} wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. . Restrictive Layer (If present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? YesL No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Prima!)( Indicators (minimum of Qne reguired; ch!!Ck all that a(lf2llll Secondarv Indicators f2 or more reauiredl _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-stained Leaves (B9} (except . Water-stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, -:/:High Water Table (A2) ____..MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) Saturation (A3} _ Salt Crust (B11) _ . Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B 1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813} _ Dry-season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1} _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) JL Geomorphic Position (D2) _ . Algal Mat or Crust (84} . _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ~hallow Aquitard (D3} _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6) AC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A} _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks} _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7} Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Ye• I No __ Depth (Inches}:

Water Table Present? Yes No __ Depth (Inches}: ~ iitd
Saturation Present? Yes No _ _ Depth (inches): ~ "•IC\ Wetland Hydrology Present? v .. _j_ No (includes capillary fringe) - Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:
us Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: \Ael)v'\A<' \&e.c<k<?C'<Af City/County: roc ..(.-IA'\:p Sampling Date: 2-ttLt 12..' Applicant/Owner: c a \T-t 6.-0.) State: CJ.. Sampling Point: w 1' \.:\, ) lnvestlgator(s): . c.J")eOa lJ 1 ~~-<:.... Section, Township, Range:-------- - ------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): C Q{\.'lbtvC...=\;C.O \ W"'\(. Local relief (concave, convex, none): C roCa.J-(_ Slope(%): _l;"-_ Subregion (LRR): b Lal: Long: Datum: - ----
Soil Map Unit Name: ---------------------r----- -- NWI classlflcatlon: --------- Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No __ (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology _ _ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes _L_ No __ :'t Vegetation __ , Soli __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.) MMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map ho ng sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Yes_ No! Is the Sampled Area Wetland H No_j_ ydrology Present? Yes~ No within a Wetland? Yes ___ Remarks: ~nJ 3.\~i (V\~\
VEGETATION- Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: - ) %Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.

IVV\~ = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
lb t\al J..:> B:C~l2(l6
&ac.c: ~ ~ ~h ~5 ~+- g .; U('(<-?

3. 4.

5. ~ = Total Cover
Hert> "''"'"m (Plots••' • l ~ y
-- ~ 1.

2. ·.y ~

3. ~

4. 5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

10. 11. '
Woody_ Vine Stratum (Plot size: _)

1. 2.
8 Ground in Herb Stratum 4:/" !~ d.u-e:r2: '1\.~( % are ~-"Remari(s:
,__ corps of Engineers us ArmY
I
= Total Cover
= Total Cover
Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: )_ (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: L\ (B)
Percent
That Ara
of
OBL
Domina
, FACW.
nt Speci
or FAC:
es Go (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total 'Mz Cover of: MultipiJ! bl(:
r::caL species x1=
FACW species x2=
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4 =
Uf L species x5=
Column Totals: (A) (B)
J Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:
_ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2- Dominance Test is >50o/o -
- 3- Prevalence Index is !:3.01
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
- 5- Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1
_ Problematic Hydrophytic V~getation1 (Explain)
1 1ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytlc
Vegetation
Present? Yes -- No.L_
Western Mounta1ns, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0
''-i
SOIL
S ampn r 19 Point· L") -1::t:i U ~
Profile Description: (Describe t o the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Cinches> Color (moist) ~ Color (moist) ~_:mL Loc2 Texture Rt~marks ~r~ m~\(_ -- .3-h ---- yz_ 2/2 J.Ln. ~&~~\ l?..t- ~ct --- ~== ---- - ---- --- ---- --- ------
1 - Tvoe: C=Concentration, D==Deeletion1 RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=~ or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Locatlon: PL=Pore l.inina, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil lndlcator.s: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problemat:lc Hydric Solls3 :
_ Histosol (A1) _ Sandy Redox (SS) _ 2 em Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Hlstic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Depleted Below Clark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surfac:e (A 12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) ' 3 1ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

I Hydric Soli P•••enl?
Type:

Depth (inches): Yes J - No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology !Indicators:

Primii!!Jllndicators (minimum of one r~gyir~; check all that aQQilll S~oda!Jllndi!<i!IQ!:lil {2 or more r~guire~j} _ Surface Water (A'!) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except _ Water-stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (811) _ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) I _ Saturation Visible o1n Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (DS) _ Surface Soil Cracl<~ (86} _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely VegetatE~d Concave Surface (88)
Fleld Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes __ No 0 Oeplh(inohes)'
Water Table Present? Yes __ No Depth (Inches):

Saturation Present? Yes __ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes -- No~ (includes caoillarv frin~le) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:
.

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, ancl Coast- Version 2.0 , ,,
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Re{Jion ProjecVSite: ~r Q'(V'\A./ \o\-es::<: .l.r-a.c\a. e City/County: V..t: \=uOa Sampling Date: Q-. ClV\/~ \ ApplicanVOwn:r: ~k \:1."( NO\ 5 State: C~ Sampling Point: I ) f \:
lnvestigator(s): ~'\c C) OOe \ ,\,, \b. ~e(.. Sectlon,,Townshlp, Range:----------- ----- Landform (hlllslope, tem1ce, etc.): s c, ~ Local relief (concave, convex, none): ~<?...-3-"'- Slope(%): _S...J-- Subregion (LRR): _b_ Lat: Long: Datum:---- Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classlllcatlon:

Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this tlme of year? Yes _L_ No __ (If no, explain In Remalils.) / Are Vegetation--· Soli_, or Hydrology _ _ signlfjcantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances• present? Yes __ No-- Are Vegetation __ • Soli-· or Hydrology _ _ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remalils.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc .

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes - -
":± .. J Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Ia the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Pretsent? -- within a Wetland? Yea Yes No --- Remarks: \ CL.0 ~:.>\ ..(""'\ ~ \ n s~\\o-v w~ .e. t.J\~\.-- t-) \\o~ ct.. 6~\,e '~'' 'y lji.J~ ~ + C:c.e ~LN\ '6 ~'\v ~ '•("\\•eCS<Uo\ c:.V"\
VEGETATION - ~;e scientific names of plants.
~ Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet: Tree Stratum (Plot slz:e: ) %Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. ~a\ ~ I :a.·~~ C2l~~ \ ~ (A) ~ ~~(\.......\ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: '2__ (A} . 2 . Total Number of Dominant , 3. Species Across All Strata: 8 (B)

4. ~0 :;: Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species 6() \N\1... That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AlB) Saolino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 2.0_ , , Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. '$!ii'fz'> "> u-cs\~\ ...... ~ £~ Total% Cover of: Mlulliply by: 2.

3. OBLspecies x1=

4. FACW species x2=
FAC species x3= 5. . 2 !2 = Total Cover FACU species x 4 = Herb Stratum (Plot slz.e: ) UPL species X 5::

1. ~ll~~c-J~~ ~:.\ ~ s -if= w Column Totals: (A) (B)

2. -:2- L Prevalence Index = B/A:::;

3. Hydrophytle Vegetation Indicators:

4. _ 1 • Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

5. _ 2 ·Dominance Test is >50%

6. _ 3 ·Prevalence Index is S3.01

7. _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting

8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

9. - 5 ·Wetland Non-Vascular Plants1

10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetla11d hydrology must ~ =Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: \

1. Hydrophytlc No_j_ 2. Vegetation
f,o ~b.. «"a\r<, \
=Total Cover Present? Yes
- o/o Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks: '.J
US Army Corps of Enginoers
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0
...
'
SOIL Sampling Point· \ J ~ \ .. Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color lrnolstl ___.%____ Color lmolstl ~ ~ __LQt_ Textyre Remarks 0-l I ex-~,~-- \,Sk\ IC):f!l~k:2Q ------- .s~~ wl l !C-t-l<q Jt~ '1~1?- ~ l.S '( t 4 ,--- ~~JAil_ ,,
- ----------- --- --------- --- --------- . --- --------- 1 --- Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :
_ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 em Muck (A10) ' •' _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) - Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) ~ Thick Dark Surfaci!"(A 12) _ ,Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3 indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be pr.e~~t. _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) Redox Depressions (FS) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type: -·
Depth (inch7s): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No/
Remarks: fl.C.d_a,< ""? \ 7.)' ~~ t>~~ 4- ..
~

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: I •,.:.

Primar:y Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that a(l(lll£) Seconda!:Jllndicators (2 or more reguiredl _ Surface Water (A 1 ) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA,1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (8 11) _ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry-season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Depo~i~: (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) y.aturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) · _ Algal Mat or qrust (84) - _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (D5) - Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) - Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Veget~ted Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? . Yes __ No~ Depth (;o<h")' '
Water Table Present? Yes __ No~ Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes __ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes NoL (includes capillary fringe) . . . . . . . -- Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, momtonng well, aenal photos, prev1ous 1nspecbons), 1f available:

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: \be.o~e£ \ ~e (~n ~ _. City/County: ~ c Ma sampling Date: 2:t1H.J1J_ Applicant/Owner: (2-\ =rro<1S State: ~ Sampling Poin :~ lnvestlgator(s): \h, M c_C)o,o?,\1 'h M~w <... Section, Township, Range:---------------- 1 Landform (hlllslope, terrace, etc.): Q.\'(?a.f\a..Q ~ Local relief (concave, convex, none): Cc!) t~ Subregion (LRR): ~ Lat: -------- Long:---------
Slope(%): ~C)
Datum:-----
Soli Map Unit Name: NWI classiOcatlon: ----- ----
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes J No __ (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation _ _ , Soli _ _ _ , or Hydrology _ __ significantly disturbed? Are "Nonnal Circumstances· present? Yes _L,_ No __ _ Are Vegetation __ , Soli _, or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answere In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Att ac h s I te IJIBP s h ow ng samp II ng po I n t I oca tl ons, t ransec t s, mp ortant features etc ' . Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes __:d_ No -j-;- _L Hydric Soli Present? Yes ___ Nor_ Is the Sampled Area Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes ___ No Remarks: 3ft ~ D~t-) ~ -ra- M\n Cr€e¥-t - @ ~;~ t.,AJ\ VfU -t VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
~~ ra !,!m (Plot size: ~""'- ) !q !.:C2v12r Sp~es? -m._ Number of Dominant Species ~ <

1. ""' t6 ("LJ\;x ';l. y<S That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) 2 .

3. Species
Total Num
Across
ber of
All
Dominan
Strata:
t ~ (B)

4. Percent of Dominant Species '-l ~ =Total Cover That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC: (C (o (AlB) Saolino/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet :

1. f.u'.?t;S p.CMJ....O \ C' '8S 1.-D 1 res c... Totj!l M!,!l ipl~!2l!: 0 & gQver of:
2 . ~~~~ LrC$. '\o \ 1- $. eo (:~l) OBL species x1= -. ~

3. FACW species x2=
4 . FAC species x3=

5. FACU species x4= \ 0 0 = Total Cover·
\ UPL species x5=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: Column Totals: (A) (B)

1. 2. Prevalence Index = B/A =

3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ t -Rapid Test for Hydrophytlc Vegetation 4. ::L 2 - Dominance Test Is >50% 5. 3- Prevalence Index is S3.01

6. - 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting 7. - data In Remarks or on a separate sheet)

8. 5- Walland Non-Vascular Plants' - 9. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)

10. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must

11. be present. unless disturbed or problematic. = Total Cover woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: \
Yes j Hydrophytlc 1. Vegetation

2. Present? No -- % Bare Ground In Herb Stratum tJ)::.::? = Total Cover
Remarks: C:Ncr \d{'{> ;~ ~k c..t.etUS Anny Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Polnt·lJl(Z ~ J...

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches} Color (moist} ____%__ Colo[ (!IJOI~t} ~~ Loc2 Texture Bema[ks 0-l~ ICJ '/t2-- ~{1
-----
\CX) .- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----~
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- ----- ----- -----
----- --------------- 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :
__ Histosol (A 1) __ Sandy Redox (S5) __ 2 em Muck (A10) __ Histic Epipedon (A2) __ Stripped Matrix (S6) __ Red Parent Material (TF2) __ Black Histic (A3) __ Loamy-Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) __ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) __ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) __ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) __ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) __ Depleted Matrix (F3) __ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and __ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) __ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type: / Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
l'
.. HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: .

Primar:y Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that aggl~} Secondar:y Indicators (2 or more reguired} __ Surface Water (A 1) __ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except __ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, · _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) _ Saturation fi • (A3) __ Salt Crust (B 11) _ Drainage Patterns ( ~0) __ Water Marks (B 1) __ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) __ Dry-season Water Table (C2) __ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ~aturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (BS) _ Recent Iron R:eduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (DS) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D 1) (LRR A) __ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes __ No~ Depth (loohe•)'
Water Table Present? Yes __ No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes __ No Depth (inche!>): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes -- NoL (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:· l)::es ("b-\-" ~0 $ ~ ~~(_-~~!?.- \
,,.

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- VersiOn, 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: \6<j)M6-( b:c~~~ City/County: ~(J(t 0-2 Sampling Date: ;)._/;J.L( /"A.\ Applicant/Owner: C :a l:C ( :a..o'> State: CA Sampling PointP ?' ; 3 lnvestigator(s): \b t10cna\h' ( \6. M~<-<- Section, Township, Range: ___ ...;.__L...._ ________ _ landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): __Jd"-Ut\-~~~~------ local relief (concave, convex, none): ( 0!\Ca,...,ct Slope(%): ..,5..__ Subregion (LRR): -------------La!:--------- long:--------- Datum: ___ _ Soil Map Unit Name:---------------------,------ NWI classification:--------- Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No __ (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil_· __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes~ No __ _ Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Att ac h s1te · map s h owjng sampl ng point loca tl ons, t ransec t s, mpo rt a ntf ea t ure~, e t c.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes"L_ No~
No_j_
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Nez Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes ___ Remarks: Um+el ~ d\kV--
'
VEGETATION- Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) %Cover S11ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)

2. Total Number of Dominant
I 3. Species Across All Strata: (B)

4. =Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species (_fvfl That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AlB) Sa(11ing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1<. l A"''' j . I C~\·A\)0 &\ y EM'A) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1.

Total% Cover of: Multi!11Y by: 2. L o f\oC OC.l ·
1 <=-' /o\,,ccat.::L- )
\ OBlspecies x1= 3.

4. FACW species x2=
FAC species x3= 5.

FACU species x4=
=Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPL species x5=

1. ( ...,...f r;l .. I''YI.o...)IV'\ COk«;.\--i~.1 .• o I Column Totals: (A) (B)

2. Prevalence Index = B/A =

3. Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators:

4. _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

5. _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. 3- Prevalence Index is S3.01
- 7. _ 4- Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting

8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

9. - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1

10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)

11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must =Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. Hydrophytic

2. Vegetation
NoL = Total Cover Present? Yes -- % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum .:2-Q Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: I Jc
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features Remarks (inches) Color (moist) _li_ Color (moist} _li_ ...ill!!L Loc2 Texture Cr~ ~~.i'\-, c '> ,oq --------- b-q ' - - \rOO
1 0 ~ 6 tc..r 2D _L_ eLI1 cl~~,cr~
1-\L S~ 3 {I Ul- c\:2.d01o~
--- ---------
--- ---------
--- ---------
--- --------- --- --------- 1
Type: C=Concentratlon, D=Depletion, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Locatlon: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Probl,ematlc Hydric Soils3 :
_ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 em Muck (A10)
_ Hislic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) - Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11 ) __:_ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) dox Dark Surface (F6) 3
1ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (FB) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes j No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Prima!Y Indicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that a(!(!ll£} Seconda!Y Indicators (2 or more reguired} _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except _ Water-stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) _ Saturation (A3) _ SaltCrust(811) _ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry-season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ~aturat on Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic-Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ inundaiion Visible on Aerial Imagery (B?) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) ~ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes __ No J Dopth (l""h")'
Water Table Present? Yes __ No z Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes __ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Noj_ _(includes capillary fringe) --- Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: " Remarks:

Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region ProjecUSite: \he 0 Mt.\L \ o-h•• .. c o.kc..cOS< City/County: CU"=!un a Sampling Date: 'A {-;;.H /'A\ AppllcanUOwner. (.a tfl' A<"' '\ State: ~ Sampling Point: L)~ \...-\ lnvestlgator(s): \b. M c DO"'\e\ A 1 \b. v.l\c e.-c.. section, Township, Range:----------------- Landform (hlllslope, terrace, etc.): di1-cM /~a\ !2 Local relief(concave, convex, none): C roC.A!,Cf , Stope(%): W Subr99ion (LRR): Lat: Long:--------- Datum:-----
Soli Map Unit Name:-------------------------- NWI classtncatlon: --------- Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes __ No __ (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation_, Soil __ , or Hydrology _ _ significantly disturbed? Are ' Normal Circumstances· present? Yes L_ No_· __ Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc.

Hydrophytlc Vegetation Present? Yes --- No --- No _J_
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Ia the Sampled Area
--- --- Wet within a Wetland? Yea land Hydrology Present? Yes No --- Remarks: (')\"'-"~ ..:!.-\- o~- ("~~ VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Teat worksheet: Tr~e ~IG!Iur:IJ (Plot size: ) 0 tq CQver ~12!!Cij!S? !! ys Number of Dominant Species .. 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)

2. Total Number of Dominant

3. Species Across All Strata: ~ (B)

4. '
= Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species <;()41. ~M -z,
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (NB) Sa~llng/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. S ,l\ u-: \ as·, .V") J.-.c?.: ... , (
£:::2 ±~r.u. Total 0
1) CQver of: Multi&;! ~ b~: 2. Q!..!b~~ ~t"'b'!~U~ ~ s fA{\} f?_y\o'-!~ ;1 CW\R .n \ C\o..).> s pb._c OBLspecles X 1 =

3. FACW species x2=

4. FAC species x3 = 5.

Y2 FACU species x4=
~rt.. =Total Cover
!:fe[trSlri!tum (Plot size: ) UPL species x5=

1. 6c.,}, s~· •• ~ f'.?o ~ IC? '1 a\!,) Column Totals: (A) (B)

2. c 0C: i~ C"'t'; (I l,ety...A .,~ (.:)..~ Prevalence Index = B/A - c.__ 3. D i(2:s 1 Cod.~ s ~· 5 ,, Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators: ...

4. ~~~~~ ' _ 1 • Rapid Test for Hydrophytlc Vegetation

5. I _ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%

6. _ 3 - Prevalence Index Is S3.01

7. _ 4 ·Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting

8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

9. _ 5- Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'

10. _ P.roblematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)
1 1ndicetors of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 11. 20 =Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

WQQ!1~ Vine tratum (Plot size: _)

1. Hydrophytlc

2. Vegetation
= Total Cover
Present? Yea -- _J_ % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum foO•r.

Remarks:
us Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 •
SOIL Sampling Point· I)~· I...\
P~ofile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the' indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) ~ Color (moist) ____?&___ _ _!mL Loc2 Texture Remar~s a-~ Cl-<~.Q\C~ < -
~\~, 10'{~ S((o ~ l - _L_ ~ I I' Q_:S'J. 3l \ ~ Siii:'l k~~' ~ --- --------- --- --------- --- --------- --- --------- --- --------- --- --------- 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Deoletlon, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Locatlon: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soli Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise nc1ted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Solls3 :
_ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 em Muck (A10)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) __:_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (A 12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F15) 31ndicators of hydrophytlc vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, _ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soli Present? Yes No_L
Remarks: -·err'/ ~~c_\::..-s 1 re.dd)C_

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Prima!J1lndicators (minimum of one reguired; check all that aQQill) Sec0ndarv Indicators 12 or more required) _ Surface Water (A 1 ) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) :7 Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B 11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry-season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 7 Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizosplleres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes __ No } Dopth (;oohos)'
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): _L Saturation Present? Yes 7_ No __ Depth (inches): t-1 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No --- (includes capillary frinoe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region . ProjecVSite: ~l'Y'if \ (\\:U~o..L City/County: Cd: ~>o=a '.I Sampling Date: fd) \(as\ /'_,..., ) -t"- A ApplicanVOwner: r:....=~~ ... ,.L_- ----:-- --- -- ---- State: C'.." Sampling Point: lt:::tJ. ~ lnvestigator(s): \6 '(/\ c.J~o.\c) l lb. Me N;tM.e.~ Section, Township, Range:--------------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ~~~W\e,("\-\- Local relief (concave, convex, none): C cJ) CArt Slope (%): D';:> Subregion (LRR): _L,_, ___________ Lat: --------- Long:----- ---- Datum: ___ _ Soli Map Unit Name: NWI classification: - --------
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes_!__ No __ (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes L,_ No_:_____ Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In R~marks.) .;· .. • I
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects·, lmp0i1a~~-:features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Yes No ---.!...f--
Yes -L No --L._ Is the Sampled Area (' ':JL · c:
.; within a Wetland? Yes ' · No '· · · Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ___ No___ . -:-:-;;:--- · .,. ,, ,. '· .

Remarks: ~Sat""6\ \M!peu<"'~ .(c.P~ d....-o.\ V""\a...~- YIO "" . ot~t.a: ~J;. ·. +o do. cr-ee . .t<- • Loc..a.t-eJ. t3 \ ( a , \ r c::Ja.b- ~tk....$... &<'-<OJnhl ~ \ · ·-: ...

VEGETATION- Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksHeet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) %Cover S11ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species

1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: I (A)

2. 3.

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
.t_ (B)

4. =Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species
\('()1..... That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ~0 (NB) Sa111ing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. ~~ ~)f ,,pc:>'t, ( ~t~a X) y ~~(l .A !) Prevalence Index worksheet:
@.~s ~ Total% Cover of: Multii11Y by: 2. LK \1"\U~ Q~ '( OBL species x 1 =

3. FACW species x2=

4. FAC species x3=

5. FACU species cps, x4 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: J M ~ =Total Cover
) UPL species x5=

1. C;:6' ~ ~ -a,. aA IV' L ft Column Totals: (A) (B)

2. 12 -a s &a. "''~ L~\ Prevalence Index = B/A =

3. ~ •• , IO sJ:t:i v:~ ~ Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

4. C'\;u CA6 C-=1 £ 0\:-J \ t--.j . _ 1 ·Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

5. _ 2 · Dominance Test is >50%

6. _ 3- Prevalence Index is s3.01

7. _ 4 ·Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting

8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

9. _ 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1

10. .. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain)

11. 1
1ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
t-? = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) ~

1. Hydrophytic

2. Vegetation
No-L =Total Cover Present? Yes -- % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum L\c) Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0 I
SOIL
Samp 1ng Point· I M~ :f1'
h b nee of indicators.) (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm t e a se Matrix Redox Features } ' . '. __ •___ .!R:s!ell:rnrnai!!rk~s!!.------ Profile, Description:
-· .. Color (moist) ~ Color (molstl _Ji_ Typr
1 ' Loc2 Texture
Depth
(I net~
ers
~-0\,
g ... \:\
Cx-. G6i' "'' r "'~ ~ s.Lb.Q_. _.._..... r ,... ·~:5= .... A~ _-- , .... ~s-, T ld(' efdVX \ +- cow" ~ (_ nOM.- --------- --'-'--
-------------- -------------
------------------------
--. -------------------------- --"'"", ·..__ ___ --- · -----C-- d-S--d-G 1 2Location· PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. 'Typ13: C=Concentr lon, D=Deplet!on, RM=Reduced Matnx, CS=Covered or oate an ra ns. · ti H drlc Solls3· RestJrictive Layer ,.vt-present):

Type: ..,. • .

Depth (inches):

Remarks: .. -·. -

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Prima[¥ Indicators {minimum of one reguired; che!;k all that apply) _ Surface Water (A 1 ) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except L High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (8 11)
_ Water Marks (81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813)
-'- Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) 31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present? Yes NoL
Seconda!:Y Indicators (2 or more reguired)
_ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2,
4A, and 48)
/Drainage Patterns (810)
_ Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
_ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) 7oaturation Visible on At3rial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (03) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (05) _ SIUrface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (DEl) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? y., ~ No __ Depth (inches)1:

Water Table Present? Yes No __ Depth (inches): ~·
YesL_ Saturation Present? Yes No _ _ Depth (inches): ~ ,. Wetland Hydrology Present? No (includes capillal}' fringe) ---- Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:
r:

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Projecusrte: \Aeoroa.c I.Cl·tr'cckwy.f§:> City/County: C'oc \.-v-o-::1 samptng Date: Y /i,(-:;2.} Applicant/Owner: State: C 1::\ " Sam ping Point: l...)J.,.L, ~-\ \ -w lnvestigator(s): \h M~¢ Section, Township, Range:
landfo"" (hlll.opo, '!."''"· :.c:;:<iJ.-;;;ovC h ~a lo<ol ••Uef (oooawe, """'•'· nooe)' !:.Pf\ C f vf • Slope (%)' :2., Subregion (LRR): ~ 1 Lat: --------- Long: Datum:-----
Soli Map Unit Name: NWI classlflcatlon: - - - ------
Are climatic I hydrologic condltlons on the site typical for this time of year? Yes __ No __ (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soli __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation _ _ , Soli __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances• present? Yes __ No_. __
(If needed, explain any answers in Re1larks~)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc.

HydrophytJc Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soli Present?
Yes~ No ___
Yes ~ No ___ Is the Sampled Area
W YesL etland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? No Remarks: ~ + ~ L>\~ s o 'oe ~ o(:"" n~ c.o\Lec\-\~ ~ d~ ~~,~~ ~ ~ 'ave_\ (''QO.Al
VEGETATION- Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: ____ _)
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
1 ..------------------ ---------- 2.-------- -------------------- 3. __________________ --------- 4 . __________________ ---- -----
_ _ _ = Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ____ _)

1. _________________ - --- ------

2. __________________ - - - ---- - -

3.---------------------------- 4. _ ________________ -------- --

5. ______________ ____ --- --- ----
~

2.~~~c£~~~~~~~~~-----
31 -J'~~~U....:!.L.l..l.!-;:.._-.:L4;JC-~~7'---
.~~~xc~~~~~~~~--~---

5. ____:~~~~~---!5;.n:~~~-;-:=--

6. __(,;.1J:::::b..cl:~:!...!.~~~;u.,:~,z-"J" _, '--

7.0 :J
~~
33=
)
\
=Total Cover
'/ ~
'j_ ~ C>t>L
~ ~~
CX&L7. ___________ _ ___ _ - --------

8. ___________ _ _____ - --------

9. __________ _______ - --------

10. _______________ _ - ---------
11 ~------ -------------- --CJ-~-- (;,;.•2 =Total Cover Woodl! Vine Stratum (Plot size: -------'

1. _________________ ----------

2.----- - ------------ --- - --------
%Bare Ground in Herb Stratum ( 6 - ___ = Total Cover
Remarks:

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Prevalence Index worksheet:

TQtal 'rQ Cover of:
tOO
MultipiJ!bl!;
OBLspecies x1 =
FACW species x2 =
FACspecies x3 =
FACU species x4 =
UPL species x5 =
Column Totals: (A)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ ) - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
J.L 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index Is :!::3.01
(A)
(B)
(AtB)
(B)
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ 5- Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes¥- No
US Army Corps of Engineers Westem Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 0 SOIL Sam pOng Point: U7J:1 L.) /
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix r~edox Features
<inches) Color lmolstl __%____ Color lmolslt}__ ~ JmL. ~ Texture Remartss (r2 .2 ·\oYC??JI ~ 1 ~ ~.nz.oJS --UJ~ ~~wcOO~ \\,\.1(\olAtV'\ 1 r_Y41.1do ell -()6 ~ 'd-S>-C. \()\ ~ ?,/ \ :JQ_ ::J ,f, '1'!)~ ~--£..-~~rl=~~. ~rd .. (--\a~\0\.(f ?.{\ ~ '1 ~~~~_c_~ ·-ll ~~l;_-~.~~-~..:..~o~"-~~~~-- -------------- -------------- ---- ------------------------ ---- ------------------------- ---- -------------------------- Hydric Sollln~icators: (Af!pllcable to all LRRs, unless c1therwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic: Hydric Solis :
_ Histosoif~il' . , · _ Sandy Redox (55) _ 2 em Muck (A10) _ Histic EP,IJ)edon (A2) _ Stripped M:atrlx (56) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) - Black Histic (A3) _ loamy Mu<:ky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) )( Redox Dar1< Surface (F6)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8)
Restrictive l ayer (If present):

Type: ___________ _
Depth (inches):
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present? Yes_L_ No
Rem~Jat'\<... \\ l.N ~ ~ oV«"\S.it1 d"')o.\4 '?![~ C~~ b~ . ~j~~a+e.. ~~) M\.X\1\ ~ wl \...._'C1(\C.. ""Sc>·t \

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primatylndicators {minimum of one reguired; ~~k all that cl!;!l!l~l Secondatylndi!a!tors (2 or more r!:!SJyired} -.. ~Surface Water (A 1) _ I Water-Stained leaves (89) (except .. _ Water-Stained Leaves (8.9) (MLRA 1, 2,
.....:... High Water Table (A2) MLI~ 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) ·_ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (811) _ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (81) _ Aquati<: Invertebrates (813) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial imagery (C9) ~rift Deposits (83) _ Oxidize!d Rhizospheres along living Roots (C3) L Geomorphic Position (D2) Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) -l FAC·N utral Test (D5) _:_ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted! or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) :

Field Observations:

Surta"ce Water Present? Yes _L_ No __ Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes __ No __ Depth inches):

Saturation Present?
(includes capillary frfnqe)
Yes __ No __ Depth t[inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No -- -- Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). if available:

Rem .... Sur-fatt ~ pro!IOJ:)\y o~~d til ~'o& MNc:J..-.,. c..ur~ dn·:;/-Mol~+) , t\\~~e, rrt~. ~ .src+ 9e~ ac-\-lt\c.·,ct\ ~J c.o\~c..~~ w.~.

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0 '
'
II
J
I
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: \bf.x1 r'\U \ ry~.Cck OQ Cv( City/County: Sampling Dale: ~eA \ ApplicanUOwner: J State: Sampling Point: ~-t \- U
lnvestlgator(s): )~, M c,.Qo0o \ J; Section, Township, Range;---------------- Landform (hillsiope, terrace, etc.): ~c\j{)c \1,\ 'oifVV' Local rellef(concave, convex, none): CoOVeX Slope ( 0 k): 2:..S._.

Subregion (LRR): --'--'------------ Lat: - ------- Long:--------- Datum:--- - Soil Map Unit Name:------------------------- NWI classification:-------- Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes __ No __ (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes __ No __
(If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes -- No~ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area No_L_ --
No_J_ Wetland within a Wetland? Yes_ Hydrology Present? Yes -- Remarks:

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Tree Stratum (Plot size: ___ __ )
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status

1. _________________ ----------

2. _________________ ---------

3. _________________ ----------

4. _ ________________ - ---------
___ =Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:-----')

1. _____________ ____ ----------

2. _________________ ------- ---

3. _________________ - ---------

4. ________________ ---- -----

5. ________________ - - -------
'
Herb Stratum (Piotcslze: \rV) ) _ __ =Total Cover
Dominance Test worf<sheet:

Number of Dominant Species \ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total Number of Dominant L Species Across All Strata:

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC; ~D
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total% Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x1=
FACW species x2=
FAC species x3=
FACU species x4=
UPL: species x5=
Column Totals: (A) 1. .\({ (:'Ji.l..y:-"\ ~~1)~ '0~ __:.Y_ LRL

2. &\\·,'5. e~S.- !0 ---\\PL Prevalencelndex =B/A=
:
3:· ~('\~l\._....cy~e\ l ~· , 1 _ .. , f}W·'-\ ___ £NJ.J HydrophytlcVegetatlon lndicators: _. uul _ _ ~ ~ ~ :::t _ 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation ~ 2- Dominance Test is >50%
(A)
(B)
(AlB)
(B)

6. eo, ~rtf£1Sr.-b.S 10 ___.Y"---_ Ate_ - 3- Prevalence Index is S3.01

7. Qj£L-an\~ C.\ S"'?xc.~ Ll _ 4- Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting • f ~· ~~~$C2 - ~ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 1 :
0 :. ?. ::~: y ~ C\~ 'L '{_I _ _ _ 5- Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1 -~"'~- _ __ _ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetalion1 (Explain)

11. II? .....nV 4 l $!?...,5 - +-f _ 1
~
1ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
r -.:7 be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
\~+ =Total Cov~_.-.a.. '\ t--------------------1
Woody Vine Stratum (o~l~ 'G • --,y (Plot size: _____ )

1. _________________ --------- Hydrophytic
Vegetation 2.--- Present? No£ - -------------....,....-- ------ L I =Total Cover Yes __
''
o/o Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:

US Army corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0 SOIL s amp1n r g Point· LjJ:( I J
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of indicators., Depth Matrix Redox Eea!u[e§ Remarks (ioches} Color (moist} ---1_ CoiQ( (moist} ---1_ ....I:tRL Loc2 Te!I!Ur§ Q)-lc ~ l~Y¥- ?..~ J1:1_ £f3 '1/q I ---l- [.5_ v-e~~~'l- ~~Me ~ - -- --- ---,-
--- ------ --- --- -
~ --- - - ---- - - -- ------ --- ------ --- --- --- 1
Tvoe: C=Concentratlon, D=Deoietlon, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Locatlon: PL=Pore Unina. M=Matrix.

Hy~rlc Soil indicators:. (Applicable to all LRRs, unless_ otherwise noted.) Indicators for ProblemaUc Hydric Solis,:
_ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (55) _ 2 em Muck (A10)
- _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) - Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Blac,k Hi ic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1 ) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndlcators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1 ) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No;t__
Remarks:
~ &o;,l 'So v~ ~\\ ~of c6&-l-tcl ~ ~r~ cU., tto-t!S.
<"'& ~-t IV"'k~ l~ ~~ (o
,

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Prim§!~ Indicators {minimum of one r~!,!ir~d; check all that a!;!!;!llll ~~!OQ!!Qi.!~ Indicators {2 or more reguired) _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except . _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) _ Saturation (A3) _ SaltCrust(B11) _ Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (81) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (813) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) ' _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (05) ... _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (07) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88)
Fl.eld Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes __ No / Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes __ No ~Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes __ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ,X-- (includes capillarv frinqe) -- Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: k ·Hf"tcJ -a\ lo UW"\ I ~\\ d ~~~~
I
us Army Corps of Engineers
I
Western ~ountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0 }
••
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: \~a( \~~ .e..- City/County: Sampling Date: £..l { ~f?... \ -t Applicant/Owner:----------.,;---:------------------ State: ____ Sampling Point: (N 1] ""\ \:W lnvestigator(s): \l-, · \rJ\ cOcO"d, \d, Section, Township, Range:------------------ Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): alltt ~\a? t A 'oo\!om:S. Local relief (concave, convex, none): (\9 -t\ ~ oco Slope(%): \ ( ) Subregion (LRR): _[\.__,...___ _____ ______ Lat: ---------Long:--------- Datum:----- Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:---------
Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes __ No __ (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology ___ significantly disturbed? Are Vegetation __ , Soli __ , or Hydrology ___ naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circur stances· present? Yes ' __ No __ _
(If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 1/ No ---
Yes_j_
Hydric Soil Present? Yes Y. No Is the Sampled Area
Yes lL_ --- Wetland Hydrology P within a Wetland? No resent? No Remarks· \) + :F •
· . \ c.J...- ov~+- ·,('\ .'('""':\s lJc1':...
an & ru<"'\.s So.>+-\-. iQcr"'%' ·ov\-cAr- ~A' o\o~ ~ ~ ovt-·,""' pc;.stvv-t.. w~.ll (~ea.sdJa \- ~'1 ~') .

VEGETATION - Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) %Cover S~ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species 1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)

2. 3.

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: ~ (B)

4. = Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species tOO Sa~iing/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AlB)
Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. /
Total% Cover of: Multi~IJ!bl!: 2. OBLspecies X 1 = 3. FACW species x2 = 4. FAC species x3 = 5. FACU species x4 = ~ lrn"l.... =Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) UPLspecies x5=

1. C>ll\ ,:2 c a. ~a,u. w... 'I C:Jl.L Column Totals: (A) (B)

2. o;. t~+~\~ 'Z..C> "'' ~~c Prevalence Index - 8/A -
* SD {;(\(' 3. :-= \ ~hf t=e~o ~ (vc'Q) Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

4. "(Zd.<')L->(\C.!.l~uS s-acA.a0 ~ L 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation

5. t2-a£l~u !..! ~ t:t: ~ ' \ 2- Dominance Test is >50%

6. l?-vrnox c r \:s~ ? . 3- Prevalence Index is s3.01
- - 7. M a.MV--a \JL~ LW'. I _ 4 - Morphological Ad~ptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 8.

9. - 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1

10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1 1ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must 11.

I C 2() =Total Cover
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Wood)! Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. Hydrophytic y.,_j_ Vegetation 2. Present? No -Total Cover --- L t I % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:

US ArmY Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast-Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point· LJ"t,\'\ \_)
Profile Description: (Describe t o the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) C?epth Matrix Redox Features
~ ~Yft3i\ ~ Ccl~moi•U ':_ ~· '!;' ~----R_e_m_a_rks _ ___ _ 4-\3 lC2'( C2:- ;-,/ \ .9rr -"4S yrz: 3l=\ --lC;). ~ ~ S\1 bf lo-wv-.:...::..-_____ _ ---- ---------------- - -------- ---- ---- ------ ----------- ----- ------ ~ -------------- ---- - - --r- ---- ------- ----- ---- -------t------------ - - ------------------ 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletlon, RM=Reduced Matrix CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Locatlon: PL=Pore Llnlno. M=Matrix.

Hydric Soli Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for ProblemaUc Hydric Soils3 :
_ Histosol (A 1)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11)
_ Thick Dark Surface (A 12)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (51)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Restrictive Layer (If present):
_ Sandy Redox (55)
_ Stripped Matrix (56)
_ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1)
_ Loamy Gieyed Matrix (F2)
_J>epleted Matrix (F3)
..JL Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Dep:eted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Type: ___ ______ _______ __
Depth (inches):

Remarks: c\o'l(

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Prima~ Indicators (minim!,!m of on!i! r!i!guired; s;heck all thi11 a1111ll1l _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (except _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48)
_·_ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (811)
_ Water Marks (81) _Aquatic Invertebrates (813)
_ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ 2 em Muck (A10)
_ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3 indicators of hydrophytlc vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.

Hydric Soil Present? Yes_J_ No
S!i!!<Qnga~ lngicators (2 or mor~ [~guired}
_ Water-Stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, j 4A,and 4B)
Drainage Patterns (810)
_ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) ~aturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _. _· Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) .:.._ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) - Inundation VIsible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) . Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No ./ Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes= No± Depth (~nches):

Saturation Present? Yes __ No Depth (1nohes): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes1 No __ !includes caoillarv frinael
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks: $~ a-\-·l ~ f>'oJ lCUS~ o'o~ If"\ \o { (\Ao.-c ut-.. (_.u(~\.1 ~
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0 I
I
-- .

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: \AeOMo,.C n+ec-~..e_... City/County: Vc( \-L:\{)~ Sampling Date: L{ /J/1.1 Applicant/Owner: State: Gf\ Sampling Point: L..J~ f \ ·U lnvestlgator(s): '6. M C~" \j, Section, Township, Range:----------------- Landform (hlllslope, terrace, etc.): \cyr\\CXV\ \ Local relief (concave, convex, none): Dl,h\orrs.\ --.~. Slope(%): eSJ.:...i ,..___ Subregion (LRR): Let: Long: Datum: _ ___ _
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classlflcatlon: - --------
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes __ No __ (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ , Soil __ , or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances· present? Yes __ No __ Are Vegetation __ , Soli __ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers In Remarl<s.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No-1-
Yes ___ No__:Lj_
Yes ___ No__u_
Remar!<s: ~Y;2..0{-\-- ~0~ eli !-c,t- oOt.Q..e1-.
1- a\ s~ ~~d Ot"'\ ve.
. EGET ATION - Use scientific names of plants .

Absolute
Tree Stratum (Plot size: _) o/o Cover

1. 2.

3. 4.

Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes __ _ No_L
Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:

S(2ecies? Status Number of Dominant Species {_ That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:

Total Number of Dominant ..,__ Species Across All Strata:

Percent of Dominant Species
=Total Cover That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 1 Ooil> (21in~Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ), Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. , Total % Cover of: Multi!!l~ b~: 2.

OBL species x 1 = 3.

FACW species x2= 4.

5. FAC species x3=
FACU species x4= = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: \ vV\ ) UPL species x5=

1. ~o*'~ c~U3<"'\~ ~0 ~ ~~(_ Column Totals: (A)

2. s~bt~:d .d) ~a:Crub~ l'-c:2 Prevalence Index = B/A =

3. ~t~~ I Hydrophytlc Vegetation Indicators: 4. ~

5. 'I (7~~"'
(A)
(B)
(AlB)
(B)

6. =l£i WI 1""'0 ~f-f'~ G:.et:a~-4-i~ vu~::b~
~()
1-
-;1_1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3- Prevalence Index is s3.01

7. :aa,....,..,..b~ ± _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting 8. G>£ (:a oi vW\, c\i:S-se~. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

9. Pa2.~~'&~ :xi FA~ ~ _ 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'

10. ~~"~ c..rl ~~ ~~~ . 1__ _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation 1 (Explain) 11. ~~a,)!f:::a~:~~ ri.«i UY"~~ a ' Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must lCQ = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Wood~ Vine Stratum (Plot size: _}

1. Hydrophytic 2. Vegetation
:::Total Cover Pre Yes __j_ sent? No % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum - Remarks:

USArmyC 0 s ofE ng rp ineers
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0

SOIL , J
'"' . .
·. s amp II ng Point· I I
... Profile Description: (Describe to the dept h needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Feature§ (ios:<b!ls) Color (mots!} ~ Qolor (mQisl} ____%____~ L2st2 Texture B§mi!rkS C>-l~ (~{2- 2h _lliQ - - - -- 5, P~ \o-;w-0 - ---- --- ------ - -- ---- --- ------ --- ------ --- ----- - - -- ------ --- ------ 'Type: C=Concentratlon D=Depletlon, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore LlnlnQ, M=Matrlx.
··Hydric Soli Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (55) _ 2 em Muck (A10)
_ Hlslic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (56) - Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Hlstic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) \ _ Thick Dark Surface (A 12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 'Indicators of hydrophylic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (51) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (54) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrict ive Layer (If present):

Type:

Depth (inches): { Hydric Soil Present? Yes NoL
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Prima!)! Indicators (minimum of one reguirjild; ch!ilQk i!llthat B(!(!ll£) SecondaQ! Indicators (2 or more r~uired} _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A. and 48) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B 11) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B 1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry-Season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) ~ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAC-Neutral Test (D5) _ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) - Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes __ No / Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes __ No -2- Depth (inches):

No £ Saturation Present? Yes __ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (includes caoillarv frinQe) --- Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0 "
J
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Re!:Jion Project/Site: 'he.OMal \-0\-L,(~ City/County: samplingDate: LA/el'l \ ApplicanVOWner. State: Sampling Point: kl3\?;vJ
lnvestigator(s): • \'J .\M.. t:$)~.\,\ Section, Township, Range: ----------·------ Landfonn (hillslope,Kerrac:e, etc.): ~Q(V\.) Local relief (concave, convex, none): oo(l--<... Slope (%): ._C"""2'--- Subregion (LRR): I-\ Lat: Long:--------- D'atum: ----
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Are climatic I hydrologic cc::mditlons on the site typical for this time of year? Yes __ No __ (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation - - · Soil_, or Hydrology __ significantly disturbed? I Are Vegetation __ , Sclil _ _ , or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? Are "Nonnal Circumstances· present? Yes __ No __
(If needed, explain any answers In Remarl<s.)
SU M MA RY OF FINCIING S - Att ac h s I t' map s h ow ng samp II ng po nt ocat ons, transec t s, I mpo rt an u ea t ures, e t c.

Hydrophytlc Vegetation Present? y.,-!£. No __
Yes_j_
Hydric Soli Present? Yes No __ Is the Sampled Area
Wetland Hydrology Presc3nt? Yes No within a Wetland? No -- Remarl<s: ~ ~81<' ~t..X...\- ~~l..:rt.. \n\o\..0 ~~c ~\t tCY"' \ (1:- c~ ~~~ \?o..x--.\..

VEGETATION- Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:

Tre~ Stmtum (Plot size: ) %Cover S11e£i!!~? Status Number of Dominant Species

1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: ~ (A)

2. ,/
Total Number of Dominant

3. Species Across All Strata: ~ (B)

4. = Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species
Lb> O""/~ Sa[!llngLShrub Stratum ('Plot size: ) That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AlB) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Total % Cover of: MuDiii!IY by: 2.

OBLspecies x1=

3. FACW species x2=

4. FAC species x3=

5. FACU species x4=
=Total Cover - Her!;! Stratum (Plot size: \ V'lf".. ) UPL species x5= ;: ~: ~~j Qv= ~ 2.G ±at Column Totals: (A) (B)
"LL. Prevalence Index = B/A =

3.~i~(~ f::\~ ~ Hydrophytic: Vegetation Indicators:
-\ D
7 4. ; \ (} ·~ ~?, ""<;! C\J ' · 1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytlc Vegetation ~ ex&~ ! _ 2- Dominance Test Is >50%
1 _ 3- Prevalence Index is s3.01
::

7. ~r.-f\i~ GreL;u"\\ I.P' W=v:\ ' _ 4 ·Morphological Adaptations' (P'rovide supporting

8. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
g, _ 5- Wetland Non-Vascular Plants11

10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetatiion' (Explain)

11. 1
1ndicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
\ W = Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problelmatic.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: _)

1. Hydro phytic

2. Vegetation
Yes_L =Total Cover
Present? No -- % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum 0
Remarks: ..
.__
US ArmY Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Co·ast- Version 2.0 "-"""""nllthl I ••· - ·
SOIL Sampling Poln~ '2-l-)
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Matrix Bedox F!1gtures
Loc ~.JmL 2 {Inches} QQ(Q[ {moist} ___%_ Co(gr {[!!ols!l Texture Remarks ()= 4 \D"({2-31L- £La 1 . !? y(l. ~{L-1 __L;_ _L t1 E'L 5\0.bf \ 6(W'V' I y-\.k \O'ff- 3k '1 0 J <,'j_(l-~l\.; ~ lO~M · --- - ----- --- --- -- - --- ----- - - -- - ----- --- --- --- --- - ----- 'Type: C=Concentratlon, D=Deolellon, RM-Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Locallon: PL=Pore Linina M=Matrix.

Hydric Soli Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicator. for Problematic Hydric Solls3 :
_ Histosol (A 1) ...:._ Sandy Redox (S5) - 2 em Muck (A10) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Hlstic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) = Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) - Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) ~epleted Matrix ' (F3) _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndlcators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Yes L Depth (inches): Hydric Soli Present? No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primi!!): ndic~:~tors (minimum of one reguired; check S!il that a(1(,lil!l SeQQnda!): lndi9110rs (2 or mQ£e r~uiredl _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ .Water-stained Leaves (89) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A. and 48) 4A, and 48) _ Saturation (A3) _ Salt Crust (B 11) _ . Drainage Patterns (810) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry-season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) /Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (B3) _ Oxidized Rhlzospheres along Living Roots (C3) _- _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (84) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (B5) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (DS) _ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) (LRR A) _ · Raised Ant Mounds (06) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain In Remarks) . _ _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) _ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes __ No 1_ Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes_ No± Depth (inches):

Yes L
Saturation Present? Yes_ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? (includes caolllarv frinae) No - --- Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks \-l~&\o\o~ er\CJ fcO('Y\ ~ C..~ \. 'l ~
US Army Corps of Engineers
Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM- Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region Project/Site: MW\U nte(c.Jt- ,{ City/County: c;;:c1 ~ Sampling Date: £1/8 /')...1 Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: U],TI< 0
lnvestigator(s): \jo 1 'f/\ c£')oon \ ci Section, Township, Range:----------------- Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): \o:o·\\·ooi)S Local relief (concave, convex, none): c 6 ore -£ Slope(%): ?.() Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Dalum: ___ _
Soli Map Unit Name:-------------------------- NWI classlflcallon: --------- Are climatic I hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes __ No __ (If no, explain In Remarks.) Are Vegetation __ • Soil __ • or Hydrology __ signlncanlly disturbed? Are Vegetation __ • Soil __ • or Hydrology __ naturally problematic? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes __ No _ _
(If needed, explain any answers In Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS- Attach site map showing sampling point locations, trans~cts, Important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes _d__ No ----i;1'-:

Hydric Soil Present? Yes ___ No-T Is the Sampled Area
No£
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes Remarks: ~(..d. ~s ~ ~:s,+ ~ w~ot-.)._5 ~ +c (Y.\ S*"-'~ 1pe.r, .. ' .. ~-"'-\- (~ ~~ ~6.

VEGETATION- Use scientific names of plants.

Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:

Tree Stratum (Plot size: \ %Cover S(!ecies? Status

1. Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: :> (A)

2. 3.

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)

4. = Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species
100%
Saellng/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
That Are OBL, FACW. or FAC: (AlB)

1. Prevalence Index worksheet:

2. Total % Cover of: Multi(!ly by:
3, OBLspecies x 1 = . 4. FACW species x2=
....... FAC species x3=

5. = Total Cover
FACU species x4=
Herb Stratum (Plot size: \V'A ) UPL species x5=

1. e-'a,..t\~ uJ.v~ 'bar~O\-)~ 20 y ttt Column Totals: (A) (B)

2. A.te<"o<:-.-\ Is, C ~®~~ '5 z..-rc v Prevalence Index = B/A =

3. ea2. ~~Nl~ ~ ~ .. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

4. l( $!~~~ ~p. 5
7 1 ·Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 5. ~ <l ~.rt ~ J: S' ~ C.:\-u.-rv ~'1__ _ 2 ·Dominance Test is :>50%

6. Sl \~~ .vY'\ MA.(\"'\..1\&!.hoa. ~ _ 3 · Prevalence Index is s3.01

7. ~~~~~>£·~ .\,S '1. (:'~c _ 4 ·Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting

8. ~ data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)

9. _ 5 ·Wetland Non-Vascular Plants'

10. _ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)

11. 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must q~ =Total Cover be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. Hydrophytic
Yes_L

2. Vegetation
=Total Cover Present? No
j -- % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
Remarks:
,__
US ArmY Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast - Version 2.0 \
SOIL Sampling Point· t . ~\....)
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the Indicator or confirm the absence of Indicators.) Depth Mi!td1S Redox Features
(lncb!i!l!l
lOCYBmJ3jL_ I ~C) !,;;QIQ[ {moist} ___.1L_ ~ --L.2L_ l!11SIY[!! Rema~s 0 -8.5 - ~ ....... ---------- ~\ '"'Y ~
R:4'- l~ tdfrL 3. 1-~ ].~'I ~IL\ __B_L__~ 1\
- - - ----- ----
--- --- ------ --- --------- --- ----- - --- --- --------- --- --------- 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Deoletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS-Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL -Pore Unino, M=Malrix.

Hydric Soli Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (A 1) _ Sandy Redox (S5) _ 2 em Muck (A10)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2) _ Stripped Matrix (S6) _ Red Parent Material (TF2) _ Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA 1) _ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) _ Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Other (E.xplaln in Remarks) _ Depleted Below Dark Surface (A 11) _ Depleted Matrix (F3) - _ Thick Dark Surface (A12) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 31ndlcators of hydrophytlc vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S 1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (If present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soli Present? Yes NoL
Remarks: '<Z-e.~"')(. ~~ {£7e·'- ~~ -oo+ (VU.Q \- f'(,

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primi!Ot: nd ~tors (minimum of Qn!! r~uired; check all that a(1(11J£) !! !<Q ns!aOt: Indicators (2 or more r~u red) _ Surface Water (A 1) _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except _ Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (MLRA 1, 2, _ High Water Table (A2) MLRA 1, 2, 4A, and 48) 4A, and 48) _ Saturation (A3) _ SaltCrust(B11 ) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _ Water Marks (B1) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Dry-season Water Table (C2) _ Sediment Deposits (82) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (83) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Geomorphic Position (D2) _ Algal Mat or Crust (B4) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3) _ Iron Deposits (85) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ FAG-Neutral Test (D5) _:_ Surface Soil Cracks (86) _ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D 1) (LRR A) _ Raised Ant Mounds (D6) (LRR A) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes __ No -!;_ Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes __ No ==foepth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes __ No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes --- No-'- (includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections). if available:

Remari(s:

US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast- Version 2.0 GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 11214735 Appendix C – On-site Plant List
Scientific Name Common Name Status Family Status
Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple native Sapindaceae FACU Agrostis stolonifera creeping bentgrass invasive non-native Poaceae FAC Alnus rubra Red alder native Betulaceae FAC
Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernal grass invasive non-native Poaceae FACU Artemisia douglasiana California mugwort native Asteraceae FACW Athyrium filix-femina Common ladyfern native Woodsiaceae FAC Baccharis pilularis Coyote brush native Asteraceae
Bellis perennis English lawn daisy non-native Asteraceae Brassica rapa Common mustard invasive non-native Brassicaceae FACU Briza maxima Rattlesnake grass invasive non-native Poaceae Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome invasive non-native Poaceae Cardamine oligosperma Idaho bittercress native Brassicaceae FAC Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle invasive non-native Asteraceae Carex obnupta Slough sedge native Cyperaceae OBL
Ceanothus thyrsiflorus Blueblossom native Rhamnaceae
Cedrus sp. cedar cultvar non-native Pinaceae
Cerastium glomeratum Large mouse ears non-native Caryophyllaceae FACU Cirsium vulgare Bullthistle invasive non-native Asteraceae FACU Conium maculatum Poison hemlock invasive non-native Apiaceae FAC Cortaderia jubata Andean pampas grass invasive non-native Poaceae FACU Cotoneaster pannosus Woolly cotoneaster invasive non-native Rosaceae Cyperus eragrostis Tall cyperus native Cyperaceae FACW
Daucus carota Carrot non-native Apiaceae FACU
Dipsacus fullonum wild teasel invasive non-native Dipsacaceae FAC Epilobium ciliatum Slender willow herb native Onagraceae FACW Equisetum telmateia ssp.
braunii Giant horsetail native Equisetaceae
Erodium cicutarium coastal heron's bill invasive non-native Geraniaceae Eucalyptus globulus Blue gum invasive non-native Myrtaceae Euphorbia lathyris Gopher plant invasive non-native Euphorbiaceae Festuca arundinacea Reed fescue invasive non-native Poaceae Foeniculum vulgare Fennel invasive non-native Apiaceae
Frangula purshiana Cascara sagrada native Rhamnaceae FAC Galium aparine Cleavers native Rubiaceae FACU
Genista monspessulana French broom invasive non-native Fabaceae UPL Geranium dissectum Wild geranium invasive non-native Geraniaceae Geranium robertianum Robert's geranium non-native Geraniaceae FACU Hedera helix English ivy invasive non-native Araliaceae FACU Helminthotheca echioides Bristly ox-tongue invasive non-native Asteraceae FAC Heracleum maximum Common cowparsnip native Apiaceae FAC GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 11214735 Scientific Name Common Name Status Family Status
Holcus lanatus Common velvetgrass invasive non-native Poaceae FAC Holodiscus discolor Oceanspray native Rosaceae FACU
Hypochaeris radicata Hairy cats ear invasive non-native Asteraceae FACU Juncus effusus Common bog rush native Juncaceae FACW
Juncus hesperius Coast or bog rush native Juncaceae
Juncus patens Rush native Juncaceae FACW
Lamium purpureum Purple dead nettle non-native Lamiaceae Leucanthemum vulgare Oxe eye daisy invasive non-native Asteraceae FACU Linum bienne Flax non-native Linaceae
Lonicera hispidula Pink honeysuckle native Caprifoliaceae FACU Lonicera involucrata Coast twinberry native Caprifoliaceae FAC Lotus corniculatus bird's-foot trefoil invasive non-native Fabaceae FAC Lupinus rivularis Riverbank lupine native Fabaceae FAC
Myosotis latifolia
Wide leaved forget
me not invasive non-native Boraginaceae
Oemleria cerasiformis Oso berry native Rosaceae FACU
Oenanthe sarmentosa Water parsley native Apiaceae OBL
Pentagramma
triangularis Gold back fern native Pteridaceae
Picea sitchensis Sitka spruce native Pinaceae FAC
Pinus muricata Bishop pine native Pinaceae
Pinus radiata Monterey pine rare, native Pinaceae
Plantago lanceolata English plantain invasive non-native Plantaginaceae FACU Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass invasive non-native Poaceae FAC Polypodium glycyrrhiza Licorice fern native Polypodiaceae Polystichum munitum Western sword fern native Dryopteridaceae FACU Poterium sanguisorba Garden burnet non-native Rosaceae UPL Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir native Pinaceae FACU
Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup non-native Ranunculaceae FAC Ranunculus sardous Hairy buttercup non-native Ranunculaceae FAC Raphanus sativus Jointed charlock invasive non-native Brassicaceae Ribes sanguineum Flowering currant native Grossulariaceae FACU Rosa rubiginosa Sweet brier non-native Rosaceae UPL
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry invasive non-native Rosaceae FAC Rubus parviflorus Thimbleberry native Rosaceae FACU
Rubus ursinus California blackberry native Rosaceae FACU Rumex acetosella Sheep sorrel invasive non-native Polygonaceae FACU Rumex crispus Curly dock invasive non-native Polygonaceae FAC Salix hookeriana Coastal willow native Salicaceae FACW
Salix lasiandra Pacific willow native Salicaceae FACW
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow native Salicaceae FACW
Salix sitchensis Coulter willow native Salicaceae FACW
Scirpus microcarpus Mountain bog bulrush native Cyperaceae OBL GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 11214735 Scientific Name Common Name Status Family Status
Scrophularia californica California bee plant native Scrophulariaceae FAC Senecio vulgaris Common groundsel non-native Asteraceae FACU Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood native Cupressaceae
Silybum marianum Milk thistle invasive non-native Asteraceae Sonchus asper Spiny sowthistle non native Asteraceae FACU Stachys rigida Rough hedgenettle native Lamiaceae FACW
Stellaria media Chickweed non-native Caryophyllaceae FACU Taraxacum officinale Red seeded dandelion non-native Asteraceae FACU Tellima grandiflora Fringe cups native Saxifragaceae FACU Toxicodendron
diversilobum Poison oak native Anacardiaceae FAC
Trifolium repens White clover non-native Fabaceae FAC
Umbellularia californica California bay native Lauraceae FAC Urtica dioica Stinging nettle native Urticaceae FAC
Veronica sp.

Vicia sativa Spring vetch non-native Fabaceae UPL
Vinca major Vinca invasive non-native Apocynaceae
GHD | Wetland Delineation Report - City of Fortuna Kenmar Road/Highway 101 Interchange Project | 11214735 Appendix D – Rapid Assessment Forms
For Office Use:

Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Releve Field Form (Revised Man:h 27, 2018)
Alliance I Final database#: I Final ' 'cgetatlon type: Assocl~tion ....... L LOCATIONAUENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION _1 cir:cle: Releve or_iRA ) Database#: Date: Name of r«order: o.h . 1M c.f'-on '),. \). ~8\.\V""\ 00 \ 4/1_1').. \ Olher surveyors:

UID: Location Name: p .1'\ M v \n ,hor<.Y ~o. ~
GPS name: ~ C')"1:'\e.) For Releve only: Bearing•, left axis at 10 point __ -of Lonr: I Short side UTME - ----- UTMN --- ---- Zone: I I NAD83 GPS error: rtJ mJ PDOP __ Decimal degrees: LAT -------- LONG ---·------
G PS within stand? Yes I No If No, eilo from GPS to stand: dislance (m) __ bearing• __ inclination ° __ and n:eord: Base pointiO Projected UTMs: UTME UTMN Camera Name: ~~
Other photos: ,.....

Cardinal photos at Ip po! nt: ~E.~ I.A.)
Stand Size (acr:.~-5, >5 1 Plot Area (m1): 100 I __ 1 Plot Dimensions __ x __ m § RA RndluslQ m Exposure, Actual • __ NE NW@ SW Flat Variable 1 Steepness, Actual": __ o• 1-S" > 5-25" > 25 Topography: Macro: top .
1 mid lower bottom I Micro:
1 flat concave undulating
Geology code: So I Texture codeY~ vc\1~ lo¥1 Uplan etland/Rlparian (circle one) % Surface cover: (Incl. outcrops) (>60<:m diam) (25-60cm) (7.5-25cm) (2mm-7.5cm) (tncl sand, mud) H:O:(') BA Stems:'L> 'Litter: \ . Bedrock: Boulder: \ Stone: Cobble: 1.- Gravel:· "]_ Fines: ~ - tOO% %Current year bioturbation __ Past bioturbation present? Yes.~~~ 1 % Hoof punch __ Fire evidence: Yes I No (circle one) If yes, describe in Site history section, in ding date of fire, if known.

Site history, stand ag~ comments: t:).~~ ~ C""Oi:\dSi d..R.. ~tv\ "'- cf!:-~"( H '"\V 6.\ ~ ~ . ~ cr~(.. ("'~ -k--il'"'\ 'fS~''r _of' rt_c::("\- na.-4-\rt.. .s.bc ~~~) ~ \~u'11a-\-~ \--\:"I>"Ao\3tj<Y\ bl f:~~'t:rc-OOY-/\_doOIYhV\a.l\.c.R 1~~ road,_._ -- - ~ -· ·- ------ - - -- --- -- -- ---- - -- -- -- --- -- - - - --- - -~ Disturbance code / Intensity (L,M,H): I I I I I "Other" I D. HABITAT DESCRIPTION
Tr ee DBH: T1 (<I" dbh), T2 (1-6" dbh), :0. (6-1 J" dbh), T4 (I 1·24" dbh), !H>24" dbh), T6 multi-layered (T3 orT4 layer undcrTS, >60% oovcr) Shrub: Sl seedling (<3 yr. old), oung (<J% dead)@ture (J-25%dead), S4 decadent (>25% dead) Herbaceous: Hl (<12" plant .),lfi( 2"ht.)
Desert Riparian Tree/Shrub: <2ft. stem hi.), 2 (2-lOft. ht), 3 (10-20ft. hi.), 4 (>20ft. hi.) Desert Palm/Joshua Tree: 1 (<1.5" bose diameter), 2 (1.5-6" diam.), 3 (>6" diam.) Ul.INTERPRETATION OF STANO
Field-assessed vegetation AUiance name: ~ · f" M.Q.f\', ;l. u 1<... - b f' ~+an ~(' ~,..._UAA"A ~ Field-assessed Association name (optional):

Adjacent Alliances/direction: I I
Confidence in Alliance Identification: L M H Explain:

Phcnolol!v (E,P Ll: Herb Shrub Tr ee Other Identification or mapplnn Information:
---
Page I
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Ll
0 0
0 0
0 s
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Releve Field Form (Revised March 27, 2018) Database#: \LE~ \ SPECIES SHEET
JV. VEGETATlON DESCRlPTJON
%Non Vase cover: Total % Vase Veg cover:!C&L.
%Cover- Conifer tree I Hardwnod tree: --'-- Regenerating Tree: Shrub: GS er aceous:~ -- --- ~ Height pass -Conifer tree I Hardwood tree: --'-- Regenerating Tree: __ Shrub: _!::i_ Herbaceous:~ / Height classes: l•<l/2m, 2=1/2-1 m, 1-2m, 4•2-Sm, 5=5-lOm, 6• 10-lSm, 7• 15-20m, 8• 20-35m, 9=35-SOm, 10=>50m Stratum categorlu: T• Tree, A • SApling, E =SEedling, S =Shrub, H• Herb, N• Non-vascular •;. Cover Intervals for reference: r = tmcc, + • <1%, 1-5%, >5-15%, >15-25o/o, >25-50% >50-75% >75% Stratum Spcdes ~.cover c Flnalapedu determination
<C\ 12u~ous :1rVYI.or1; :lc..t )." rc (\ ?-..7->
""S lr'-<t>nrd·'A roNY'\.¢">11 ~sJt.Y.?.. (UPL' 3D
\-\ lrr-.o.n\u> u«~ 1\ a~rt. fv~L\ 10
I lt\,o<~ws r\1\\~ (c C.: t'L
I "lor'\)'""' ... "' .t.....L /"'. ~
fA 1Mo"" r r .<.o. ,, .... r
\ Pt ~ f'\.1- ~ ,.. ~ t~c...J.~ J-..
f...-P r-:.. ;..i.:::.~ <,~r~•r"'\ I
J.r ~ <.~~.\} :1 £.. \
if':::~.r.ll t.a<. ~r rtt"V"P.ri . . <:tl o""- L \
(2,1" \\\ ..... ti,ri('(\,·J:, I
P ~ r.x M ~;l>S {(-~ ~
c~ ~ (' r.A-cifl~ \
\5.-"'\r, .<.. \~ c;
\ 1.- {)u,-.l), o.r~~~ .(vee..-.., .<:. -.:;T ..J"
Unusual species:

Page 2 ends

Fortuna City CouncilMarch 20, 2023

Fortuna City Council
March 20, 2023