get_agenda_document_link — Fortuna City Council, April 7, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

STAFF REPORT
City Council Business Item
DATE: April 7, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Brendan Byrd, City Engineer/Public Works Director THROUGH: Amy Nilsen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of a Project Study Report for the Kenmar and Ross Hill Road Intersection Improvement Project
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Receive staff presentation and recommendation to approve a Project Study Report (PSR) for the Kenmar and Ross Hill Road Intersection Improvement Project and provide staff direction on the Council preferred project alternative.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

As the Council is aware, since the 2010 General Plan, the City has been working towards identifying improvements for key transportation infrastructure in the City of Fortuna. Most notably, the City’s focus has been to improve the interchanges with Highway 101 at 12th Street and Kenmar, with a preliminary alternative analysis being completed in 2016, and initial project phase funding being secured for the projects in 2018, 2022 and 2024. After the City secured funding for the 12th Street Preliminary Design phase in 2022, staff shifted some focus to the City’s Kenmar and Ross Hill Road intersection, which also has issues with traffic level of service, vehicle queueing, non-motorized connectivity, safety and the ability to handle traffic volumes as the City continues to develop.

In 2022, staff worked with the City’s on call traffic engineer, GHD, to develop a scope and budget for a project study report for the Kenmar and Ross Hill Road Interchange (PSR). The intent of the Project Study Report is to analyze preliminary improvement alternatives, ultimately with the hopes of being able to identify a preferred project alternative to move forward into budgeting and engineering design. The PSR looks holistically at the project and covers areas including existing conditions traffic analysis, alternatives development, proposed conditions traffic analysis, environmental constraints, costs and impacts to rights-of-way. Another benefit of developing this report is that is makes this project eligible for funding through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which is the City’s primary available funding source for projects of this scope and scale. The Council approved a supplemental budget request for this report in 2022, at which time staff began working with GHD to complete the project.

The PSR was largely completed by late 2023, however, given the continued progress and changes occurring on the City’s Kenmar Interchange and Mill District Specific Plan projects, staff held back on finalizing the PSR to make sure that the proposed improvements were able to account for and be compatible with what was being proposed in those two areas. Now with both the preliminary design being completed on the Kenmar Interchange Project, and the Mill District Business Item 5b

Page 2 of 5 ends

Specific Plan being approved, staff are ready to bring the final draft PSR to the Council for review and approval. The draft project alternative figures have been extracted from the report and are included as Attachment A. The entire final draft PSR is included as Attachment B. Below staff have developed a summary of the proposed project alternatives.

Existing Intersections Problems
This section lists the primary issues that have been identified at the existing signalized intersection.

In the alternative section below, each alternative is noted for how well it addresses these existing issues.

1. Intersection Level of Service – level of service (LOS) is a measure of how long a vehicle waits to move through an intersection. LOS is measured in ‘grades’ between A-F, with A being a low amount of time, and F being a long time. The existing intersection operates at an average LOS of D in the AM peak hours, and a LOS of C in the PM peak hours. The Fortuna General Plan currently calls out minimum LOS standards for this intersection of D. Based on future traffic modelling as the City grows, each intersection leg is projected to operate at LOS E in the future, which is below the General Plan target (without improvement).

2. Intersection Queuing – the existing intersection currently has issues with excessive vehicle queue, most notably for the northbound left movement (residents leaving Campton Heights to go to the freeway), and the eastbound Kenmar movements (residents entering town from the freeway). Queus routinely backup to Eel River Drive on Kenmar, or beyond the turn pocket on Ross Hill Road.

3. Safety Considerations – the existing intersection has two primary areas which the City routinely receives complaints for unsafe conditions. The first and most noticeable is the ‘slip lane’ that bypasses the signalized intersection, allowing southbound traffic on the boulevard to immediately access Kenmar Road. At the merger, movement there are often conditions where vehicles do not follow the yield requirements. The second is the southbound merge lane moving up Ross Hill Road. Currently because there are two southbound lanes at the intersection, merging to one on the other side of the intersection, southbound drivers tend to compete with one another to successfully make the merger on the other side of the intersection.

4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Connectivity – while the existing intersection has bike lanes connecting the north/south lanes, there are no dedicated facilities on the east/west lanes.

Additionally, the crosswalks that lead pedestrians towards the freeway end at the City’s main median island, where there are no additional facilities to get non-motorized users to the north side of Kenmar Road.

5. Design Life – as noted above, the intersection is near or at its useful design life, with LOS soon to be unacceptable by current City standards. Intersection requires improvement.

Improvement Alternatives Identified
The following sections describe each of the three alternatives that were explored in the PSR. The final section notes how each of the alternatives compare to each other based on the existing intersection problems noted above.

Minimum Build – Signalized Intersection Retrofit
This minimum build project alternative would include several intersection alterations aimed at addressing as many of the intersection problems as possible for a lower project cost. Project components would include adding an additional inbound lane on eastbound Kenmar, which would help significantly reduce AM and PM peak hour vehicle queues. The southbound left turn pocket Business Item 5b

Page 3 of 5 ends

on South Fortuna Boulevard would also be extended to accommodate more vehicles. The ‘slip lane’ to westbound Kenmar is also proposed to be removed, and one of the southbound lanes on the Boulevard would be converted into a right turn onto Kenmar Road at the signal. This alternative would include no improvements to the northbound Ross Hill Road traffic, and therefore operations and future issues would continue to be an issue under this alternative. This alternative is graphically shown in Figures 1-2 of Attachment A
Maximum Build – New Signalized Intersection
This alternative would include reconstructing the entire signalized intersection to current design standards while accommodating for projected future traffic volumes. This alternative is graphically shown in Figures 3-4 of Attachment A. For this alternative widening would be required beyond the paved limits on all legs of the intersection. Additionally, given the widening required on Kenmar Road in between the intersection and the highway, the project would likely include some encroachment into the creek channel (and therefore some potential realignment), and the replacement of the main box culvert that takes Mill Creek beneath Kenmar Road.

Maximum Build – Roundabout
The final alternative identified would reconfigure the entire signalized intersection into a roundabout, like what is being proposed for the Kenmar and 12th Street Interchanges. This alternative is graphically shown in Figures 5-6 of Attachment A. As shown the roundabout would almost entirely fit within the existing paved limits, with only minor widenings required on the City-owned medians near the Gateway Sign and on the east side of the intersection. One key difference of this roundabout as compared to the ones proposed at the highway interchanges is that due to traffic volumes, the northbound Ross Hill Road/Fortuna Boulevard movement has two entry lanes. As such, although still standard in roundabout design and construction, there would be more complexity to the operation of this roundabout than a conventional single-lane roundabout.

Comparison of Alternatives
The table below provides a comparison of how each of the proposed alternatives addresses the main existing issues noted above. It should be noted that this table is not included in the PSR, this has been developed by staff to help aid the Council and the public in understanding the tradeoffs for various alternatives.

Business Item 5b

Page 4 of 5 ends

Table 1. Comparison of project alternatives.

Alternative Estimated
Cost
Average
Level of
Service
Queuing Safety Non-Motorized
Accessibility Design Life1
Minimum Build
Signal $2.9 M C/D
Medium – almost all movements
contained within available
intersection storage, with the
exception of northbound traffic
on Ross Hill Road. Kenmar
operations do not impact
highway interchanges
Medium to
Good
Medium – improves
east/westbound bike and
pedestrian accessibility
20-30 years for
improved portions,
less for
unimproved
portions
(northbound Ross
Hill Road)
New Signalized
Intersection $12.6 M C
Medium – almost all movements
contained within available
intersection storage. Kenmar
operations do not impact
highway interchanges
Good
Good – bicycles and
pedestrians serviced for all
routes
30-50 years
New
Roundabout $8.7 M A Minimal – none exceeding available storage Good Good – bicycles and
pedestrians serviced for all
routes
50-year or beyond

1. Estimated based on engineering judgement. Current PSR only projects traffic volumes through 2045.

Business Item 5b

Page 5 of 5 ends

Staff recommend that the Council approve the PSR, which would finalize the document and position the City for future STIP funding for this project. Staff would also recommend that the Council provide staff with direction on a preferred project alternative to pursue, taking into consideration the comparison of alternatives provided above.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The PSR was completed under a previous budget allocation of $44,000 that was approved by the Council in 2022. Unless the Council is requesting changes to the PSR or alternatives developed, approval of the report will have no further budgetary impact.

Future fiscal impacts that will result from the PSR specifically pertain to the preferred improvement alternative identified by the Council. As shown in the table in the executive summary section, or in the PSR itself, future costs for project improvements range from approximately $2.5 million to $11 million. With a preferred alternative identified, staff will work to develop a funding plan. The first major funding opportunity that could be leveraged to advance the next stage of this project will be the 2026 STIP funding, which is due for programming through HCAOG later this year.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

1. Receive staff presentation and review Council questions with staff

2. Open Public Comment

3. Close Public Comment

4. Motion to approve the Project Study Report for the Kenmar and Ross Hill Road Intersection Improvement Project. Voice Vote.

ATTACHMENT:
• Attachment A – Project Alternative Figures
• Attachment B – Draft Project Study Report
Date
Project No.

Filename: N:\US\Eureka\Projects\561\12577588\Digital_Design\ACAD\XREFS\12577588_Signal-MERGED.dwg Plot Date: 3/31/2025 City of Fortuna 12577588
Kenmar Rd and Ross Hill Rd March 2025

INTERIM CONDITION- N SIGNAL ALTERNATIVE
0 50' 100'

KENMAR ROAD KENMAR ROAD

ROSS HILL ROAD

S FORTUNA BOULEVARD

RENEE AVENUE
REMOVE 150' OF EXISTING

LANE LINE

BOLLARDS TO PROVIDE VERTICAL

SEPARATION FOR SLIP LANE CLOSURE
ADJUST MEDIAN AS SHOWN.

Date
Project No.

Filename: N:\US\Eureka\Projects\561\12577588\Digital_Design\ACAD\XREFS\12577588_Signal-MERGED.dwg Plot Date: 3/31/2025 City of Fortuna 12577588
Kenmar Rd and Ross Hill Rd March 2025
INTERIM CONDITIONSIGNAL ALTERNATIVE
N

KENMAR ROAD

KENMAR ROAD ROSS HILL ROAD

S FORTUNA BOULEVARD

RENEE AVENUE
REMOVE 150' OF EXISTING

LANE LINE

BOLLARDS TO PROVIDE VERTICAL

SEPARATION FOR SLIP LANE CLOSURE
Date
Project No.

Filename: N:\US\Eureka\Projects\561\12577588\Digital_Design\ACAD\XREFS\12577588_Signal-MERGED.dwg Plot Date: 3/31/2025 City of Fortuna 12577588
Kenmar Rd and Ross Hill Rd March 2025

FULL BUILD OUT- N SIGNAL ALTERNATIVE
0 50' 100'

KENMAR ROAD KENMAR ROAD

ROSS HILL ROAD

S FORTUNA BOULEVARD

RENEE AVENUE

BOLLARDS TO PROVIDE VERTICAL

SEPARATION FOR SLIP LANE CLOSURE
Date
Project No.

KENMAR ROAD

KENMAR ROAD ROSS HILL ROAD

S FORTUNA BOULEVARD

RENEE AVENUE

BOLLARDS TO PROVIDE VERTICAL

SEPARATION FOR SLIP LANE CLOSURE
Date
Project No.

Filename: G:\561\12577588\Digital_Design\ACAD\XREFS\12577588_Roundabout Alternative.dwg Plot Date: 10/14/2022 City of Fortuna 12577588
Kenmar Rd and Ross Hill Rd October 2022

ROUNDABOUT N ALTERNATIVE
0 50' 100'

KENMAR ROAD KENMAR ROAD

ROSS HILL ROAD

S FORTUNA BOULEVARD

RENEE AVENUE
© 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS © 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS © 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS © 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS © 2022 Microsoft Corporation © 2022 Maxar ©CNES (2022) Distribution Airbus DS Date
Project No.

Filename: \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Eureka\Projects\561\12577588\Digital_Design\ACAD\XREFS\12577588_Signal.dwg Plot Date: 2/29/2024 City of Fortuna 12577588
Kenmar Rd and Ross Hill Rd February 2024

ROUNDABOUT

ALTERNATIVE
N

KENMAR ROAD

ROSS HILL ROAD

S FORTUNA BOULEVARD

RENEE AVENUE
Project Study Report-Project Development Support (PSR-PDS) Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection

APPROVED:

Brendan E. Byrd Date
City Engineer
City of Fortuna
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 2 Vicinity Map

City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 3 This project study report-project development support has been prepared under the direction of the following registered civil engineer. The registered civil engineer attests to the technical information contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based.

2/29/24

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER DATE

9/30/24
C70358
Josh Wolf
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 4 Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 5

2. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 5

3. PURPOSE AND NEED ..................................................................................................... 7

4. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT ......................................... 7

5. DEFICIENCIES ............................................................................................................... 13

6. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION .............................................................. 13

7. ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................. 14

8. RIGHT-OF-WAY ............................................................................................................. 16

9. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................. 17

10. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE ............................................................................. 17

11. FUNDING ..................................................................................................................... 19

12. DELIVERY SCHEDULE ............................................................................................... 20

13. RISKS ........................................................................................................................... 20

14. EXTERNAL AGENCY COORDINATION .................................................................... 21

15. PROJECT REVIEWS ................................................................................................... 21

16. PROJECT PERSONNEL ............................................................................................. 21

17. ATTACHMENTS .......................................................................................................... 21 Attachments
A. Location Map
B. Conceptual Design Drawings
C. Assessor Parcel Maps
D. Environmental Constraints Map
E. Environmental Database Search Results
F. Cost Estimates
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 5 1. INTRODUCTION
Project Description
The project proposes to improve traffic, pedestrian, and bicycle operations at the intersection of Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road in Fortuna in Humboldt County, California. The existing intersection controls, roadway geometry, and the high volumes of local and regional traffic result in poor traffic operation at and near the intersection. Proposed project components include a roundabout at the intersection as well as crosswalks and sidewalks for pedestrians. Refer to Figure 1 and Attachment A for a location map.

The full closure of the Drake Hill Road intersection with US 101 in 2010 resulted in an increase in traffic volume to the US 101-Kenmar Road interchange and the Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection. The additional traffic volume contributed operational issues and safety concerns at the intersection.

Improvements to the Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road intersection were identified as a priority project in the City of Fortunas 2021 Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP).

Table 1: Project Summary
Project Limits Kenmar Road – between Eel River Drive and Renee Avenue
S. Fortuna Boulevard – to 400 feet north of Kenmar Road Ross Hill Road – to 700 feet south of Kenmar Road
Number of Alternatives 2
Escalated Outlay Support Cost $2.6M
Escalated Capital Outlay Cost $6.1M
Funding Source TBD (Federal Funding is Assumed)
Type of Facility Kenmar Road east of Ross Hill Road: Major Collector Kenmar Road west of Ross Hill Road: Other Principal
Arterial
S. Fortuna Boulevard: Other Principal Arterial
Ross Hill Road: Minor Arterial
Number of Structures 0
Anticipated Environmental
Determination or Document
CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration

NEPA CE
Legal Description On Kenmar Road between Eel River Drive and Renee Avenue; on S. Fortuna Boulevard from Kenmar Road to
400 feet north of Kenmar Road; and on Ross Hill Road
from Kenmar Road to 700 feet south of Kenmar Road;

2. BACKGROUND
Existing Conditions
The project study area is focused on the intersection of Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road. Along Kenmar Road from Eel River Drive and Renee Avenue and along S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road from 400 feet north of the intersection to 700 feet south of the intersection.

Refer to Figure 2 for the existing intersection configuration, control and traffic counts.

Kenmar Road is 100 feet wide on the west side of the intersection with an eastbound through-left lane, and a right turn lane. On the east side of the intersection, Kenmar Road is the same configuration with a westbound through-left lane, and a right turn lane. West of the intersection Kenmar Road is listed as an Other Principal Arterial per the California Road System (CRS) – Functional Classification. East of the intersection Kenmar Road is a major collector.

City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 6 Ross Hill Road is the south leg of the intersection and is 55 feet wide at the intersection with a northbound left turn lane, a through lane, and a through-right lane. S. Fortuna Boulevard is the north leg of the intersection and is 55 feet wide at the intersection with a southbound left turn lane, two through lanes, and a right turn slip-lane that begins approximately 250 feet north of the intersection. Per the CRS, Ross Hill Road is classified as a Minor Arterial and S. Fortuna Boulevard is classified as an Other Principal Arterial.

Also, according to CRS, S. Fortuna Boulevard, and Kenmar Road east of the intersection, are both part of the National Highway System (NHS).

Figure 2 – Existing Intersection Configuration, Control and Traffic Counts (2016) City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 7 3. PURPOSE AND NEED
Purpose:
• Simplify and improve navigation and traffic operations through the Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road intersection;
• Improve operations, reduce congestion, and minimize conflicts intersection; • Improve intersection safety; and
• Improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities through the intersection.

Need:
• Poor traffic operations and safety concerns resulting from high volumes and insufficient storage; and
• Limited bicycle and pedestrian facilities resulting in a barrier to bicycle and pedestrian circulation and connectivity.

4. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
This section provides the results of the operations analysis for the intersection of Kenmar Road and S.

Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road & Kenmar Road. The term project as used in this section refers to the intersection improvements being proposed for the study intersection.

Traffic Operations
A traffic operations analysis was prepared by GHD Inc. to analyze the existing and future performance of the Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road intersection. The operational analysis used the traffic counts that were collected in March 2016 for the Highway 101, Fortuna Downtown and Riverwalk Area Complete Streets and Connectivity Planning Study. These counts were adjusted upwards utilizing growth factors to reflect Year 2022, 2025, and 2045 traffic volumes. Year 2022 represents existing conditions that are experienced in the AM and PM peak hour. Year 2025 volumes represent Opening Year conditions after the stated improvements are expected to be built. Year 2045 volumes represent the design year approximately 20 years in the future after intersection improvements are completed.

The growth rate applied to Year 2016 counts to develop Year 2022, 2025, and 2045 volumes was provided by the City of Fortuna General Plan. The growth rate was identified as 1.6% per year. Applying this growth rate over a 6-, 9-, and 29-year period yields growth rates of 10%, 15%, and 47%, respectively.

The operations analysis utilized the following technical parameters:
• Peak Hour Factor (PHF) comes from traffic counts. Based on information obtained from traffic counts, the PHF was determined to be 0.84 for AM and 0.99 for the PM peak hours. • The environmental factor in SIDRA was based on the guidelines provided by Caltrans memorandum titled SIDRA Settings and Related Parameters for US HCM and SIDRA Roundabout Capacity Model (Dec 20, 2017). Based on the guidelines, environmental factors have been set for 1.05 for design year conditions.
• A peak hour truck percentage for the study intersection was estimated to be 2% for the AM and PM peak hours.
• Signal analysis was performed in Synchro 11 for the LOS and SimTraffic for the queues. • Roundabout analysis was performed in Sidra 9 for both the LOS and Queues.

The following three alternatives were analyzed in the operations analysis:
• Existing Conditions (No Project).
• Signal Alternative (including Minimum Build, opening year 2025). • Roundabout Alternative.

City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 8 Existing Conditions (No Project)
Existing conditions quantify the current traffic operations at the study intersection. For the purposes of this analysis, Existing Conditions is considered Year 2022. Existing Conditions establishes the baseline traffic conditions. Tables 1 and 2 present the Existing level of service and 95th percentile queues.

Table 1 – Existing Intersection Operations
Intersection Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS1 Delay LOS1
Kenmar Rd & Ross Hill Rd/S Fortuna Blvd
Signal

45.5 D 25.2 C
Eastbound 40.4 D 21.5 C
Westbound 41.9 D 34.0 C
Northbound 51.2 D 27.7 C
Southbound 40.2 D 27.1 C

1. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches for Signal Table 2 – Existing Intersection 95th Percentile Queues
Intersection Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
95th
Percentile
Queue
Available
Storage
95th
Percentile
Queue
Available
Storage
Kenmar Rd & Ross Hill Rd/S Fortuna Blvd
Signal
- - - -
Eastbound Through 276 500 482 500
Eastbound Right 143 180 282 180
Westbound Through 218 - 100 -
Westbound Right 123 95 41 95
Northbound Left 633 475 134 475
Northbound Through 645 1200 103 -
Southbound Left 53 90 89 90
Southbound Through 126 - 138 -
Southbound Right 66 100 49 100
Note: Values in red indicate queue exceeds available storage length As indicated in the table above, the intersection currently operates at LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour. LOS D indicates that traffic conditions are approaching an unstable flow with high delays. As the LOS is currently a mid-D, it will worsen to an LOS E in the future. Additionally, the intersection has the following movements that have current 95th percentile queues that exceed available storage (as indicated by the red text in the Table 2):
• AM Peak Hour
o Northbound Left
• PM Peak Hour
o Eastbound Right
Full Build Conditions
The full build conditions refer to an analysis scenario in which the identified improvement(s) were built.

Two different improvements were analyzed in this scenario. The first improvement was to improve the existing signal with additional lane channelization’s, turn pocket extensions to provide improved operations. The second improvement was to convert the signalized intersection to a roundabout controlled intersection.

City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 9 Signal Alternative (including Minimum Build)
The signal alternative analyzed the current signalized intersection with the addition of key improvements that would provide improved conditions over “No Build” for the AM and PM peak hours.

Opening Year 2025 (Minimum Build)
Under Year 2025 conditions, an additional eastbound left turn pocket of 300 feet was added, converting the existing left/through lane to a through only, and the westbound approach was re-striped to convert the left/through lane and right turn pocket to a left turn pocket and through/right lane. This lane addition and restriping allows for an update to the signal timing plan that provides full phasing for the eastbound and westbound approaches instead of the existing split phases. To keep within the existing paved footprint and not extend into the creek for the extra lane, eliminating the southbound right slip lane may be necessary. The signal would then need to be modified to have a southbound right at the intersection.

Tables 3 and 4 present the Opening Year level of service and 95th percentile queues for the AM and PM peak hours.

Table 3 – Opening Year 2025 Intersection Operations – Signal Alternative (Minimum Build) Intersection Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS1 Delay LOS1
Kenmar Rd & Ross Hill Rd/S Fortuna Blvd
Signal

44.9 D 24.6 C
Eastbound 47.6 D 22.1 C
Westbound 53.9 D 29.5 C
Northbound 37.9 D 26.0 C
Southbound 49.5 D 25.4 C

1. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches for Signal Table 4 – Opening Year 2025 95th Percentile Queues – Signal Alternative (Minimum Build) Intersection Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
95th
Percentile
Queue
Available
Storage
95th
Percentile
Queue
Available
Storage
Kenmar Rd & Ross Hill Rd/S Fortuna Blvd
Signal
- - - -
Eastbound Left 272 300 241 300
Eastbound Through 114 500 108 500
Eastbound Right 70 180 90 180
Westbound Through 95 95 44 95
Westbound Right 377 - 146 -
Northbound Left 369 475 147 475
Northbound Through 214 - 118 -
Southbound Left 66 90 100 90
Southbound Through 170 - 139 -
Southbound Right 155 100 98 100
Notes: Values in red indicate queue exceeds available storage length As presented in the tables above with the addition of a second eastbound left turn pocket, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS D for the AM and LOS C for the PM peak hours. This build alternative also greatly reduces the eastbound queue lengths compared to the existing condition. The 95th percentile queues for the following turning movement is projected to exceed the available storage:
• Southbound Left
• Southbound Right
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 10 The eastbound and northbound queues are projected to be within the available storage.

Design Year 2045 (Full Build)
Year 2045 refers to an analysis scenario approximately 23 years in the future as is known as the Design Year. The improvements identified to provide stable intersection operations are the following:
• A second northbound left turn pocket. This will require a receiving (second) lane on the west side of the intersection.
• Provide a 300-foot protected left turn pocket, a through lane and a 100-foot right lane for Eastbound approach, same as the 2025 minimum build scenario. • Provide a 100-foot left turn pocket, a through lane and a 100-foot right lane for Westbound approach.
• Convert split phase to protected left turn phasing for Eastbound and Westbound approaches, same as in the 2025 minimum build scenario.
• Extend the left turn pocket for the southbound approach to 120-feet. • Remove the Channelization from the southbound right pocket and extend the storage length to 200 feet.

Tables 5 and 6 present the Design Year level of service and 95th percentile queues for the AM and PM peak hours.

Table 5 – Design Year 2045 Intersection Operations – Signal Alternative (Full Build) Intersection Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS1 Delay LOS1
Kenmar Rd & Ross Hill Rd/S Fortuna Blvd
Signal

33.9 C 25.6 C
Eastbound 34.8 C 24.2 C
Westbound 40.9 D 31.8 C
Northbound 30.6 C 25.0 C
Southbound 34.9 C 26.6 C

1. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches for Signal Table 6 – Design Year 2045 95th Percentile Queues – Signal Alternative (Full Build) Intersection Control
Type
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
95th
Percentile
Queue
Available
Storage
95th
Percentile
Queue
Available
Storage
Kenmar Rd & Ross Hill Rd/S Fortuna Blvd
Signal
- - - -
Eastbound Left 267 300 262 300
Eastbound Through 116 540 149 540
Eastbound Right 64 100 114 130
Westbound Left 96 100 38 100
Westbound Through 285 - 121 -
Westbound Right 167 100 60 100
Northbound Left 256 475 114 475
Northbound Through 194 - 122 -
Southbound Left 74 100 106 120
Southbound Through 145 - 141 -
Southbound Right 180 200 209 200
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 11 As presented in the tables on the previous page with the identified improvements, the intersection is projected to operate at LOS C for the AM and PM peak hours. As it operates acceptably in the design year, it would also operate acceptably in the opening year if it were constructed in place of the 2025 minimum build. The 95th percentile queues for the following turning movement are projected to exceed the available storage:
• Westbound Right
• Southbound Right
The eastbound and northbound queues are projected to be well within the available storage.

Roundabout Alternative
The roundabout alternative would convert the signalized intersection to a four-legged roundabout intersection.

Opening Year 2025
Table 7 presents the Opening Year level of service and 95th percentile queues for the AM and PM peak hours.

Table 7 – Opening Year 2025 Intersection Operations – Roundabout Alternative Intersection Control
Type1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS2
95th
Percentile
Queue
Delay LOS2
95th
Percentile
Queue
Kenmar Rd & Ross Hill Rd/S Fortuna
Blvd
RNDBT

8.0 A - 6.1 A -
Northbound 8.6 A - 6.6 A -
Lane 1 8.2 A 79.2 6.9 A 29.2
Lane 2 9.1 A 78.6 6.4 A 40.8
Westbound 9.8 A - 5.1 A -
Lane 1 11.4 B 62.3 5.3 A 12.8
Lane 2 6.4 A 21.9 4.8 A 9.5
Southbound 8.4 A - 5.7 A -
Lane 1 7.8 A 59.1 5.2 A 44.0
Lane 2 8.9 A 77.3 6.0 A 61.9
Eastbound 5.5 A - 6.4 A -
Lane 1 6.1 A 55.9 7.2 A 72.9
Lane 2 4.6 A 28.7 5.2 A 40.6

1. RNDBT = Roundabout

2. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches for RNBT As presented in Table 7, the roundabout alternative is projected to operate at LOS A overall for the AM and PM peak hours. The projected 95th percentile queues are expected to be less than five vehicles.

City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 12 Design Year 2045
Table 8 presents the Design Year level of service and 95th percentile queues for the AM and PM peak hours.

Table 8 – Design Year 2045 Intersection Operations – Roundabout Alternative Intersection Control
Type1
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS2
95th
Percentile
Queue
Delay LOS2
95th
Percentile
Queue
Kenmar Rd & Ross Hill Rd/S Fortuna
Blvd
RNDBT

10.5 B - 8.1 A -
Northbound 10.8 B - 9.5 A -
Lane 1 10.1 B 118.3 9.8 A 50.2
Lane 2 11.6 B 12.9 9.2 A 70.1
Westbound 13.7 B - 6.3 A -
Lane 1 16.3 B 99.6 6.6 A 19.9
Lane 2 7.8 A 32.7 5.9 A 15.9
Southbound 11.7 B - 7.4 A -
Lane 1 10.6 B 90.5 6.5 A 64.8
Lane 2 12.5 B 135.7 8.0 A 95.1
Eastbound 6.5 A - 8.7 A -
Lane 1 7.3 A 75.4 10.2 B 137.2
Lane 2 5.1 A 36.9 6.5 A 61.1

1. RNDBT = Roundabout

2. LOS = Delay based on average of all approaches for RNBT As presented in Table 8, the
roundabout alternative is projected
to operate at LOS B overall for the
AM and LOS A for the PM peak
hours. Additionally, the projected
95th percentile queues are expected
to be less than seven vehicles. The
roundabout site layout utilized to
analyze 2025 and 2045 conditions is
provided in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Roundabout site layout
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 13 Traffic Collision Analysis
Collision data for the City of Fortuna was gathered using the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), and collision data from the Fortuna Police Department. Each data set was analyzed, crosschecked, and compiled into one complete comprehensive data set. This process was done to ensure that all reported collisions occurring at the project location are accounted for and to provide additional information that one system may not have captured. The data set analyzed contains collisions between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019 (5 years).

During this period, a total of 14 collisions were reported. Many of these collisions were rear ends and low severity. Intersection congestion can increase the likelihood of rear end collisions as there are more vehicles operating in a specific area. A summary of the collisions is shown in Table 9 below.

Table 9 – Intersection Collisions between 2015 and 2019 Severity Type
Pedestrian Bicycle
Year
Fatal Injury (Severe) Injury (Other Visible) Injury (Complaint of Pain)Property Damage Only Head-on Sideswipe Rear End Broadside Hit Object Overturned Vehicle/ Pedestrian Other/Not Listed 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 EPDO Total 0 0 0 2 12 1 1 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 3 3 1 24 14

5. DEFICIENCIES
The existing conditions analysis shows that the intersection is operating below a LOS of C (below Fortuna’s minimum standard). The tables above also show that currently there is not enough storage to meet the peak hour demands on multiple legs of the intersection. In the AM peak hour, the northbound left turn lane has 95th percentile queues that exceed the available storage. In the PM peak hour, the eastbound right turn and the southbound left turn have 95th percentile queues that exceed the available storage.

The poor level of service and intersection congestion may be contributing to the number of rear end collisions occurring at the intersection.

The existing intersection also lacks adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

6. CORRIDOR AND SYSTEM COORDINATION
The following discussion highlights the state, regional and local planning considerations for the proposed project improvements.

State Planning
Complete Streets
Caltrans Director Policy 37 (DP-37) requires in locations with current and/or future pedestrian, bicycle, or transit needs, all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans to provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unless an exception is documented and approved.

Regional Planning
The City of Fortuna plans to add the project to the next update of the Humboldt County Associations of Governments (HCAOG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).

City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 14 Local Planning
General Plan
The City of Fortuna General Plan 2030 (General Plan) formalizes a long-term vision for the City’s physical development. The Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road intersection improvements would fulfill many policies set forth in the General Plan, including the policies are detailed below.

Roadways and Highways
Policy TC-1.1 Reducing Mode Conflicts – The City shall seek to minimize conflicts between pedestrians, automobiles, and bicycles.

Policy TC-1.2 New Roadway Improvements – The City shall design and phase roadway improvements so that a level of service (LOS) C or better is maintained on all City streets, except that LOS D or better shall be maintained on Main Street.

Policy TC-1.3 Balanced Transportation System – The City shall strive to meet the level of service standard through a balanced transportation system that provides alternatives to the automobile and by promoting pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connections between employment areas and major residential and commercial areas.

Policy TC-1.4 Improved LOS – The City shall identify economic, design, and planning solutions to improve levels of service currently below LOS C. Where physical mitigation is infeasible, the City shall consider developing programs that enhance alternative access or otherwise reduce automobile travel demand.

Bicycle and Trail Facilities
Policy TC-5.2 Bicycle System – The City shall develop and maintain a safe, convenient, and effective bicycle system that encourages increased bicycle use.

Pedestrian Facilities
Policy TC-4.2 New Developments – The City shall continue to require new development to finance and install sidewalks and pedestrian pathways connecting them to existing sidewalks or widening the right-of-way fronting the development to accommodate new sidewalks.

Policy TC-4.3 Specific Plans – The City shall encourage specific development plans to include design continuity of pedestrian access that enables residents to walk from their homes to places of work, recreation, and shopping.

Local Road Safety Plan
Improvements to the Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road intersection were identified as a priority project in the City of Fortuna’s 2021 LRSP.

7. ALTERNATIVES
Unless noted otherwise, the alternatives identified below address the purpose and need of the project.

The "No Build" Alternative
This is the "No Build" condition, where the study intersections would remain unaltered with respect to intersection geometrics and stop control. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need.

Signal (including Minimum Build) Alternative
As a supplement to the adjacent on-going US101/Kenmar Road interchange project to the west of this intersection, it may become necessary to support potential queuing going eastbound into the intersection.

As such, a minimum build signal alternative that provides an extended left turn lane and new right turn lane with a bike lane has been provided. This alternative could potentially be further modified to eliminate the existing southbound slip right, dependent on timing of improvements and availability of funding. See City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 15 Attachment B for conceptual drawings of the minimum build signal alternative with and without the current adjacent interchange geometrics for context.

The full build signal alternative would add a second left turn lane heading north on Ross Hill Road. This would reduce wait times and provide more storage for cars turning left. The west leg of Kenmar Road would be widened to add another receiving lane for the two left turn lanes on Ross Hill Road. The East leg of Kenmar Road would also be widened to provide for a bike lane. The bike lane addition would change the lane configuration at the intersection separating the right turn lane from the through lane with the bike lane. This alternative also includes bicycle facilities for all legs of the intersections providing connectivity to cyclists in the area. See Attachment B for conceptual drawings of the full build signal alternative with and without the current adjacent interchange geometrics for context.

Although the full build signal alternative does offer several operational and safety improvements compared to the no build, the full build signal alternative would provide inferior intersection operations compared to the roundabout alternative and would require substantial geometric changes to accommodate and provide improved operations for Year 2025 and 2045 conditions.

Note that in order to accommodate the required lane configurations on Kenmar Road, west of the intersection, the existing box culvert on Mill Creek would need to be extended or replaced, and approximately 250 feet of the Mill Creek channel north of Kenmar Road would need to be relocated.

These required culvert and channel modifications would likely face significant regulatory challenges, including the need to provide for fish passage through the culvert crossing. Before advancing with the alternative, consultation with regulatory agencies should occur to ensure to ensure that work would be allowable.

Roundabout Alternative
The roundabout alternative would provide increased safety and circulation for the intersection.

Roundabouts reduce speed at intersections which reduces the impact intensity of collisions that occur; they also reduce the number of potential conflict/collision points at the intersection. With the roundabout alternative, the available movements at the intersection have been maintained, while the number of lanes has been reduced. The roundabout alternative includes pedestrian crossings on each leg of the intersection providing connectivity to existing facilities to help close the gap in pedestrian facilities. Bicycle ramps and paths are also proposed for each leg of the roundabout allowing cyclists to travel through the intersection without entering the roundabout if they feel more comfortable being physically separated from the cars. See Attachment B for conceptual drawings of the roundabout alternative.

The roundabout alternative would provide better intersection operations compared to the signal alternative, as well as acceptable 95th percentile queues through Design Year 2045. The roundabout alternative would provide a single lane approach in the southbound, eastbound, and westbound directions with dedicated right turn pockets. The northbound approach would require a dedicated left turn lane with a through-right lane due to the heavy demand to the US 101 highway interchange to the west.

Cost Estimates
Capital, support, and total estimated costs for each alternative are summarized in Table 10 on the following page. The costs presented are escalated to the expected year of expenditure. The total capital costs include traffic control, mobilization, right-of-way, utility relocation, and contingencies. The total support costs include costs for environmental clearance, plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), right-of-way engineering and acquisitions, and construction support and management. Costs for the Minimum Build signal differ from the alternative shown in Attachment B and are based on the smallest potential footprint for the alternative, which would not include a realigned southbound slip lane, but rather a new southbound right that would be added as part of the westbound thru realignment/widening. Refer to Attachment F for detailed costs estimates for each alternative.

City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 16 Table 10: Cost Estimate Summary
Alternative Total Capital
Cost
Total Support
Cost
Total Estimated Cost
(Rounded)
Signal (Minimum Build) $2.1M $0.8M $2.9M
Signal (Full Build) $8.9M $3.7M $12.6M
Roundabout $6.1M $2.6M $8.7M

8. RIGHT-OF-WAY
Right-of-Way
The initial conceptual design relied on assessor parcel lines to approximate the public right-of-way and property lines as existing survey-level right-of-way information was not available at the time of this study.

Refer to Attachment C for copies of the assessor parcel maps for the project area.

Based on the assessor parcel lines, it appears that both the signal and roundabout alternatives can be constructed entirely within the existing City right of way with the exception of one discrete location northeast of the project intersection (APN # 202-021-004).

If the project advances, research should be conducted to determine accurate right-of-way widths, property lines, parcel ownerships, and maintenance responsibilities. Right-of-Way Data Sheets will need to be prepared during the right-of-way phase of the project.

In addition to permanent acquisitions, temporary permissions/easements and/or encroachment permits will need to be obtained during the Right-of-Way phase of the project.

Utilities
Existing underground and above ground utilities in the vicinity of the project may need to be modified or relocated to accommodate the proposed improvements. The relocation of non-City owned utilities is not expected to be required. During the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase the City should request utility mapping from the utility companies identified in Table 11 and identify potential conflicts with the proposed work.

Table 11: Utilities in Project Vicinity
Utility Owner
Storm Drain City of Fortuna
Cable Television Optimum
Telephone AT&T
Electrical Pacific Gas & Electric
Natural Gas Pacific Gas & Electric
Water City of Fortuna
Railroad
A railroad corridor owned by the Great Redwood Trail Agency (formerly North Coast Railroad Authority) roughly parallels the east side of US 101 and crosses through Kenmar Road East of the project area. At the time of this study the railroad corridor was in the process of being railbanked, allowing the corridor to be utilized for a trail system until rail operation become viable. There are no railroad facilities in the project area.

City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 17 9. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
As part of the outreach conducted to support the development of the City of Fortuna’s 2021 LRSP, the City solicited public input on road safety concerns through an online interactive map and a survey. The Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road intersection received some of the most comments on the City’s online interactive map. The common comment theme for the project intersection were as follows:
• Merging onto Kenmar Road from S. Fortuna Boulevard
• Red light running
According to the results of the public survey, the primary safety concern in the City of Fortuna is intersections, followed by a lack of infrastructure (sidewalks, bike lanes, turn lanes, etc.). Refer to Figure 4 below for a chart of all responses provided. Both of these items have been identified as specific needs for this project.

Figure 4 – Public-Identified Roadway Safety Issues (Fortuna LRSP, 2011)

10. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Preliminary Environmental Analysis
In 2022, an initial environmental evaluation of the project and alternatives was conducted to help anticipate potential environmental constraints that may affect project design, alternatives, cost, schedule, and delivery. The evaluation included a reconnaissance-level site investigation of existing conditions in the project area to identify the presence or potential presence of biological resources listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the presence of wetlands and Waters of the US as regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the presence or potential presence of species listed as endangered or threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) or considered a species of special concern (SSC) by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or the potential for special-status plant species having a rare plant ranking as determined by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) rare plant inventory, and to present the potential of sensitive habitats as listed by the CDFW. A map of the potential environmental constraints is included in Attachments D.

NEPA, CEQA and Permitting
During the PA&ED phase, the project will need to be evaluated for potential impacts on the environment in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Feasible opportunities to avoid or reduce impacts will need to be pursued and mitigation City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 18 measures developed to reduce potentially significant impacts as appropriate. The draft CEQA document would be made available to the public for review and comment.

Based on the information currently available, the expected compliance pathways are a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for CEQA and a Categorical Exclusion for NEPA in conformance with the Federal Highways Administration/Caltrans programmatic process.

During the initial environmental evaluation, potential riparian habitat was identified along the Kenmar Road, South Fortuna Road, and Ross Hill Road margins. This potential riparian habitat is largely associated with Mill Creek, which crosses under Ross Hill Road via a 72 inch culvert and under Kenmar Road via a ten foot by five foot box culvert. Potential wetlands were identified in the upland ditch island between Kenmar Road and South Fortuna Boulevard, along with a ditch on the south side of Kenmar Road.

Mill Creek is an anadromous waterway. Replacement or alteration of the two Mill Creek culverts could affect special status anadromous salmonids and other aquatic organisms. Sediment and erosion control Best Management Practices would need to be implemented during construction to reduce the likelihood of impacts to Mill Creek and aquatic organisms.

The wetland and riparian habitats in the project area have a moderate to high likelihood of supporting listed reptile, frog and fish species including Western Pond Turtle Emys (Actinymys) marmorata, Northern Red-legged Frog Rana aurora, and Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Rana boylii, along with other special status species. Several sensitive plant species and Sensitive Natural Communities also have a moderate likelihood of occurring in the study area. The following database searches are included in Attachment E:
• California Natural Diversity Database
• Fortuna California Native Plant Society Database
• National Marine Fisheries Service Species List
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service Species List
Subsequent environmental investigations, including a wetland delineation, will be needed to be completed to identify any sensitive species and habitats in the project area, and to identify any necessary protection and minimization measures. Additionally, a variety of permits and related environmental review will be necessary for project planning and design.

Anticipated Environmental Permitting and Compliance Requirements are presented in Table 12.

Table 12. Anticipated Environmental Permitting and Compliance Requirements Law/Regulation Permit/Approval Authority
CEQA Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Lead Agency
NEPA Categorical Exclusion Caltrans on behalf of Federal Highways Administration
Clean Water Act
Section 404
Nationwide Permit US Army Corps of Engineers
Porter-Cologne/Clean
Water Act Section 401
401 Certification and/or
Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDR)
North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board
National Historic
Preservation Act
Section 106
Letter of Concurrence State Historic Preservation
Office & Tribal Historic
Preservation Office
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 19 A Preliminary Environmental Study (PES) Form will need to be prepared during the PA&ED phase of the project to identify the required technical studies. The following technical studies and plans are anticipated to be required based on available information:
• Natural Environmental Study (NES) of Biological Resources • Wetland Delineation and Special Status Botanical Resources Survey • Initial Site Assessment (ISA)
• Visual Impact Assessment (VIA), Minor VIA, or Visual Technical Memorandum • Floodplain Evaluation & Location Hydraulic Study
• Geotechnical Investigation
• Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR) and Archaeological Survey Report (ASR) • Preliminary Hydraulics/Hydrology Study
Note that if the project does not include federal funds, several of the special studies noted above would not be required.

11. FUNDING
Funding to advance the project has not yet been programmed, however the City of Fortuna intends to request funding to advance the PA&ED phase of the project utilizing the funding from the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the Active Transportation Program (ATP), the federal RAISE program, local funds, or an alternative funding source.

Because of the likely cost of the project, a portion of funding would likely be in the form of federal funds. It has been determined that this project is eligible for Federal-aid funding.

Capital Outlay Cost Estimate
Table 13 presents a summary of the escalated capital outlay estimates for the proposed alternatives.

Detailed estimates for the two alternatives are presented in Attachment F.

Table 13: Summary of Capital Outlay Estimate
Alternative
Estimated Capital Cost
Construction Right-of-Way Utilities
Signal (Minimum Build) $2.03M None TBD
Signal (Full Build) $8.80M $60K TBD
Roundabout $6.03M $30K TBD
Note: The above costs are escalated to the anticipated year of expenditure.

The level of detail available to develop these capital outlay project estimates is useful for long-range planning purposes only. The potential cost of utility relocation work is not known at this time. The capital outlay project estimates should not be used to program or commit capital outlay funds.

City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 20 Outlay Support Cost Estimate
Estimated escalated outlay support for programming PA&ED for the preferred project (Roundabout Alternative) for this project is $521,000. Estimated support costs for other phases of work is presented in Table 14.

Table 14: Summary of Outlay Support Estimate
Alternative
Estimated Support Cost
PA&ED Support PS&E Support Right-of-Way
Support
Construction
Support
Signal (Minimum Build) $209K $260k None $350K
Signal (Full Build) $782K $1,146K $217K $1,527K
Roundabout $521K $782K $163K $1,075K
Note: The above costs are escalated to the anticipated year of expenditure.

The level of detail available to develop outlay support cost estimates for the PS&E, right-of-way, and construction is useful for long-range planning purposes only.

12. DELIVERY SCHEDULE
The potential delivery schedule for the proposed alternative is outlined below in Table 15. Once project funding his identified, the delivery schedule should be reviewed and updated as appropriate.

Table 15: Project Delivery Schedule
Project Milestones Scheduled Delivery Date
Program Project December 2023
Begin Environmental (PA&ED) Phase July 2024
Circulate Draft Environmental Document February 2025
Draft Project Report February 2025
End Environmental Milestone July 2025
The anticipated funding fiscal year for construction is 2025/26.

13. RISKS
A risk register and risk analysis will be completed for the project during the PA&ED phase of the project.

City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection 21 14. EXTERNAL AGENCY COORDINATION
This project does not anticipate needing coordination with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Coordination between the City of Fortuna and Caltrans will be required throughout all phases of this project as Caltrans will likely be the lead agency under NEPA and could be responsible for overseeing the funding, depending on the source. In addition, the project will require the following coordination:

US Army Corps of Engineers
Department of the Army Permit for:

Clean Water Act Section 404
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Fish and Game Code Section 1602
Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Clean Water Act Section 401
Water Quality Certification

15. PROJECT REVIEWS
City of Fortuna Engineering/Public Works Brendan Byrd Date City of Fortuna General Services Bob Natt Date
Since the project is not on the State Highway System, review and approval by Caltrans is not required.

16. PROJECT PERSONNEL
City of Fortuna
Brendan Byrd, City Engineer, 707-725-1469
GHD (Consultant)
Erin Gibbs, Staff Engineer, 949-648-5247
Andrea Hilton, Environmental Planner, 707-443-8326
Heather Anderson, Civil Engineer, 916-256-2685
Misha Schwarz, Environmental Scientist, 707-443-8326
Josh Wolf, PE, Project Manager/Civil Engineer, 707-443-8326

17. ATTACHMENTS (Number of Pages)
A. Location Map (1)
B. Conceptual Design Drawings (6)
C. Assessor Parcel Maps (3)
D. Environmental Constraints Map (1)
E. Environmental Database Search Results (76)

1. California Natural Diversity Database

2. Fortuna California Native Plant Society Database

3. National Marine Fisheries Service Species List

4. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Species List F. Cost Estimates (33)
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection Attachment A - Location map

0 1,000 2,000 3,000
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
12577588
Date Mar 2022
City of Fortuna
Kenmar and Ross Hill Road
PSR
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: transportation: USGS The National Map: National Transportation Dataset; U.S. Census Bureau – TIGER/Line; U.S. Forest Service. Data Refreshed January, 2022.; World Imagery (Clarity):

This work is licensed under the Esri Master License Agreement.View Summary | View Terms of UseExport: This layer is not intended to be used to export tiles for offline. Data Collection and Editing: This layer may be used in various ArcGIS apps to support data collection and editing, with the results used internally or shared with others, as described for these use cases.; World Hillshade: Esri, NASA, NGA, USGS, FEMA; World Topographic Map - labelless: California State Parks, Esri, HERE, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS; World Hillshade: Esri, USGS. Created by: jlopez4
\
\ghdnet\ghd\US\Eureka\Projects\561\12577588\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\12577588_Project_Description\12577588_Project_D - 12577588_001_Vicinity Print date: 30 Mar 2022 - 14:52 Vicinity Map
Data Disclaimer
** Insert text as required by data custodian **
** Remove only if not required by data custodian **
101
Sou ht For ut na B vl d
Kenmar Rd
Ross Hill Rd
E
e l
R
i
v
e
r
Fortuna
Hydesville
299
36 101 Eureka
Arcata
Fortuna
McKinleyville
Legend
Study Area
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection Attachment B - Conceptual Design Drawings

Date
Project No.

Filename: N:\US\Eureka\Projects\561\12577588\Digital_Design\ACAD\XREFS\12577588_Signal-MERGED.dwg Plot Date: 3/31/2025 City of Fortuna 12577588
Kenmar Rd and Ross Hill Rd March 2025

INTERIM CONDITION- N SIGNAL ALTERNATIVE
0 50' 100'

KENMAR ROAD KENMAR ROAD

ROSS HILL ROAD

S FORTUNA BOULEVARD

RENEE AVENUE
REMOVE 150' OF EXISTING

LANE LINE

BOLLARDS TO PROVIDE VERTICAL

SEPARATION FOR SLIP LANE CLOSURE
ADJUST MEDIAN AS SHOWN.

Date
Project No.

KENMAR ROAD

KENMAR ROAD ROSS HILL ROAD

S FORTUNA BOULEVARD

RENEE AVENUE
REMOVE 150' OF EXISTING

LANE LINE

BOLLARDS TO PROVIDE VERTICAL

SEPARATION FOR SLIP LANE CLOSURE
Date
Project No.

Filename: N:\US\Eureka\Projects\561\12577588\Digital_Design\ACAD\XREFS\12577588_Signal-MERGED.dwg Plot Date: 3/31/2025 City of Fortuna 12577588
Kenmar Rd and Ross Hill Rd March 2025

FULL BUILD OUT- N SIGNAL ALTERNATIVE
0 50' 100'

KENMAR ROAD KENMAR ROAD

ROSS HILL ROAD

S FORTUNA BOULEVARD

RENEE AVENUE

BOLLARDS TO PROVIDE VERTICAL

SEPARATION FOR SLIP LANE CLOSURE
Date
Project No.

KENMAR ROAD

KENMAR ROAD ROSS HILL ROAD

S FORTUNA BOULEVARD

RENEE AVENUE

BOLLARDS TO PROVIDE VERTICAL

SEPARATION FOR SLIP LANE CLOSURE
Date
Project No.

Filename: G:\561\12577588\Digital_Design\ACAD\XREFS\12577588_Roundabout Alternative.dwg Plot Date: 10/14/2022 City of Fortuna 12577588
Kenmar Rd and Ross Hill Rd October 2022

ROUNDABOUT N ALTERNATIVE
0 50' 100'

KENMAR ROAD KENMAR ROAD

ROSS HILL ROAD

S FORTUNA BOULEVARD

Filename: \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Eureka\Projects\561\12577588\Digital_Design\ACAD\XREFS\12577588_Signal.dwg Plot Date: 2/29/2024 City of Fortuna 12577588
Kenmar Rd and Ross Hill Rd February 2024

ROUNDABOUT

ALTERNATIVE
N

KENMAR ROAD

ROSS HILL ROAD

S FORTUNA BOULEVARD

RENEE AVENUE
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection Attachment C - Assessor Parcel Maps

City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection Attachment D - Environmental Constraints Map

South
Fortuna
Blvd
Kenmar Rd
Ross
Hill Rd
Kenmar Rd
10x5' Box Culvert
(3) 42" RCP
60" RCP
48" RCP
72" Culvert
Mill
Creek
Mill Creek
Mill Creek
Legend
Project Study
Boundary
Culverts
Mill Creek
Ditch
Potential Wetland
Potential Riparian
Date Apr 2022
Revision No. -
Project No. 12577588
Environmental Constraints
Kenmar Road and Ross Hill Road
Project Study Report
City of Fortuna
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983 o
0 50 100 150
Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
Data source: World Imagery (Clarity): This work is licensed under the Esri Master License Agreement.View Summary | View Terms of UseExport: This layer is not intended to be used to export tiles for offline. Data Collection and Editing: This layer may be used in various ArcGIS apps to support data collection and editing, with the results used internally or shared with others, as described for these use cases.

World Hillshade: Sources: Esri, Airbus DS, USGS, NGA, NASA, CGIAR, N Robinson, NCEAS, NLS, OS, NMA, Geodatastyrelsen, Rijkswaterstaat, GSA, Geoland, FEMA, Intermap and the GIS user community. Created by: jlopez4 \\ghdnet\ghd\US\Eureka\Projects\561\12577588\GIS\Maps\Deliverables\12577588_Project_Description\12577588_Project_Description.aprx Print date: 15 Apr 2022 - 09:33
City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection Attachment E – Environmental Database Search Results

SciName ComName FedList CalList GRank SRank CRPR Othr Status Habitats GenHab MicroHab Abronia
umbellata var.
breviflora
pink sandverbenaNone None G4G5T2 S2 1B.1 BLM_SSensitive | SB_CalBG/RSA
BG-California/
Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic
Garden
Coastal dunes Coastal dunes
and coastal
strand.

Foredunes and
interdunes
with sparse
cover. A.
umbellata var.
breviflora is
usually the
plant closest to
the ocean. 0-75
m.

Accipiter
cooperii
Cooper's hawk None None G5 S4 CDFW_WLWatch List |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Cismontane
woodland |
Riparian forest
| Riparian
woodland |
Upper montane
coniferous
forest
Woodland,
chiefly of
open,
interrupted
or marginal
type.

Nest sites
mainly in
riparian
growths of
deciduous
trees, as in
canyon
bottoms on
river floodplains; also, live
oaks.

Accipiter
striatus
sharp-shinned
hawk
None None G5 S4 CDFW_WLWatch List |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Cismontane
woodland |
Lower montane
coniferous
forest |
Riparian forest
| Riparian
woodland
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.

Acipenser
medirostris
green sturgeon Threatened None G3 S2 AFS_VUVulnerable | CDFW_SSCSpecies of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened |
NMFS_SCSpecies of
Concern
Aquatic |
Klamath/North
coast flowing
waters |
Sacramento/Sa
n Joaquin
flowing waters
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.

Largely
endemic to
California.

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

Ammodramus
savannarum
grasshopper
sparrow
None None G5 S3 CDFW_SSCSpecies of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Valley & foothill
grassland
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.

Anodonta
californiensis
California
floater
None None G3Q S2? USFS_SSensitiveAquatic Freshwater
lakes and
slow-moving
streams and
rivers.

Taxonomy
under review
by specialists.

Generally in
shallow water.

Anomobryum
julaceum
slender silver
moss
None None G5? S2 4.2 Broadleaved
upland forest |
Lower montane
coniferous
forest | North
coast
coniferous
forest
Broadleafed
upland forest,
lower
montane
coniferous
forest, north
coast
coniferous
forest.

Moss which
grows on damp
rocks and soil;
acidic
substrates.

Usually seen on
roadcuts. 100-
1000 m.

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.

Aplodontia rufa
humboldtiana
Humboldt
mountain
beaver
None None G5TNR SNR Coastal scrub |
Redwood |
Riparian forest
Coast Range
in
southwestern
Del Norte
County and
northwestern
Humboldt
County.

Variety of
coastal
habitats,
including
coastal scrub,
riparian
forests,
typically with
open canopy
and thickly
vegetated
understory.

Cliff-walled
canyons
provide nesting
habitat in most
parts of range;
also, large
trees in open
areas.

Arborimus
pomo
Sonoma tree
vole
None None G3 S3 CDFW_SSCSpecies of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened
North coast
coniferous
forest |
Oldgrowth |
Redwood
North coast
fog belt from
Oregon
border to
Somona
County. In
Douglas-fir,
redwood &
montane
hardwoodconifer
forests.

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

Rookery sites
located near
marshes, tideflats, irrigated
pastures, and
margins of
rivers and
lakes.

Rookery sites
in close
proximity to
foraging areas:
marshes, lake
margins, tideflats, rivers and
streams, wet
meadows.

Ascaphus truei Pacific tailed
frog
None None G4 S3S4 CDFW_SSCSpecies of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Aquatic |
Klamath/North
coast flowing
waters | Lower
montane
coniferous
forest | North
coast
coniferous
forest |
Redwood |
Riparian forest
Occurs in
montane
hardwoodconifer,
redwood,
Douglas-fir &
ponderosa
pine habitats.

Restricted to
perennial
montane
streams.

Tadpoles
require water
below 15
degrees C.

Astragalus
pycnostachyus
var.
pycnostachyus
coastal marsh
milk-vetch
None None G2T2 S2 1B.2 BLM_SSensitive |
SB_CalBG/RSA
BGCalifornia/Ranc
ho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
SB_SBBGSanta Barbara
Botanic
Garden |
SB_UCBG-UC
Botanical
Coastal dunes |
Coastal scrub |
Marsh &
swamp |
Wetland
Coastal
dunes,marsh
es and
swamps,
coastal scrub.

Mesic sites in
dunes or along
streams or
coastal salt
marshes. 0-155
m.

Bombus
caliginosus
obscure
bumble bee
None None G4? S1S2 IUCN_VUVulnerableCoastal areas
from Santa
Barabara
county to
north to
Washington
state.

Food plant
genera include
Baccharis,
Cirsium,
Lupinus, Lotus,
Grindelia and
Phacelia.

Bombus
occidentalis
western
bumble bee
None Candidate
Endangered
G2G3 S1 USFS_SSensitiveOnce
common &
widespread,
species has
declined
precipitously
from central
CA to
southern B.C.,
perhaps from
disease.

Brachyramphus
marmoratus
marbled
murrelet
Threatened Endangered G3 S2 CDF_SSensitive |
IUCN_ENEndangered |
NABCI_RWLRed Watch List
Lower montane
coniferous
forest |
Oldgrowth |
Redwood
Feeds nearshore; nests
inland along
coast from
Eureka to
Oregon
border and
from Half
Moon Bay to
Santa Cruz.

Nests in oldgrowth
redwooddominated
forests, up to
six miles
inland, often in
Douglas-fir.

Cardamine
angulata
seaside
bittercress
None None G4G5 S3 2B.1 Lower montane
coniferous
forest | North
coast
coniferous
forest |
Wetland
North coast
coniferous
forest, lower
montane
coniferous
forest.

Wet areas,
streambanks. 5-
515 m.

Carex leptalea bristle-stalked
sedge
None None G5 S1 2B.2 Bog & fen |
Freshwater
marsh | Marsh
& swamp |
Meadow &
seep | Wetland
Bogs and
fens,
meadows and
seeps,
marshes and
swamps.

Mostly known
from bogs and
wet meadows.
3-1395 m.

Carex lyngbyei Lyngbye's
sedge
None None G5 S3 2B.2 Marsh &
swamp |
Wetland
Marshes and
swamps
(brackish or
freshwater).
0-200 m.

Castilleja
ambigua var.
humboldtiensis
Humboldt Bay
owl's-clover
None None G4T2 S2 1B.2 BLM_SSensitiveMarsh &
swamp | Salt
marsh |
Wetland
Marshes and
swamps.

In coastal
saltmarsh with
Spartina,
Distichlis,
Salicornia,
Jaumea. 0-20
m.

Castilleja
litoralis
Oregon coast
paintbrush
None None G3 S3 2B.2 Coastal bluff
scrub | Coastal
dunes | Coastal
scrub
Coastal bluff
scrub, coastal
dunes,
coastal scrub.

Sandy sites. 5-
255 m.

Charadrius
montanus
mountain
plover
None None G3 S2S3 BLM_SSensitive |
CDFW_SSCSpecies of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened |
NABCI_RWLRed Watch List
| USFWS_BCCBirds of
Conservation
Concern
Chenopod
scrub | Valley &
foothill
grassland
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.

Charadrius
nivosus nivosus
western snowy
plover
Threatened None G3T3 S2 CDFW_SSCSpecies of
Special
Concern |
NABCI_RWLRed Watch List
| USFWS_BCCBirds of
Conservation
Concern
Great Basin
standing waters
| Sand shore |
Wetland
Sandy
beaches, salt
pond levees
& shores of
large alkali
lakes.

Needs sandy,
gravelly or
friable soils for
nesting.

Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
palustre
Point Reyes
salty bird'sbeak
None None G4?T2 S2 1B.2 BLM_SSensitiveMarsh &
swamp | Salt
marsh |
Wetland
Coastal salt
marsh.

Usually in
coastal salt
marsh with
Salicornia,
Distichlis,
Jaumea,
Spartina, etc. 0-
115 m.

Clarkia amoena
ssp. whitneyi
Whitney's
farewell-tospring
None None G5T1 S1 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSA
BG-California/
Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic
Garden |
SB_UCBG-UC
Botanical
Garden at
Berkeley
Coastal bluff
scrub | Coastal
scrub
Coastal bluff
scrub, coastal
scrub.
5-125 m.

Coastal Terrace
Prairie
Coastal Terrace
Prairie
None None G2 S2.1 Coastal prairie
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
western yellowbilled cuckooThreatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1 BLM_SSensitive | NABCI_RWLRed Watch List
| USFS_SSensitive |
USFWS_BCCBirds of
Conservation
Concern
Riparian forest Riparian
forest nester,
along the
broad, lower
floodbottoms of
larger river
systems.

Nests in
riparian jungles
of willow, often
mixed with
cottonwoods,
with lower
story of
blackberry,
nettles, or wild
grape.

Most
common in
mesic sites.

Roosts in the
open, hanging
from walls and
ceilings.

Roosting sites
limiting.

Extremely
sensitive to
human
disturbance.

Coturnicops
noveboracensis
yellow rail None None G4 S1S2 CDFW_SSCSpecies of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern |
NABCI_RWLRed Watch List
| USFS_SSensitive |
USFWS_BCCBirds of
Conservation
Concern
Freshwater
marsh |
Meadow &
seep
Summer
resident in
eastern Sierra
Nevada in
Mono
County.

Freshwater
marshlands.

Downingia
willamettensis
Cascade
downingia
None None G4 S2 2B.2 Cismontane
woodland |
Valley & foothill
grassland |
Vernal pool
Cismontane
woodland,
valley and
foothill
grasslands,
vernal pools.

Lake margins.
15-1110 m.

Egretta thula snowy egret None None G5 S4 IUCN_LC-Least Concern
Marsh &
swamp |
Meadow &
seep | Riparian
forest |
Riparian
woodland |
Wetland
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.

Needs basking
sites and
suitable (sandy
banks or grassy
open fields)
upland habitat
up to 0.5 km
from water for
egg-laying.

Entosphenus
tridentatus
Pacific lamprey None None G4 S4 AFS_VUVulnerable |
BLM_SSensitive |
CDFW_SSCSpecies of
Special
Concern |
USFS_SSensitive
Aquatic |
Klamath/North
coast flowing
waters |
Sacramento/Sa
n Joaquin
flowing waters
| South coast
flowing waters
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
gravelbottomed
areas for
spawning with
water temps
between 12-18
C.

Ammocoetes
need soft sand
or mud.

Erethizon
dorsatum
North
American
porcupine
None None G5 S3 IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Broadleaved
upland forest |
Cismontane
woodland |
Closed-cone
coniferous
forest | Lower
montane
coniferous
forest | North
coast
coniferous
forest | Upper
montane
coniferous
forest
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.

Erysimum
menziesii
Menzies'
wallflower
Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSA
BGCalifornia/Ranc
ho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
SB_UCBG-UC
Botanical
Garden at
Coastal dunes Coastal
dunes.

Localized on
dunes and
coastal strand.
1-25 m.

Erythronium
oregonum
giant fawn lily None None G4G5 S2 2B.2 Cismontane
woodland |
Meadow &
seep |
Ultramafic
Cismontane
woodland,
meadows and
seeps.

Openings.

Sometimes on
serpentine;
rocky sites. 300-
1435 m.

Erythronium
revolutum
coast fawn lily None None G4G5 S3 2B.2 Bog & fen |
Broadleaved
upland forest |
North coast
coniferous
forest |
Wetland
Bogs and
fens,
broadleafed
upland forest,
north coast
coniferous
forest.

Mesic sites;
streambanks.
60-1405 m.

Eucyclogobius
newberryi
tidewater goby Endangered None G3 S3 AFS_ENEndangered | IUCN_VUVulnerable
Aquatic |
Klamath/North
coast flowing
waters |
Sacramento/Sa
n Joaquin
flowing waters
| South coast
flowing waters
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.

Fissidens
pauperculus
minute pocket
moss
None None G3? S2 1B.2 USFS_SSensitiveNorth coast
coniferous
forest |
Redwood
North coast
coniferous
forest.

Moss growing
on damp soil
along the
coast. In dry
streambeds
and on stream
banks. 30-1025
m.

Gilia capitata
ssp. pacifica
Pacific gilia None None G5T3 S2 1B.2 Chaparral |
Coastal bluff
scrub | Coastal
prairie | Valley
& foothill
grassland
Coastal bluff
scrub,
chaparral,
coastal
prairie, valley
and foothill
grassland.
5-1345 m.

Gilia
millefoliata
dark-eyed gilia None None G2 S2 1B.2 BLM_SSensitiveCoastal dunes Coastal dunes.
1-60 m.

Gonidea
angulata
western ridged
mussel
None None G3 S1S2 Aquatic Primarily
creeks &
rivers & less
often lakes.

Originally in
most of state,
now
extirpated
from Central
& Southern
Calif.

Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
bald eagle Delisted Endangered G5 S3 BLM_SSensitive |
CDF_SSensitive |
CDFW_FP-Fully
Protected |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern |
USFS_SSensitive |
USFWS_BCCBirds of
Conservation
Concern
Lower montane
coniferous
forest |
Oldgrowth
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.

Hesperevax
sparsiflora var.
brevifolia
short-leaved
evax
None None G4T3 S3 1B.2 BLM_SSensitiveCoastal bluff
scrub | Coastal
dunes | Coastal
prairie
Coastal bluff
scrub, coastal
dunes,
coastal
prairie.

Sandy bluffs
and flats. 0-640
m.

Lampetra
richardsoni
western brook
lamprey
None None G4G5 S3S4 CDFW_SSCSpecies of
Special
Concern |
USFS_SSensitive
Lasiurus
cinereus
hoary bat None None G3G4 S4 IUCN_LC-Least
Concern |
WBWG_MMedium
Priority
Broadleaved
upland forest |
Cismontane
woodland |
Lower montane
coniferous
forest | North
coast
coniferous
forest
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.

Layia carnosa beach layia Endangered Endangered G2 S2 1B.1 SB_CalBG/RSA BGCalifornia/Ranc
ho Santa Ana
Botanic
Garden |
SB_SBBGSanta Barbara
Botanic
Coastal dunes |
Coastal scrub
Coastal
dunes,
coastal scrub.

On sparsely
vegetated,
semi-stabilized
dunes, usually
behind
foredunes. 3-
30 m.

Lilium
occidentale
western lily Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 SB_BerrySBBerry Seed Bank
Bog & fen |
Coastal bluff
scrub | Coastal
prairie | Coastal
scrub |
Freshwater
marsh | Marsh
& swamp |
North coast
coniferous
forest |
Wetland
Coastal scrub,
freshwater
marsh, bogs
and fens,
coastal bluff
scrub, coastal
prairie, north
coast
coniferous
forest,
marshes and
swamps.

Well-drained,
old beach
washes
overlain with
wind-blown
alluvium and
organic topsoil;
usually near
margins of
Sitka spruce. 3-
110 m.

Lycopodium
clavatum
running-pine None None G5 S3 4.1 Lower montane
coniferous
forest | Marsh
& swamp |
North coast
coniferous
forest |
Wetland
Lower
montane
coniferous
forest, north
coast
coniferous
forest,
marshes and
swamps.

Forest
understory,
edges,
openings,
roadsides;
mesic sites
with partial
shade and
light. 45-1225
m.

Margaritifera
falcata
western
pearlshell
None None G4G5 S1S2 Aquatic Aquatic. Prefers lower
velocity
waters.

Martes caurina
humboldtensis
Humboldt
marten
Proposed
Threatened
Endangered G4G5T1 S1 CDFW_SSCSpecies of
Special
Concern |
USFS_SSensitive
North coast
coniferous
forest |
Oldgrowth |
Redwood
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.

Montia howellii Howell's
montia
None None G3G4 S2 2B.2 Meadow &
seep | North
coast
coniferous
forest | Vernal
pool | Wetland
Meadows
and seeps,
north coast
coniferous
forest, vernal
pools.

Vernally wet
sites; often on
compacted
soil. 10-1215
m.

Myotis
yumanensis
Yuma myotis None None G5 S4 BLM_SSensitive |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern |
WBWG_LMLow-Medium
Priority
Lower montane
coniferous
forest |
Riparian forest
| Riparian
woodland |
Upper montane
coniferous
forest
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.

Northern
Coastal Salt
Marsh
Northern
Coastal Salt
Marsh
None None G3 S3.2 Marsh &
swamp |
Wetland
Nycticorax
nycticorax
black-crowned
night heron
None None G5 S4 IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Marsh &
swamp |
Riparian forest
| Riparian
woodland |
Wetland
Colonial
nester,
usually in
trees,
occasionally
in tule
patches.

Rookery sites
located
adjacent to
foraging areas:
lake margins,
mud-bordered
bays, marshy
spots.

Oenothera
wolfii
Wolf's eveningprimroseNone None G2 S1 1B.1 SB_BerrySBBerry Seed Bank
Coastal bluff
scrub | Coastal
dunes | Coastal
prairie
Coastal bluff
scrub, coastal
dunes,
coastal
prairie, lower
montane
coniferous
forest.

Sandy
substrates;
usually mesic
sites. 0-125 m.

Oncorhynchus
clarkii clarkii
coast cutthroat
trout
None None G5T4 S3 AFS_VUVulnerable |
CDFW_SSCSpecies of
Special
Concern |
USFS_SSensitive
Aquatic |
Klamath/North
coast flowing
waters
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.

Oncorhynchus
kisutch pop. 2
coho salmon -
southern
Oregon /
northern
California ESU
Threatened Threatened G5T2Q S2 AFS_THThreatenedAquatic | Klamath/North
coast flowing
waters |
Sacramento/Sa
n Joaquin
flowing waters
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.

Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 16
steelhead -
northern
California DPS
Threatened None G5T2T3Q S2S3 AFS_THThreatenedAquatic | Sacramento/Sa
n Joaquin
flowing waters
Coastal
basins from
Redwood
Creek south
to the Gualala
River,
inclusive.

Does not
include
summer-run
steelhead.

Packera
bolanderi var.
bolanderi
seacoast
ragwort
None None G4T4 S2S3 2B.2 Coastal scrub |
North coast
coniferous
forest
Coastal scrub,
north coast
coniferous
forest.

Sometimes
along
roadsides. 30-
915 m.

Pandion
haliaetus
osprey None None G5 S4 CDF_SSensitive |
CDFW_WLWatch List |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Riparian forest Ocean shore,
bays,
freshwater
lakes, and
larger
streams.

Large nests
built in treetops within 15
miles of a good
fish-producing
body of water.

Pekania
pennanti
Fisher None None G5 S2S3 BLM_SSensitive |
CDFW_SSCSpecies of
Special
Concern |
USFS_SSensitive
North coast
coniferous
forest |
Oldgrowth |
Riparian forest
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.

Piperia candida white-flowered
rein orchid
None None G3 S3 1B.2 Broadleaved
upland forest |
Lower montane
coniferous
forest | North
coast
coniferous
forest |
Ultramafic
North Coast
coniferous
forest, lower
montane
coniferous
forest,
broadleafed
upland forest.

Sometimes on
serpentine.

Forest duff,
mossy banks,
rock outcrops,
and muskeg. 20-
1615 m.

Polemonium
carneum
Oregon
polemonium
None None G3G4 S2 2B.2 Coastal prairie |
Coastal scrub |
Lower montane
coniferous
forest
Coastal
prairie,
coastal scrub,
lower
montane
coniferous
forest.
15-1525 m.

Puccinellia
pumila
dwarf alkali
grass
None None G4? SH 2B.2 Marsh &
swamp |
Wetland
Marshes and
swamps.

Mineral spring
meadows and
coastal salt
marshes. 1-10
m.

Rana aurora northern redlegged frogNone None G4 S3 CDFW_SSCSpecies of Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern |
USFS_SSensitive
Klamath/North
coast flowing
waters |
Riparian forest
| Riparian
woodland
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 nonbreeding
season.

Needs at least
some cobblesized substrate
for egg-laying.

Needs at least
15 weeks to
attain
metamorphosis
.

Rhyacotriton
variegatus
southern
torrent
salamander
None None G3G4 S2S3 CDFW_SSCSpecies of
Special
Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least
Concern |
USFS_SSensitive
Lower montane
coniferous
forest |
Oldgrowth |
Redwood |
Riparian forest
Coastal
redwood,
Douglas-fir,
mixed
conifer,
montane
riparian, and
montane
hardwoodconifer
habitats. Old
growth
forest.

Cold, wellshaded,
permanent
streams and
seepages, or
within splash
zone or on
moss-covered
rocks within
trickling water.

Riparia riparia bank swallow None Threatened G5 S2 BLM_SSensitive | IUCN_LC-Least
Concern
Riparian scrub |
Riparian
woodland
Colonial
nester; nests
primarily in
riparian and
other lowland
habitats west
of the desert.

Requires
vertical
banks/cliffs
with finetextured/sandy
soils near
streams, rivers,
lakes, ocean to
dig nesting
hole.

Sidalcea
malachroides
maple-leaved
checkerbloom
None None G3 S3 4.2 Broadleaved
upland forest |
Coastal prairie |
Coastal scrub |
North coast
coniferous
forest |
Riparian forest
Broadleafed
upland forest,
coastal
prairie,
coastal scrub,
north coast
coniferous
forest,
riparian
forest.

Woodlands and
clearings near
coast; often in
disturbed
areas. 4-765 m.

Sidalcea
malviflora ssp.
patula
Siskiyou
checkerbloom
None None G5T2 S2 1B.2 Coastal bluff
scrub | Coastal
prairie | North
coast
coniferous
forest
Coastal bluff
scrub, coastal
prairie, north
coast
coniferous
forest.

Open coastal
forest;
roadcuts. 5-
1255 m.

Sidalcea
oregana ssp.
eximia
coast
checkerbloom
None None G5T1 S1 1B.2 Lower montane
coniferous
forest |
Meadow &
seep | North
coast
coniferous
forest |
Wetland
Meadows
and seeps,
north coast
coniferous
forest, lower
montane
coniferous
forest.

Near meadows,
in gravelly soil.
5-1805 m.

Sisyrinchium
hitchcockii
Hitchcock's
blue-eyed grass
None None G2 S1 1B.1 Cismontane
woodland |
Valley & foothill
grassland
Cismontane
woodland,
valley and
foothill
grassland.

Openings in
woodland or in
grassland. 305
m in California.

Sitka Spruce
Forest
Sitka Spruce
Forest
None None G1 S1.1
Spergularia
canadensis var.
occidentalis
western sandspurreyNone None G5T4 S1 2B.1 Marsh &
swamp |
Wetland
Marshes and
swamps
(coastal salt
marshes).
0-3 m.

Spirinchus
thaleichthys
longfin smelt Candidate Threatened G5 S1 Aquatic |
Estuary
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.

Thaleichthys
pacificus
eulachon Threatened None G5 S2 Aquatic |
Klamath/North
coast flowing
waters
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 peasized gravel,
sand, and
woody debris.

Usnea
longissima
Methuselah's
beard lichen
None None G4 S4 4.2 BLM_SSensitiveBroadleaved
upland forest |
North coast
coniferous
forest |
Oldgrowth |
Redwood
North coast
coniferous
forest,
broadleafed
upland forest.

Grows in the
"redwood
zone" on tree
branches of a
variety of
trees, including
big leaf maple,
oaks, ash,
Douglas-fir,
and bay. 45-
1465 m in
California.

Scientific Name Common
Name
Family Lifeform CRPR GRank SRank CESA FESA Blooming
Period
Habitat Micro Habitat
Abronia
umbellata var.
breviflora
pink sandverbenaNyctaginaceae perennial herb 1B.1 G4G5T2 S2 None None Jun-Oct Coastal dunes Astragalus
pycnostachyus
var.
pycnostachyus
coastal marsh
milk-vetch
Fabaceae perennial herb 1B.2 G2T2 S2 None None (Apr)JunOctCoastal dunes (mesic), Coastal
scrub, Marshes
and swamps
(coastal salt,
streamsides)
Carex leptalea bristle-stalked
sedge
Cyperaceae perennial
rhizomatous
herb
2B.2 G5 S1 None None Mar-Jul Bogs and fens,
Meadows and
seeps (mesic),
Marshes and
swamps
Carex lyngbyei Lyngbye's
sedge
Cyperaceae perennial
rhizomatous
herb
2B.2 G5 S3 None None Apr-Aug Marshes and
swamps
(brackish or
freshwater)
Castilleja
ambigua var.
humboldtiensis
Humboldt Bay
owl's-clover
Orobanchaceae annual herb
(hemiparasitic)
1B.2 G4T2 S2 None None Apr-Aug Marshes and
swamps
(coastal salt)
Castilleja litoralis Oregon coast
paintbrush
Orobanchaceae perennial herb
(hemiparasitic)
2B.2 G3 S3 None None Jun-Jul Coastal bluff
scrub, Coastal
dunes, Coastal
scrub
sandy
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
palustre
Point Reyes
bird's-beak
Orobanchaceae annual herb
(hemiparasitic)
1B.2 G4?T2 S2 None None Jun-Oct Marshes and
swamps
(coastal salt)
Clarkia amoena
ssp. whitneyi
Whitney's
farewell-tospring
Onagraceae annual herb 1B.1 G5T1 S1 None None Jun-Aug Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
scrub
Downingia
willamettensis
Cascade
downingia
Campanulaceae annual herb 2B.2 G4 S2 None None JunJul(Sep)Cismontane woodland (lake
margins), Valley
and foothill
grassland (lake
margins),
Vernal pools
Erysimum
menziesii
Menzies?
wallflower
Brassicaceae perennial herb 1B.1 G1 S1 CE FE Mar-Sep Coastal dunes Erythronium
oregonum
giant fawn lily Liliaceae perennial
bulbiferous
herb
2B.2 G4G5 S2 None None MarJun(Jul)Cismontane
woodland,
Meadows and
seeps
sometimes
serpentinite,
rocky,
openings
Erythronium
revolutum
coast fawn lily Liliaceae perennial
bulbiferous
herb
2B.2 G4G5 S3 None None MarJul(Aug)Bogs and fens,
Broadleafed
upland forest,
North Coast
coniferous
forest
Mesic,
streambanks
Fissidens
pauperculus
minute pocket
moss
Fissidentaceae moss 1B.2 G3? S2 None None North Coast
coniferous
forest (damp
coastal soil)
Gilia capitata ssp.
pacifica
Pacific gilia Polemoniaceae annual herb 1B.2 G5T3 S2 None None Apr-Aug Coastal bluff scrub,
Chaparral
(openings),
Coastal prairie,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
Gilia millefoliata dark-eyed gilia Polemoniaceae annual herb 1B.2 G2 S2 None None Apr-Jul Coastal dunes Hesperevax
sparsiflora var.
brevifolia
short-leaved
evax
Asteraceae annual herb 1B.2 G4T3 S2 None None Mar-Jun Coastal bluff scrub (sandy),
Coastal dunes,
Coastal prairie
Hesperolinon
adenophyllum
glandular
western flax
Linaceae annual herb 1B.2 G2G3 S2S3 None None May-Aug Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland,
Valley and
foothill
grassland
usually
serpentinite
Layia carnosa beach layia Asteraceae annual herb 1B.1 G2 S2 CE FE Mar-Jul Coastal dunes, Coastal scrub
(sandy)
Lilium occidentale western lily Liliaceae perennial
bulbiferous
herb
1B.1 G1 S1 CE FE Jun-Jul Bogs and fens,
Coastal bluff
scrub, Coastal
prairie, Coastal
scrub, Marshes
and swamps
(freshwater),
North Coast
coniferous
forest
(openings)
Montia howellii Howell's
montia
Montiaceae annual herb 2B.2 G3G4 S2 None None (JanFeb)MarMayMeadows and seeps, North
Coast
coniferous
forest, Vernal
pools
vernally
mesic,
sometimes
roadsides
Oenothera wolfii Wolf's
eveningprimrose
Onagraceae perennial herb 1B.1 G2 S1 None None May-Oct Coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
dunes, Coastal
prairie, Lower
montane
coniferous
forest
sandy, usually
mesic
Packera
bolanderi var.
bolanderi
seacoast
ragwort
Asteraceae perennial
rhizomatous
herb
2B.2 G4T4 S2S3 None None (JanApr)MayJul(Aug)Coastal scrub, North Coast
coniferous
forest
Sometimes
roadsides
Piperia candida whiteflowered rein
orchid
Orchidaceae perennial herb 1B.2 G3 S3 None None (Mar)MaySepBroadleafed upland forest,
Lower montane
coniferous
forest, North
Coast
coniferous
forest
sometimes
serpentinite
Polemonium
carneum
Oregon
polemonium
Polemoniaceae perennial herb 2B.2 G3G4 S2 None None Apr-Sep Coastal prairie, Coastal scrub,
Lower montane
coniferous
forest
Puccinellia pumila dwarf alkali
grass
Poaceae perennial herb 2B.2 G4? SH None None Jul Marshes and swamps
(coastal salt)
Sidalcea
malviflora ssp.
patula
Siskiyou
checkerbloom
Malvaceae perennial
rhizomatous
herb
1B.2 G5T2 S2 None None (Apr)MayAugCoastal bluff
scrub, Coastal
prairie, North
Coast
coniferous
forest
often
roadcuts
Sidalcea oregana
ssp. eximia
coast
checkerbloom
Malvaceae perennial herb 1B.2 G5T1 S1 None None Jun-Aug Lower montane coniferous
forest,
Meadows and
seeps, North
Coast
coniferous
forest
Sisyrinchium
hitchcockii
Hitchcock's
blue-eyed
grass
Iridaceae perennial
rhizomatous
herb
1B.1 G2 S1 None None Jun Cismontane
woodland
(openings),
Valley and
foothill
grassland
Spergularia
canadensis var.
occidentalis
western sandspurreyCaryophyllaceae annual herb 2B.1 G5T4 S1 None None Jun-Aug Marshes and swamps
(coastal salt)
Quad Name Fortuna
Quad Number 40124-E2

1. ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) - X
CCC Coho ESU (E) -
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -
NC Steelhead DPS (T) - X
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) -
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) -

2. ESA Anadromous Fish Critical
Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat - X
CCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat - X
CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat -
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat -

3. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
Range White Abalone (E) -

4. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Critical Habitat
Black Abalone Critical Habitat -

5. ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) -
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) -
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) -
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E) -

6. ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) -
Fin Whale (E) -
Humpback Whale (E) -
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) -
North Pacific Right Whale (E) -
Sei Whale (E) -
Sperm Whale (E) -

7. ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) -
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -

8. Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH - X
Chinook Salmon EFH - X
Groundfish EFH - X
Coastal Pelagics EFH - X
Highly Migratory Species EFH -

9. MMPA Species (See list at left)

10. ESA and MMPA
Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list at left and consult the NMFS
Long Beach office
562-980-4000
MMPA Cetaceans -
MMPA Pinnipeds -
Quad Name Cannibal Island
Quad Number 40124-F3

11. ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) - X
CCC Coho ESU (E) -
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -
NC Steelhead DPS (T) - X
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) -
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) - X

12. ESA Anadromous Fish Critical
Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat - X
CCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat - X
CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat -
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat - X

13. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
Range White Abalone (E) -

14. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Critical Habitat
Black Abalone Critical Habitat -

15. ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) - X
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) - X
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) - X
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E)
-

16. ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) - X
Fin Whale (E) - X
Humpback Whale (E) - X
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) - X
North Pacific Right Whale (E) - X
Sei Whale (E) - X
Sperm Whale (E) - X

17. ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) -
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -

18. Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH - X
Chinook Salmon EFH - X
Groundfish EFH - X
Coastal Pelagics EFH - X
Highly Migratory Species EFH -

19. MMPA Species (See list at left)

20. ESA and MMPA
Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list at left and consult the NMFS
Long Beach office
562-980-4000
MMPA Cetaceans - X
MMPA Pinnipeds - X
Quad Name Fields Landing
Quad Number 40124-F2

21. ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) - X
CCC Coho ESU (E) -
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -
NC Steelhead DPS (T) - X
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) -
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) - X

22. ESA Anadromous Fish Critical
Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat - X
CCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat - X
CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat -
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat - X

23. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
Range White Abalone (E) -

24. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Critical Habitat
Black Abalone Critical Habitat -

25. ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) - X
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) - X
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) - X
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E)
-

26. ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) - X
Fin Whale (E) - X
Humpback Whale (E) - X
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) - X
North Pacific Right Whale (E) - X
Sei Whale (E) - X
Sperm Whale (E) - X

27. ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) -
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -

28. Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH - X
Chinook Salmon EFH - X
Groundfish EFH - X
Coastal Pelagics EFH - X
Highly Migratory Species EFH -

29. MMPA Species (See list at left)

30. ESA and MMPA
Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list at left and consult the NMFS
Long Beach office
562-980-4000
MMPA Cetaceans - X
MMPA Pinnipeds - X
Quad Name McWhinney Creek
Quad Number 40124-F1

31. ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) - X
CCC Coho ESU (E) -
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -
NC Steelhead DPS (T) - X
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) -
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) -

32. ESA Anadromous Fish Critical
Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat - X
CCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat - X
CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat -
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat -

33. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
Range White Abalone (E) -

34. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Critical Habitat
Black Abalone Critical Habitat -

35. ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) -
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) -
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) -
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E) -

36. ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) -
Fin Whale (E) -
Humpback Whale (E) -
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) -
North Pacific Right Whale (E) -
Sei Whale (E) -
Sperm Whale (E) -

37. ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) -
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -

38. Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH - X
Chinook Salmon EFH - X
Groundfish EFH -
Coastal Pelagics EFH -
Highly Migratory Species EFH -

39. MMPA Species (See list at left)

40. ESA and MMPA
Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list at left and consult the NMFS
Long Beach office
562-980-4000
MMPA Cetaceans -
MMPA Pinnipeds -
Quad Name Ferndale
Quad Number 40124-E3

41. ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) - X
CCC Coho ESU (E) -
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -
NC Steelhead DPS (T) - X
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) -
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) - X

42. ESA Anadromous Fish Critical
Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat - X
CCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat - X
CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat -
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat - X

43. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
Range White Abalone (E) -

44. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Critical Habitat
Black Abalone Critical Habitat -

45. ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) - X
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) - X
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) - X
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E)
-

46. ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) - X
Fin Whale (E) - X
Humpback Whale (E) - X
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) - X
North Pacific Right Whale (E) - X
Sei Whale (E) - X
Sperm Whale (E) - X

47. ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) -
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -

48. Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH - X
Chinook Salmon EFH - X
Groundfish EFH - X
Coastal Pelagics EFH - X
Highly Migratory Species EFH -

49. MMPA Species (See list at left)

50. ESA and MMPA
Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list at left and consult the NMFS
Long Beach office
562-980-4000
MMPA Cetaceans - X
MMPA Pinnipeds - X
Quad Name Hydesville
Quad Number 40124-E1

51. ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) - X
CCC Coho ESU (E) -
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -
NC Steelhead DPS (T) - X
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) -
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) -

52. ESA Anadromous Fish Critical
Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat - X
CCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat - X
CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat -
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat -

53. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
Range White Abalone (E) -

54. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Critical Habitat
Black Abalone Critical Habitat -

55. ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) -
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) -
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) -
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E) -

56. ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) -
Fin Whale (E) -
Humpback Whale (E) -
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) -
North Pacific Right Whale (E) -
Sei Whale (E) -
Sperm Whale (E) -

57. ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) -
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -

58. Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH - X
Chinook Salmon EFH - X
Groundfish EFH - X
Coastal Pelagics EFH - X
Highly Migratory Species EFH -

59. MMPA Species (See list at left)

60. ESA and MMPA
Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list at left and consult the NMFS
Long Beach office
562-980-4000
MMPA Cetaceans -
MMPA Pinnipeds -
Quad Name Capetown
Quad Number 40124-D3

61. ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) - X
CCC Coho ESU (E) -
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -
NC Steelhead DPS (T) - X
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) -
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) - X

62. ESA Anadromous Fish Critical
Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat - X
CCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat - X
CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat -
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat - X

63. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
Range White Abalone (E) -

64. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Critical Habitat
Black Abalone Critical Habitat -

65. ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) - X
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) - X
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) - X
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E)
-

66. ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) - X
Fin Whale (E) - X
Humpback Whale (E) - X
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) - X
North Pacific Right Whale (E) - X
Sei Whale (E) - X
Sperm Whale (E) - X

67. ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) -
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -

68. Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH - X
Chinook Salmon EFH - X
Groundfish EFH - X
Coastal Pelagics EFH - X
Highly Migratory Species EFH -

69. MMPA Species (See list at left)

70. ESA and MMPA
Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list at left and consult the NMFS
Long Beach office
562-980-4000
MMPA Cetaceans - X
MMPA Pinnipeds - X
Quad Name Taylor Peak
Quad Number 40124-D2

71. ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) - X
CCC Coho ESU (E) -
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -
NC Steelhead DPS (T) - X
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) -
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) -

72. ESA Anadromous Fish Critical
Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat - X
CCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat - X
CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat -
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat -

73. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
Range White Abalone (E) -

74. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Critical Habitat
Black Abalone Critical Habitat -

75. ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) -
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) -
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) -
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E) -

76. ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) -
Fin Whale (E) -
Humpback Whale (E) -
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) -
North Pacific Right Whale (E) -
Sei Whale (E) -
Sperm Whale (E) -

77. ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) -
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -

78. Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH - X
Chinook Salmon EFH - X
Groundfish EFH -
Coastal Pelagics EFH -
Highly Migratory Species EFH -

79. MMPA Species (See list at left)

80. ESA and MMPA
Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list at left and consult the NMFS
Long Beach office
562-980-4000
MMPA Cetaceans -
MMPA Pinnipeds -
Quad Name Scotia
Quad Number 40124-D1

81. ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) - X
CCC Coho ESU (E) -
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -
NC Steelhead DPS (T) - X
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) -
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) -

82. ESA Anadromous Fish Critical
Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat - X
CCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat - X
CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat -
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat -

83. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
Range White Abalone (E) -

84. ESA Marine Invertebrates
Critical Habitat
Black Abalone Critical Habitat -

85. ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) -
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) -
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) -
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E) -

86. ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) -
Fin Whale (E) -
Humpback Whale (E) -
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) -
North Pacific Right Whale (E) -
Sei Whale (E) -
Sperm Whale (E) -

87. ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) -
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -

88. Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH - X
Chinook Salmon EFH - X
Groundfish EFH - X
Coastal Pelagics EFH -
Highly Migratory Species EFH -

89. MMPA Species (See list at left)

90. ESA and MMPA
Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list at left and consult the NMFS
Long Beach office
562-980-4000
MMPA Cetaceans -
MMPA Pinnipeds -

IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly a�ected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of e�ects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-speci�c (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-speci�c (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS o�ce(s) with jurisdiction in the de�ned project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Location
Humboldt County, California
Local o�ce
Arcata Fish And Wildlife O�ce
 (707) 822-7201
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
 (707) 822-8411
1655 Heindon Road
Arcata, CA 95521-4573
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of in�uence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly a�ected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a �sh population even if that �sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water �ow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential e�ects to species, additional site-speci�c and project-speci�c information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local o�ce and a species list which ful�lls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an o�cial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local �eld o�ce directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an o�cial species list by doing the following:

1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.

2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.

3. Log in (if directed to do so).

4. Provide a name and description for your project.

5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the �sheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an 1 2
o�ce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially a�ected by activities in this location:

Mammals
Birds
Insects

NAME STATUS
Paci�c Marten, Coastal Distinct Population Segment
Martes caurina
Wherever found
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9081
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467
Threatened
Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina
Wherever found
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1123
Threatened
Western Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8035
Threatened
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
There is �nal critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Flowering Plants
Critical habitats
Potential e�ects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.

Migratory birds
Monarch Butter�y Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate

NAME STATUS
Western Lily Lilium occidentale
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/998
Endangered
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:
• Birds of Conservation Concern https://www.fws.gov/program/migratory-birds/species • Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library /collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds • Nationwide conservation measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/�les /documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf 1 2
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may �nd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o� the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A

BREEDING SEASON IS

INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON

YOUR LIST, THE BIRD MAY

BREED IN YOUR PROJECT

AREA SOMETIME WITHIN THE

TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED,

WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL

ESTIMATE OF THE DATES

INSIDE WHICH THE BIRD

BREEDS ACROSS ITS ENTIRE
RANGE. "BREEDS ELSEWHERE"

INDICATES THAT THE BIRD

DOES NOT LIKELY BREED IN
YOUR PROJECT AREA.)
Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637
Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for
potential susceptibilities in o�shore areas from certain types of development or activities.

Breeds Jan 1 to Sep 30
Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey e�ort (see below) can be used to establish a level of con�dence in the presence score. One can have higher con�dence in the presence score if the corresponding survey e�ort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey E�ort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. probability of presence breeding season survey e�ort no data To see a bar's survey e�ort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o� the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Allen's
Hummingbird
BCC
Rangewide
(CON) (This is
a Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental
USA and
Alaska.)
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
(This is not a
Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
in this area,
but warrants
attention
because of
the Eagle Act
or for
potential
susceptibilities
in o�shore
areas from
certain types
of
development
or activities.)
Olive-sided
Flycatcher
BCC
Rangewide
(CON) (This is
a Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental
USA and
Alaska.)
Wrentit
BCC
Rangewide
(CON) (This is
a Bird of
Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its
range in the
continental
USA and
Alaska.)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci�ed location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and �ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identi�ed as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to o�shore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci�ed location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe speci�ed. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Paci�c Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in o�shore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. o�shore energy development or longline �shing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, e�orts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially a�ected by o�shore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area o� the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also o�ers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results �les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci�ed location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey e�ort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey e�ort is the key component. If the survey e�ort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey e�ort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to con�rm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be con�rmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Coastal Barrier Resources System
Projects within the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) may be subject to the restrictions on federal expenditures and �nancial assistance and the consultation requirements of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) (16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). For more information, please contact the local Ecological Services Field O�ce or visit the CBRA Consultations website. The CBRA website provides tools such as a �ow chart to help determine whether consultation is required and a template to facilitate the consultation process.

THERE ARE NO KNOWN COASTAL BARRIERS AT THIS LOCATION.

Data limitations
The CBRS boundaries used in IPaC are representations of the controlling boundaries, which are depicted on the o�cial CBRS maps. The boundaries depicted in this layer are not to be considered authoritative for in/out determinations close to a CBRS boundary (i.e., within the "CBRS Bu�er Zone" that appears as a hatched area on either side of the boundary). For projects that are very close to a CBRS boundary but do not clearly intersect a unit, you may contact the Service for an o�cial determination by following the instructions here: https://www.fws.gov/service/coastal-barrierresources-system-property-documentation Data exclusions
CBRS units extend seaward out to either the 20- or 30-foot bathymetric contour (depending on the location of the unit). The true seaward extent of the units is not shown in the CBRS data, therefore projects in the o�shore areas of units (e.g., dredging, breakwaters, o�shore wind energy or oil and gas projects) may be subject to CBRA even if they do not intersect the CBRS data. For additional information, please contact [email protected].

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.

Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands
Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

WETLAND INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location.

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identi�ed based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography.

A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classi�cation established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth veri�cation work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or �eld work.

There may be occasional di�erences in polygon boundaries or classi�cations between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuber�cid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may de�ne and describe wetlands in a di�erent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to de�ne the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modi�cations within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning speci�ed agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may a�ect such activities.

City of Fortuna
Kenmar Road and S. Fortuna Boulevard/Ross Hill Road Intersection Attachment F - Cost Estimates

PROJECT
©
EA: N/A
PID: N/A District-County-Route: 01-HUM-Kenmar
PM: N/A

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost
$ 2,030,273 1,722,200 $
$ - - $
$ 2,030,273 1,722,200 $
$ - - $
$ 2,031,000 1,723,000 $
$ 208,400 200,000 $
$ 260,500 250,000 $
$ - - $
$ 395,978 350,000 $
$ 865,000 800,000 $
$ 2,900,000 2,530,000 $
Programmed Amount
Month / Year
Date of Estimate (Month/Year) 7 / 2022
Estimated Construction Start (Month/Year) 2 / 2025
Number of Working Days = 100
Estimated Mid-Point of Construction (Month/Year) /
Estimated Construction End (Month/Year) /
Number of Plant Establishment Days
Josh Wolf 2/29/2024 (707) 267-2264
Project Manager Date Phone

PLANNING COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A

RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT

TOTAL STRUCTURES COST

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Planning Level Estimate
N/A
The intersection of Kenmar Rd and Ross Hill Road
Fortuna Kenmar and Ross Hill Road PSR
Signal Alternative - Min
Alternative : 1

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST

TOTAL ROADWAY COST
Type of Estimate :

PA/ED SUPPORT
Program Code :

Project Limits :

Project Description:

Scope :

Begin Construction

TOTAL SUPPORT COST
Estimated Project Schedule

TOTAL PROJECT COST

PS&E SUPPORT

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS

CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT
Approved by Project Manager
RTL
PID Approval
PA/ED Approval
PS&E
1 of 11 4/1/2025

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY
Cost
1 $ 20,000
2 $ 768,200
3 $ 40,000
4 $ 25,000
5 $ 75,800
6 $ 143,000
7 $ -
8 $ 107,200
9 $ 118,000
10 $ 59,000
11 $ 21,500
12 $ -
13 $ 344,500
$ 1,722,200
Erin Gibbs 7/22/2022 (916) 865-0932
Name and Title Date Phone
Daniel Kehrer 7/22/2022 (916) 918-0614
Name and Title Date Phone
Supplemental Work
Estimate Reviewed By :

Time-Related Overhead
Roadway Contingency
Environmental
Traffic Items
Detours
Minor Items
Roadway Mobilization
Section
Earthwork
Pavement Structural Section
Drainage
Specialty Items

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
Estimate Prepared By :

By signing this estimate you are attesting that you have discussed your project with all functional units and have incorporated all their comments or have discussed with them why they will not be incorporated.

State Furnished
2 of 11 4/1/2025

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 1: EARTHWORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
190101 Roadway Excavation CY 200 x 100.00 = 20,000 $
$ 20,000
SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 1,685 x 145.00 = 244,325 $ 26020X Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 305 x 110.00 = 33,550 $ 397005 Tack Coat TON 5 x 1,265.00 = 6,325 $
390100 Prime Coat TON 3 x 1,565.00 = 4,695 $
371623 Minor Concrete (Curb Ramp) CY 54 x 1,580.00 = 85,320 $ 731504 Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter) CY 11 x 1,085.00 = 11,935 $ 731521 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) CY 34 x 1,015.00 = 34,510 $ 731504 Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter) CY x = $ - 730020 Minor Concrete (Curb) CY 100 x 2,200.00 = 220,000 $ 398200 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete Pavement SQYD 7,500 x 17.00 = 127,500 $ $ 768,200

TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS

TOTAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS
3 of 11 4/1/2025

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 3: DRAINAGE
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
XXXXXX Additional Drainage LS 1 x 40,000.00 = 40,000 $
$ 40,000
SECTION 4: SPECIALTY ITEMS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
XXXXXX Reconstruct City of Fortuna Sign LS 1 x 25,000.00 = 25,000 $ $ 25,000

TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS

TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS
4 of 11 4/1/2025

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL
5A - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
160110 Temporary High Visibility Fence LF 250 x 13.00 = 3,250 $ Subtotal Environmental Mitigation 3,250 $
5B - LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Subtotal Landscape and Irrigation - $
5C - EROSION CONTROL
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
210010 Move In/Move Out (Erosion Control) EA $ 1 x 20000 = $ 20,000 Subtotal Erosion Control 20,000 $
5D - NPDES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
130300 Prepare SWPPP LS 1 x 3,000.00 = 3,000 $
130100 Job Site Management LS 1 x 20,000.00 = 20,000 $
130330 Storm Water Annual Report EA 1 x 2,000.00 = 2,000 $ 130310 Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) EA 10 x 500.00 = 5,000 $ 130320 Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Day EA 5 x 500.00 = 2,500 $ XXXXXX Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 x 20,000.00 = 20,000 $ Subtotal NPDES 52,500 $
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL 75,800 $
*** Applies only to project with SWPPPs.
*Applies to all SWPPPs and those WPCPs with sediment control or soil stabilization BMPs. **Applies to both SWPPPs and WPCP projects.
5 of 11 4/1/2025

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS
6A - Traffic Electrical
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
860201 Signal and Lighting LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $
Subtotal Traffic Electrical 50,000 $
6B - Traffic Signing and Striping
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
820480 Roadside Sign - One Post EA 10 x 500.00 = 5,000 $ 820250 Remove Roadside Sign EA 10 x 200.00 = 2,000 $
840502 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Enhanced Wet Night Visibility) LF 4,000 x 2.00 = 8,000 $ 846012 Thermoplastic Crosswalk and Pavement Marking (Enhanced Wet Night Visibility) SQFT 800 x 10.00 = 8,000 $ 120090 Construction Area Signs LS 1 x 5,000.00 = 5,000 $ 027072 Bollards EA 10 x 500.00 = 5,000 $
Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping 33,000 $
6C - Traffic Management Plan
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
12865X Portable Changeable Message Signs LS 1 x 10,000 $ = 10,000 $ Subtotal Traffic Management Plan 10,000 $
6C - Stage Construction and Traffic Handling
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120100 Traffic Control System LS 1 x 50,000.00 = 50,000 $ Subtotal Stage Construction and Traffic Handling 50,000 $ TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS $ 143,000
6 of 11 4/1/2025

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 7: DETOURS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
$ -
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1 through 7 1,072,000 $
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS
8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items
ADA Items 5.0% 53,600 $
8B - Bike Path Items
Bike Path Items 0.0% - $
8C - Other Minor Items
Other Minor Items 5.0% 53,600 $
Total of Section 1-7 1,072,000 $ x 10.0% = 107,200 $
$ 107,200
SECTIONS 9: ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
Item code
999990 Total Section 1-8 1,179,200 $ x 10% = 117,920 $
$ 118,000
SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Total Section 1-8 1,179,200 $ 5% = 58,960 $
TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK 59,000 $
Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal

TOTAL DETOURS

TOTAL MINOR ITEMS

TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
* Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal
7 of 11 4/1/2025

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066901 Water Expenses LS 1 x 1,000.00 = $1,000
XXXXXX Agency Permit Fee LS 1 x 20,000.00 = $20,000
066916 Annual Construction General Permit Fee LS 1 x 500.00 = $500 Total Section 1-8 1,179,200 $ 0% = - $
$21,500
SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD
Total of Roadway and Structures Contract Items excluding Mobilization $1,179,200 (used to calculate TRO) Total Construction Cost (excluding TRO and Contingency) $1,377,700 (used to check if project is greater than $5 million excluding contingency) Estimated Time-Related Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to 10%) = 0% Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $0
SECTION 13: ROADWAY CONTINGENCY
Total Section 1-12 $ 1,377,700 x 25% = $344,425
TOTAL CONTINGENCY $344,500

TOTAL STATE FURNISHED
8 of 11 4/1/2025

PROJECT
©
EA: N/A
PID: N/A District-County-Route: 01-HUM-Kenmar
PM: N/A

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost
$ 7,466,700 $ 8,802,369
$ - $ -
$ 7,466,700 $ 8,802,369
$ 50,000 $ 60,000
$ 7,517,000 $ 8,863,000
$ 750,000 $ 781,500
$ 1,100,000 $ 1,146,200
$ 200,000 $ 217,153
$ 1,350,000 $ 1,527,344
$ 3,400,000 $ 3,673,000
$ 10,950,000 $ 12,550,000
Programmed Amount
Month / Year
Date of Estimate (Month/Year) 7 / 2022
Estimated Construction Start (Month/Year) 2 / 2025
Number of Working Days = 100
Estimated Mid-Point of Construction (Month/Year) /
Estimated Construction End (Month/Year) /
Number of Plant Establishment Days
Josh Wolf 10/14/2022 (707) 267-2264
Project Manager Date Phone
Approved by Project Manager
RTL
PID Approval
PA/ED Approval
PS&E
Program Code :

Project Limits :

Project Description:

Scope :

Begin Construction

TOTAL SUPPORT COST
Estimated Project Schedule

TOTAL PROJECT COST

PS&E SUPPORT

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS

CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT

PLANNING COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A

RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT

TOTAL STRUCTURES COST

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Planning Level Estimate
N/A
The intersection of Kenmar Rd and Ross Hill Road
Fortuna Kenmar and Ross Hill Road PSR
Signal Alternative
Alternative : 1

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST

TOTAL ROADWAY COST
Type of Estimate :

PA/ED SUPPORT
1 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY
Cost
1 $ 28,000
2 $ 1,056,900
3 $ 3,140,000
4 $ 25,000
5 $ 100,800
6 $ 354,200
7 $ -
8 $ 470,500
9 $ 517,600
10 $ 258,800
11 $ 21,500
12 $ -
13 $ 1,493,400
$ 7,466,700
Erin Gibbs 7/22/2022 (916) 865-0932
Name and Title Date Phone
Daniel Kehrer 7/22/2022 (916) 918-0614
Name and Title Date Phone
By signing this estimate you are attesting that you have discussed your project with all functional units and have incorporated all their comments or have discussed with them why they will not be incorporated.

State Furnished
Section
Earthwork
Pavement Structural Section
Drainage
Specialty Items
Supplemental Work
Estimate Reviewed By :

Time-Related Overhead
Roadway Contingency
Environmental
Traffic Items
Detours
Minor Items
Roadway Mobilization

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
Estimate Prepared By :
2 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 1: EARTHWORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
190101 Roadway Excavation CY 350 x 80.00 = $ 28,000
$ 28,000
SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 3,300 x 145.00 = $ 478,500 26020X Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 335 x 110.00 = $ 36,850 397005 Tack Coat TON 5 x 1,265.00 = $ 6,325
371623 Minor Concrete (Curb Ramp) CY 50 x 1,580.00 = $ 79,000 731521 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) CY 20 x 1,015.00 = $ 20,300 730020 Minor Concrete (Curb) CY 100 x 2,200.00 = $ 220,000 398200 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete Pavement SQYD 12,700 x 17.00 = $ 215,900 $ 1,056,900

TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS

TOTAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS
3 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 3: DRAINAGE
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
15080X Remove Culvert LS 1 x 100,000.00 = $ 100,000
XXXXXX Box Culvert LS 1 x 2,500,000.00 = $ 2,500,000
XXXXXX Channel Relocation LS 1 x 500,000 = $ 500,000
XXXXXX Additional Drainage LS 1 x 40,000.00 = $ 40,000
$ 3,140,000
SECTION 4: SPECIALTY ITEMS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
XXXXXX Reconstruct City of Fortuna Sign LS 1 x 25,000.00 = $ 25,000 $ 25,000

TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS

TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS
4 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL
5A - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
XXXXXX Biological Mitigation LS 1 x 25,000.00 = $ 25,000 160110 Temporary High Visibility Fence LF 250 x 13.00 = $ 3,250 Subtotal Environmental Mitigation $ 28,250
5B - LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Subtotal Landscape and Irrigation $ -
5C - EROSION CONTROL
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
210010 Move In/Move Out (Erosion Control) EA $ 1 x 20000 = $ 20,000 Subtotal Erosion Control $ 20,000
5D - NPDES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
130300 Prepare SWPPP LS 1 x 3,000.00 = $ 3,000
130100 Job Site Management LS 1 x 20,000.00 = $ 20,000
130330 Storm Water Annual Report EA 1 x 2,000.00 = $ 2,000 130310 Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) EA 10 x 500.00 = $ 5,000 130320 Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Day EA 5 x 500.00 = $ 2,500 XXXXXX Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 x 20,000.00 = $ 20,000 Subtotal NPDES $ 52,500
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $ 100,800
*** Applies only to project with SWPPPs.
*Applies to all SWPPPs and those WPCPs with sediment control or soil stabilization BMPs. **Applies to both SWPPPs and WPCP projects.
5 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS
6A - Traffic Electrical
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
860201 Signal and Lighting LS 1 x 200,000.00 = $ 200,000 Subtotal Traffic Electrical $ 200,000
6B - Traffic Signing and Striping
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
820480 Roadside Sign - One Post EA 20 x 500.00 = $ 10,000 820250 Remove Roadside Sign EA 20 x 200.00 = $ 4,000
840502 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Enhanced Wet Night V LF 9,185 x 2.00 = $ 18,370 846012 Thermoplastic Crosswalk and Pavement Marking (E SQFT 1,679 x 10.00 = $ 16,790 120090 Construction Area Signs LS 1 x 5,000.00 = $ 5,000 Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping $ 54,160
6C - Traffic Management Plan
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
12865X Portable Changeable Message Signs LS 1 x $ 10,000 = $ 10,000 Subtotal Traffic Management Plan $ 10,000
6C - Stage Construction and Traffic Handling
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120100 Traffic Control System LS 1 x 90,000.00 = $ 90,000 Subtotal Stage Construction and Traffic Handling $ 90,000 TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS $ 354,200
6 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 7: DETOURS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
$ -
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1 through 7 $ 4,704,900
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS
8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items
ADA Items 5.0% $ 235,245
8B - Bike Path Items
Bike Path Items 0.0% $ -
8C - Other Minor Items
Other Minor Items 5.0% $ 235,245
Total of Section 1-7 $ 4,704,900 x 10.0% = $ 470,490
$ 470,500
SECTIONS 9: ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
Item code
999990 Total Section 1-8 $ 5,175,400 x 10% = $ 517,540
$ 517,600
SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Total Section 1-8 $ 5,175,400 5% = $ 258,770
TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK $ 258,800
Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal

TOTAL DETOURS

TOTAL MINOR ITEMS

TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
* Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal
7 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066901 Water Expenses LS 1 x 1,000.00 = $1,000
XXXXXX Agency Permit Fee LS 1 x 20,000.00 = $20,000
066916 Annual Construction General Permit Fee LS 1 x 500.00 = $500 Total Section 1-8 $ 5,175,400 0% = $ -
$21,500
SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD
Total of Roadway and Structures Contract Items excluding Mobilization $5,175,400 (used to calculate TRO) Total Construction Cost (excluding TRO and Contingency) $5,973,300 (used to check if project is greater than $5 million excluding contingency) Estimated Time-Related Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to 10%) = 0% Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $0
SECTION 13: ROADWAY CONTINGENCY
Total Section 1-12 $ 5,973,300 x 25% = $1,493,325
TOTAL CONTINGENCY $1,493,400

TOTAL STATE FURNISHED
8 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
II. STRUCTURE ITEMS
0 LF 0 LF 0 LF
0 LF 0 LF 0 LF
0 SQFT 0 SQFT 0 SQFT
0 LF 0 LF 0 LF
STRUCTURES MOBILIZATION 10%
Recommended Contingency: (Pre-PSR 30%-50%, PSR 25%, Draft PR 20%, PR 15%, after PR approval 10%, Final PS&E 5%) Total recommended percentages includes any quantified risk based contingency from the risk register.

STRUCTURES CONTINGENCY 10%
DATE OF ESTIMATE 00/00/00 00/00/00 00/00/00
Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bridge Number 57-XXX 57-XXX 57-XXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Structure Type xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Width (Feet) [out to out]
Total Length (Feet)
Total Area (Square Feet)
Structure Depth (Feet)
Footing Type (pile or spread) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cost Per Square Foot $0 $0 $0
COST OF EACH $0 $0 $0
TOTAL COST OF BRIDGES $0
TOTAL COST OF BUILDINGS $0
$0
$0

TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURES
Estimate Prepared By:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ------ Division of Structures Date
$0
9 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
III. RIGHT OF WAY
Fill in all of the available information from the Right of Way Data Sheet.

A) A1) Acquisition, including Excess Land Purchases, Damages & Goodwill, Fees $ 50,000 A2) SB-1210 $ 0
B) Acquisition of Offsite Mitigation $ 0
C) C1) Utility Relocation (State Share) $ 0
C2) Potholing (Design Phase) $ 0
D) Railroad Acquisition $ 0
E) Clearance / Demolition $ 0
F) Relocation Assistance (RAP and/or Last Resort Housing Costs) $ 0 G) $ 0
H) Environmental Review $ 0
I) 0% $ 0
J) Design Appreciation Factor 0% $ 0
K) Utility Relocation (Construction Cost) $ 0
L)
M)
N)
1 When estimate has Support Costs only 2 When estimate has Utility Relocation 3 When R/W Acquisition is required $50,000
Title and Escrow
Condemnation Settlements
Note: Items G & H applied to items A + B

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE
Support Cost Estimate
Prepared By Project Coordinator1 Phone
TOTAL R/W ESTIMATE: Escalated $60,000
RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT $217,153
Utility Estimate Prepared
By Utility Coordinator2 Phone
R/W Acquisition Estimate
Prepared By Right of Way Estimator3 Phone
10 of 11 11/26/2022

SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
Current Year Cost Escalated Cost
$ 5,117,500 $ 6,032,936
$ - $ -
$ 5,117,500 $ 6,032,936
$ 25,000 $ 30,000
$ 5,143,000 $ 6,063,000
$ 500,000 $ 521,000
$ 750,000 $ 781,500
$ 150,000 $ 162,865
$ 950,000 $ 1,074,798
$ 2,350,000 $ 2,541,000
$ 7,500,000 $ 8,650,000
Programmed Amount
Month / Year
Date of Estimate (Month/Year) 7 / 2022
Estimated Construction Start (Month/Year) 2 / 2025
Number of Working Days = 180
Estimated Mid-Point of Construction (Month/Year) /
Estimated Construction End (Month/Year) /
Number of Plant Establishment Days
Josh Wolf 10/14/2022 (707) 267-2264
Project Manager Date Phone
Approved by Project Manager
RTL
PID Approval
PA/ED Approval
PS&E
Program Code :

Project Limits :

Project Description:

Scope :

Begin Construction

TOTAL SUPPORT COST
Estimated Project Schedule

TOTAL PROJECT COST

PS&E SUPPORT

TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS

CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT

PLANNING COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A

RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT

TOTAL STRUCTURES COST

SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Planning Level Estimate
N/A
The intersection of Kenmar Rd and Ross Hill Road
Fortuna Kenmar and Ross Hill Road PSR
Roundabout Alternative
Alternative : 2

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST

TOTAL ROADWAY COST
Type of Estimate :

PA/ED SUPPORT
1 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
I. ROADWAY ITEMS SUMMARY
Cost
1 $ 720,000
2 $ 1,135,400
3 $ 200,000
4 $ 25,000
5 $ 289,300
6 $ 731,400
7 $ 50,000
8 $ 346,700
9 $ 349,800
10 $ 174,900
11 $ 71,500
12 $ -
13 $ 1,023,500
$ 5,117,500
Erin Gibbs 7/22/2022 (916) 865-0932
Name and Title Date Phone
Daniel Kehrer 7/22/2022 (916) 918-0614
Name and Title Date Phone
Supplemental Work
Estimate Reviewed By :

Time-Related Overhead
Roadway Contingency
Environmental
Traffic Items
Detours
Minor Items
Roadway Mobilization
Section
Earthwork
Pavement Structural Section
Drainage
Specialty Items

TOTAL ROADWAY ITEMS
Estimate Prepared By :

State Furnished
2 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 1: EARTHWORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
190101 Roadway Excavation CY 8,000 x 80.00 = $ 640,000
170101 Develop Water Supply LS 1 x 20,000.00 = $ 20,000 XXXXXX Remove/ Salvage Signal LS 1 x 60,000 = $ 60,000
$ 720,000
SECTION 2: PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
390132 Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) TON 2,300 x 145.00 = $ 333,500 26020X Class 2 Aggregate Base CY 650 x 110.00 = $ 71,500 397005 Tack Coat TON 4 x 1,265.00 = $ 5,060
731521 Minor Concrete (Sidewalk) CY 130 x 1,015.00 = $ 131,950 012891 Minor Concrete (Roundabout Truck Apron) CY 50 x 1,500.00 = $ 75,000 731504 Minor Concrete (Curb and Gutter) CY 100 x 1,085.00 = $ 108,500 730020 Minor Concrete (Curb) CY 100 x 2,200.00 = $ 220,000 398200 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete Pavement SQYD 10,050 x 17.00 = $ 170,850 750001 Miscellaneous Iron and Steel LB 3,900 x 4.88 = $ 19,032 $ 1,135,400

TOTAL EARTHWORK SECTION ITEMS

TOTAL PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL SECTION ITEMS
3 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 3: DRAINAGE
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
XXXXXX Additional Drainage LS 1 x 200,000.00 = $ 200,000 $ 200,000
SECTION 4: SPECIALTY ITEMS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
XXXXXX Specialty Item (OH Signs/Fortuna Sign) EA 1 x 25,000.00 = $ 25,000 $ 25,000

TOTAL DRAINAGE ITEMS

TOTAL SPECIALTY ITEMS
4 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 5: ENVIRONMENTAL
5A - ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Biological Mitigation LS 1 x 25,000.00 = $ 25,000
160110 Temporary High Visibilitiy Fence LF 250 x 13.00 = $ 3,250 Subtotal Environmental Mitigation $ 28,250
5B - LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
XXXXXX Landscaping Costs LS 1 x 150,000.00 = $ 150,000
Subtotal Landscape and Irrigation $ 150,000
5C - EROSION CONTROL
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
210010 Move In/Move Out (Erosion Control) LS 1 x 20000 = $ 20,000 Subtotal Erosion Control $ 20,000
5D - NPDES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
130300 Prepare SWPPP LS 1 x 4,000.00 = $ 4,000
130100 Job Site Management LS 1 x 20,000.00 = $ 20,000
130330 Storm Water Annual Report EA 1 x 2,000.00 = $ 2,000 130310 Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) EA 20 x 500.00 = $ 10,000 130320 Storm Water Sampling and Analysis Day EA 10 x 500.00 = $ 5,000 XXXXXX Temporary Erosion Control LS 1 x 50,000.00 = $ 50,000 Subtotal NPDES $ 91,000
TOTAL ENVIRONMENTAL $ 289,300
*** Applies only to project with SWPPPs.
*Applies to all SWPPPs and those WPCPs with sediment control or soil stabilization BMPs. **Applies to both SWPPPs and WPCP projects.
5 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 6: TRAFFIC ITEMS
6A - Traffic Electrical
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
XXXXX Street Lighting Systems LS 1 x 400,000.00 = $ 400,000 Subtotal Traffic Electrical $ 400,000
6B - Traffic Signing and Striping
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
820480 Roadside Sign - One Post EA 20 x 500.00 = $ 10,000 820250 Remove Roadside Sign EA 20 x 200.00 = $ 4,000
840502 Thermoplastic Traffic Stripe (Enhanced Wet Night V LF 9,700 x 2.00 = $ 19,400 846012 Thermoplastic Crosswalk and Pavement Marking (E SQFT 1,800 x 10.00 = $ 18,000 120090 Construction Area Signs LS 1 x 10,000.00 = $ 10,000 Subtotal Traffic Signing and Striping $ 61,400
6C - Traffic Management Plan
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
12865X Portable Changeable Message Signs LS 1 x $ 20,000 = $ 20,000 Subtotal Traffic Management Plan $ 20,000
6C - Stage Construction and Traffic Handling
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
120100 Traffic Control System LS 1 x 250,000.00 = $ 250,000 Subtotal Stage Construction and Traffic Handling $ 250,000 TOTAL TRAFFIC ITEMS $ 731,400
6 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 7: DETOURS
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
XXXXXX Temporary Detour Route LS 1 x 50,000 = $ 50,000
$ 50,000
SUBTOTAL SECTIONS 1 through 7 $ 3,151,100
SECTION 8: MINOR ITEMS
8A - Americans with Disabilities Act Items
ADA Items 5.0% $ 157,555
8B - Bike Path Items
Bike Path Items 1.0% $ 31,511
8C - Other Minor Items
Other Minor Items 5.0% $ 157,555
Total of Section 1-7 $ 3,151,100 x 11.0% = $ 346,621
$ 346,700
SECTIONS 9: ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
Item code
999990 Total Section 1-8 $ 3,497,800 x 10% = $ 349,780
$ 349,800
SECTION 10: SUPPLEMENTAL WORK
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
Total Section 1-8 $ 3,497,800 5% = $ 174,890
TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL WORK $ 174,900
Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal

TOTAL DETOURS

TOTAL MINOR ITEMS

TOTAL ROADWAY MOBILIZATION
* Includes constructing, maintaining, and removal
7 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
SECTION 11: STATE FURNISHED MATERIALS AND EXPENSES
Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
066901 Water Expenses LS 1 x 1,000.00 = $1,000
066916 Annual Construction General Permit Fee LS 1 x 500.00 = $500 Total Section 1-8 $ 3,497,800 2% = $ 69,956
$71,500
SECTION 12: TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD
Total of Roadway and Structures Contract Items excluding Mobilization $3,497,800 (used to calculate TRO) Total Construction Cost (excluding TRO and Contingency) $4,094,000 (used to check if project is greater than $5 million excluding contingency) Estimated Time-Related Overhead (TRO) Percentage (0% to 10%) = 0% Item code Unit Quantity Unit Price ($) Cost
TOTAL TIME-RELATED OVERHEAD $0
SECTION 13: ROADWAY CONTINGENCY
Total Section 1-12 $ 4,094,000 x 25% = $1,023,500
TOTAL CONTINGENCY $1,023,500

TOTAL STATE FURNISHED
8 of 11 11/26/2022

TOTAL COST OF STRUCTURES
Estimate Prepared By:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ------ Division of Structures Date
$0
9 of 11 11/26/2022

PROJECT COST ESTIMATE
EA: N/A PID: N/A
III. RIGHT OF WAY
Fill in all of the available information from the Right of Way Data Sheet.

A) A1) Acquisition, including Excess Land Purchases, Damages & Goodwill, Fees $ 25,000 A2) SB-1210 $ 0
B) Acquisition of Offsite Mitigation $ 0
C) C1) Utility Relocation (State Share) $ 0
C2) Potholing (Design Phase) $ 0
D) Railroad Acquisition $ 0
E) Clearance / Demolition $ 0
F) Relocation Assistance (RAP and/or Last Resort Housing Costs) $ 0 G) $ 0
H) Environmental Review $ 0
I) 0% $ 0
J) Design Appreciation Factor 0% $ 0
K) Utility Relocation (Construction Cost) $ 0
L)
M)
N)
1 When estimate has Support Costs only 2 When estimate has Utility Relocation 3 When R/W Acquisition is required $25,000
Title and Escrow
Condemnation Settlements
Note: Items G & H applied to items A + B

TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY ESTIMATE
Support Cost Estimate
Prepared By Project Coordinator1 Phone
TOTAL R/W ESTIMATE: Escalated $30,000
RIGHT OF WAY SUPPORT $162,865
Utility Estimate Prepared
By Utility Coordinator2 Phone
R/W Acquisition Estimate
Prepared By Right of Way Estimator3 Phone
10 of 11 11/26/2022
Business Item 5c

Page 1 of 4 ends

STAFF REPORT
City Council Business Item
DATE: April 7, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Mat Nyberg, Deputy City Engineer

THROUGH: Amy Nilsen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Authorization to Award the Contract for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Percolation Pond Rehabilitation Project 2025
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the City Manager to award the Annual Wastewater Treatment Plant Percolation Pond Project to Wendt Construction Co., Inc. and establish a maximum contract amount of $110,000.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Percolation Pond Rehabilitation Project is an annual maintenance activity at the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), which includes the removal of depleted material, rehabilitation of the pond subgrade, and placement of clean imported permeable drain rock. This annual project is critical for the performance of the City’s treatment facility, given the regulatory mandate that the City not discharge treated effluent directly to surface water in between May 15 – September 30.

Bids for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Annual Percolation Pond Rehabilitation Project 2025 were opened on April 2nd, 2025. Two bids were received, and the bid results are shown in the table below.

The apparent low bidder is Wendt Construction, and their bid was found to be responsive and responsible, and they can meet the project regulatory deadline of May 15th.

Bid Schedule
Bidders
Wendt Construction Mercer-Fraser Company
Total Base Bid $99,372 $168,900
It is customary in contract administration to include a contingency amount with the authorized contract amount, to accommodate unforeseen conditions or changes that may become apparent during construction. With a 10% contingency of $10,628, staff elect to award the contract to Wendt Construction for the amount listed above and establish a maximum contract not to exceed the amount of $110,000.

If approved, staff will immediately work towards contracting, bonding, and insurance with Wendt Construction, and staff anticipate a work-commencement timeline of approximately mid-April, depending on the weather and the conditions of the river.

Business Item 5c

Page 2 of 4 ends

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The City budgets for this annual maintenance activity in the annual operating budget for Wastewater Treatment (Department 6600, Fund 550). There is currently $120,000 budgeted for this project, which would cover the cost of the project with reserves for unforeseen change orders. If change orders are necessary, which increases the project cost to exceed the budgeted amount, the division’s general contracting budget can be used to supplement the additional costs.

Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to enter a contract with Wendt Construction in the amount of $99,372, and establish contingency funds as noted above for a total contract not to exceed amount of $110,000.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

1. Receive staff presentation and review Council questions with staff

2. Open Public Comment

3. Close Public Comment; voice vote

4. Motion to award the contract to Wendt Construction for $99,372 and establish a maximum contract amount of $110,000 and authorize City Manager to execute the contract and other related documents. Voice vote.

Attachments:
• Attachment A – Draft Notice of Potential Award
Business Item 5c

Page 3 of 4 ends

Attachment A
April 8th, 2025 Sent via E-mail
Wendt Construction
3651 Rohnerville Rd.

Fortuna, CA 95540
Re: NOTICE OF POTENTIAL AWARD
Wastewater Treatment Plant Percolation Pond Rehabilitation Project Dear Ron Brown and Sue Long:

I am pleased to inform you of the intent to recommend that the City Council or its authorized designee award the Contract for the above-referenced Project (“Project”) to Wendt Construction, (“Contractor”) for the Contract Price of $99,372 based on Contractor’s Bid Proposal submitted on April 2, 2025.

A copy of the Contract accompanies this Notice. Contractor must execute 2 copies of the enclosed Contract and return the wet-inked copies to my attention, accompanied by the required Payment Bond, Performance Bond, and insurance certificates and endorsements, no later than ten days from the date of this Notice of Potential Award, above.

Failure to execute and return the enclosed Contract and required bonds and insurance documentation within the specified time could result in forfeiture of Contractor’s bid security. This Notice of Potential Award does not bind the City to award the Contract. The City, acting through its City Council or authorized designee, reserves the right to reject any or all bids, and the right to decline to award the Contract, notwithstanding any staff recommendation.

Please acknowledge receipt of this Notice of Potential Award by signing the attached Acknowledgement of Notice of Potential Award, as indicated, and transmitting the Acknowledgement to my office via email at [email protected]. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions in this regard.

Sincerely,
Ashley A. Chambers
Deputy City Clerk
Enclosure
Business Item 5c

Page 4 of 4 ends

Acknowledgement of Notice of Potential Award
On behalf of <________________________________________> (“Contractor”), I acknowledge receipt of the Notice of Potential Award for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Percolation Pond Rehabilitation Project:
s/_________________________________
Name: _____________________________
Title: ______________________________
Date: ______________________________
Business Item 5d

Page 1 of 3 ends

STAFF REPORT
City Council Business Item
DATE: April 7, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Amy Nilsen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Declare Council’s Intent to Levy the Fortuna Business Improvement District’s Assessment for Fiscal Year 2025-26, Resolution 2025-07
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Council discuss and consider adopting Resolution 2025-07 declaring the Council’s intention to levy the Fortuna Business Improvement District (FBID) assessment for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26 and setting a public hearing thereon for April 21, 2025.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 3, 2025 the City Council approved the FBID Annual Report (Report) for FY 2024-25 as presented. Since no assessment was levied in FY 2024-25, the Report contained a recommendation to levy a simplified flat assessment of $25.00 per business for FY 2025-26. There are approximately 660 businesses in Fortuna and a flat $25.00 assessment would generate an estimated $16,500.

The Fortuna Business Improvement District was established in 1990 under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (California Streets and Highways Code §§ 36500 et seq.) Under this law, the Council is required to adopt an annual resolution of intent for each fiscal year in which it levies the assessment.

The resolution of intent must be adopted after the Council reviews and approves the FBID Annual Report, which the Council approved on March 3, 2025.

The resolution of intent is the first procedural step required to levy the annual assessment. The resolution of intent provides notice of a public hearing to occur on April 21, 2025, at which time business owners may submit written protests, as more particularly set forth in the resolution.

Pursuant to Section 36534 of the Streets and Highways Code, the annual resolution of intention must do all of the following:
(1) Declare the intention of the city council to change the boundaries of the parking and business improvement area, or in any benefit zone within the area, if the annual report proposes a change.
(Boundary change is not proposed, however, the dissolution of the benefit zones for a citywide benefit zone is proposed, the resolution does not propose any overall boundary modification for this fiscal year.)
Business Item 5d

Page 2 of 3 ends

(2) Declare the intention of the city council to levy and collect assessment within the parking and business improvement area for the fiscal year stated in the resolution. (A modification to the assessment amount is proposed for this fiscal year from no assessment to a flat assessment of $25.00 per business.) (3) Generally, describe the proposed improvements and activities authorized by the ordinance enacted pursuant to Section 36527 and any substantial changes proposed to be made to the improvements and activities.
(4) Refer to the parking and business improvement area by name and indicate the location of the area.
(5) Refer to the report on file with the clerk for a full and detailed description of the improvements and activities to be provided for that fiscal year, the boundaries of the area and any benefit zones within the area, and the proposed assessments to be levied upon the businesses within the area for that fiscal year. (6) Fix a time and place for a public hearing to be held by the city council on the levy of the proposed assessment for that fiscal year. The public hearing shall be held not less than 10 days after the adoption of the resolution of intention. (The public hearing is noticed for April 21, 2025, which is the date of the second regular meeting in April.)
(7) State that at the public hearing written and oral protests may be made.

Staff recommends that the Council adopt the Resolution to declare its intention to levy the flat $25.00 assessment for FY 2025-26 and setting a public hearing thereon.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

An FBID assessment of $25.00 per business would generate approximately $16,500 annually.

No assessment was levied for FY 2024-25. The total expenditures for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 yearto-date are $16,523.65. The FBID fund has a current balance of $39,750 with $6,350 reserved for funding in the Redwood Village Core Area and $3,150 reserved for funding in the Strongs Creek Core Area. This leaves $30,250 that can be spent with no Core Area restrictions.

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

1. Receive staff presentation and review Council questions with staff

2. Open Public Comment

3. Close Public Comment

4. Motion to adopt Resolution 2025-07 and read by title only. Roll Call vote.

Business Item 5d

Page 3 of 3 ends

ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution 2025-07, A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Fortuna Declaring Its Intention To Levy An Annual Assessment For 2025-2026 Fiscal Year For The Fortuna Business Improvement District And Fixing The Time And Place Of A Public Meeting And A Public Hearing Thereon And Giving Notice Thereof
RESOLUTION 2025-07

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORTUNA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR 2025-2026

FISCAL YEAR FOR THE FORTUNA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND

FIXING THE TIME AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC MEETING AND A PUBLIC

HEARING THEREON AND GIVING NOTICE THEREOF
WHEREAS, in 1990, the City Council of the City of Fortuna established the Fortuna Business Improvement District (“FBID”) under the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (California Streets and Highways Code §§ 36500 et seq.); WHEREAS, FBID continues to confer a special benefit on those businesses subject to the annual assessment;
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2025, the Council received and filed the annual report of the FBID advisory board without modification;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 36534 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the City Council, by this Resolution, provides notice of its intent to levy the annual assessment for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-26, as more particularly set forth below, and of the time and place for a public hearing on the levy of the proposed assessment.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT:

1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct.

2. The City Council does not propose a change to the boundaries of the Fortuna Business Improvement District.

3. The City Council intends to dissolve the three core areas (i.e., the Downtown Care Area, the Redwood Village Shopping Center Core Area, and the Strongs Creek Plaza Core Area).

4. The City Council intends to levy and collect a flat assessment in the amount $25 upon all businesses, trades and professions located within the boundaries of the District , as detailed in the Annual Report.

5. The activities and improvements authorized by section 5.40.070 of the Fortuna Municipal Code shall remain unchanged for FY 2025-26.

6. Reference is made hereto to the Annual Report approved by the Council on March 3, 2025, and on file with the City Clerk for a full and detailed description of the improvements and activities provided for FY 2024-25, the boundaries of the area and the proposed flat assessment to be levied upon the businesses within the area for that fiscal year.

7. The time and place for a public hearing to be held by the City Council on the levy of the proposed flat assessment for FY 2025-26 are set for April 21, 2025, at 6:00 PM, at City Hall located at 621 11th Street, Fortuna, CA 95540. The clerk shall give notice of the public hearing by causing the resolution of intention to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than seven days before the public hearing.

8. At the time of the public hearing, written and oral protests may be made in the manner required by section 36524 and 36525 of the California Streets and Highways Code.

9. Every written protest shall be filed with the City Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the City as the owner of the business, the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business. A written protest which does not comply with this section shall not be counted in determining a majority protest.

10. If written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the district area which will pay 50 percent or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than that 50 percent, no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment for the 2025-2026 fiscal year shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the City Council.

11. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption by the City Council.

PASSED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fortuna, California, on this 7th day of April 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
__________________________
Mike Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Siana L. Emmons, City Clerk
Business Item 5e

Page 1 of 3 ends

STAFF REPORT
City Council Business Item
DATE: April 7, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Ryan Plotz, City Attorney
THROUGH: Amy Nilsen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Amending Fortuna Business Improvement District Regulations
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Council discuss and consider conducting a first reading, by title only, of Ordinance 2025-774, which amends the Fortuna Business Improvement District (“FBID”) regulations.

DISCUSSION
The proposed Ordinance is intended to modify the existing FBID regulations contained in the Fortuna Municipal Code (“FMC”) to be consistent with the structural changes to FBID proposed by Resolution 2025-07.

In particular, the proposed Ordinance would make the following amendments to Chapter 5.40 of the FMC:

1. Dissolves the three existing benefit core areas (i.e., the Downtown Care Area, the Redwood Village Shopping Center Core Area, and the Strongs Creek Plaza Core Area) and specifies that those areas shall, instead, become part of the district generally and pay the same assessment as those businesses located outside of the core areas.

2. Revises the section imposing the benefit assessment to allow the Council to set the method and basis for calculating the annual assessment through the annual re-authorization process required by the Street and Highways Code.

3. Deletes certain definitional provisions that are no longer applicable to an annual assessment based upon a flat rate (as opposed to the prior rate which was based upon a percentage of gross receipts).

4. Revises the composition of the Advisory Committee to remove requirements for representation from the three core areas.

5. Further revises the composition of the Advisory Committee to reduce the number of Advisory Committee members from seven (7) to five (5) and specifies that (i) four (4) Business Item 5e

Page 2 of 3 ends

members shall be from among the following industries: retail, professional and service, hospitality, manufacturing, and/or wholesale; and (ii) one City Council liaison.

6. Removes the requirement that certain funds be allocated to the three core areas and, instead, provides that all funds raised within the District shall be used to promote the entire community.

7. Maintains the principal purpose for which the District was formed.

Staff recommends these changes to ensure consistency between the proposed changes to FBID as recommended by the Advisory Committee in its Annual Report, which was approved by Council, and Resolution 2025-07, which the Council will consider adopting at its April 7, 2025, meeting.

Reference is made to the Staff Report for Resolution 2025-07 for further particulars as to the recommended changes to the FBID structure and assessment amount.

As part of Resolution 2025-07, the Council will set a public hearing for April 21, at which time the Council will determine whether a sufficient protest exists against the proposed rates for the upcoming fiscal year. In the event of a successful protest, a second reading and adoption of this ordinance will be tabled.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

If an assessment is approved at a $25 flat fee and the core areas are removed, approximately $16,500 would be generated annually.

The total expenditures for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 year-to-date are $16,523.65. The FBID fund has a current balance of $39,750 with $6,350 reserved for funding in the Redwood Village Core Area and $3,150 reserved for funding in the Strongs Creek Core Area. This leaves $30,250 that can be spent with no Core Area restrictions.

For reference, below is the amount previously collected from a tiered benefit assessment in Fiscal Year 2023-24.

Core Area Assessment Distribution to Core
Area (62%)
Citywide Share
(38%)
Citywide $37,500 $0 $37,500
Downtown $12,500 $7,750 $4,750
Redwood Village $10,000 $6,200 $3,800
Strongs Creek $5,000 $3,100 $1,900
Total $65,000 $17,050 $47,950
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

1. Receive staff presentation and review Council questions with staff

2. Open Public Comment

3. Close Public Comment

4. Motion to introduce and conduct first reading, by title only, of Ordinance 2025-774.

Roll Call Vote.

Business Item 5e

Page 3 of 3 ends

ATTACHMENTS:
• Ordinance 2025-774, An Ordinance Of The City Council Of The City Of Fortuna, California Amending Chapter 5.40 – Fortuna Business Improvement District – Of The Fortuna Municipal Code And Determining The Ordinance To Be Exempt From CEQA ORDINANCE 2025-774

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORTUNA, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 5.40 – FORTUNA BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT – OF THE FORTUNA MUNICIPAL CODE AND

DETERMINING THE ORDINANCE TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, the City of Fortuna, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, by way of Ordinance 90-550 adopted on May 21, 1990, the City Council established the Fortuna Business Improvement District (“FBID”) pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (California Streets and Highways Code, §§ 36500 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, since its inception in 1990, FBID has existed to promote the economic revitalization and physical maintenance of the business districts in order to create jobs, promote tourism, support existing businesses, and attract new businesses; and WHEREAS, FBID’s activities are funded through a limited assessment upon businesses located and operating within the district and, from time-to-time, from general fund revenues as determined annually by the City Council; and WHEREAS, FBID continues to confer a special benefit on those businesses subject to the annual assessment; and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2025, the Council received and approved the annual report of the FBID advisory board without modification; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 36534 of the California Streets and Highways Code, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2025-07 declaring its intention to levy the annual assessment for the 2025-2026 fiscal year and setting the time and place for a public hearing on the proposed assessment; and
WHEREAS, by way of this Ordinance, the City Council desires to make changes to Chapter 5.40 of the Fortuna Business Improvement District as set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff report, supporting documents, public testimony, and all appropriate information that has been submitted with this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORTUNA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Recitals. The above recitals are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the City Council.

SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council finds, pursuant to the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA), Guidelines section 15378, that this Ordinance is not a Project as defined by CEQA. Furthermore, the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) as it is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Therefore, adoption of this Ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA.

SECTION 3. Fortuna Municipal Code Amendment. Chapter 5.40 – Fortuna Business Improvement District – of the Fortuna Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the 31st day after its adoption by the City Council. The Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in the manner required by Government Code section 36933.

SECTION 5. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, such invalidity has no effect on the other provisions or applications of the Ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this extent, the provisions of this resolution are severable.

The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any portion thereof.

INTRODUCED and FIRST READING CONDUCTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fortuna, California, on this 7th day of April 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Mike Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Siana L. Emmons, City Clerk
SECOND READING CONDUCTED, PASSED, and ADOPTED at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fortuna, California, on this ____ day of ____________, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Mike Johnson, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Siana L. Emmons, City Clerk
Exhibit A
Note: All revisions to Chapter 5.40 made by this Ordinance are shown below as strikethrough text for deletions and bold-underlined text for additions.

Sections:

5.40.010 Establishment of district.

5.40.020 Definitions.

5.40.030 Benefit assessment.

5.40.040 Residential exclusion.

5.40.050 Advisory committee.

5.40.060 Allocation of funds.

5.40.070 Purposes of assessments.

5.40.080 Collection of benefit assessment.

5.40.010 Establishment of district.

A parking and business improvement district to be known as the “Fortuna Business Improvement District” (the “district”) is hereby established pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, Streets and Highway Code Section 36500 et seq. The boundaries of the district and of the three benefit core areas within the district shall be as set forth on Exhibit A attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter and on file in the city clerk’s office; provided, however, that effective July 1, 2025, the three benefit core areas previously established shall be dissolved as special benefit zones within the District and, instead, such areas shall be considered part of the District, generally.

5.40.020 Definitions.

For the purpose of calculating the amount of assessment owed, the following definitions shall apply:
“Fiscal year” means July 1st to June 30th of each year. “Gross receipts” includes the total amount of the sale price of all sales and the total amount charged or received for the performance of any act or service, of whatever nature it may be, for which a charge is made or credit allowed, whether or not such act or service is done as a part of or in connection with the sale of materials, goods, wares or merchandise. Included in gross receipts shall be all receipts, cash, credits and property of any kind or nature, without any deduction therefrom on account of the cost of the property sold, the cost of the materials used, labor or service costs, interest paid or payable, or losses or other expenses whatsoever. Excluded from gross receipts shall be cash discounts allowed and taken on sales; credit allowed on property accepted as part of the purchase price and which property may later be sold; any tax required by law to be included in or added to the purchase price and collected from the consumer or purchaser; such part of the sale price of property returned by purchasers upon rescission of the contract of sale as is refunded either in cash or by credit; amounts collected for others where the business is acting as an agent or trustee to the extent that such amounts are paid to those for whom collected; that portion of the receipts of a general contractor which represent payments to subcontractors; provided, that such subcontractors are licensed under this chapter, and provided the general contractor furnished the collector with the names and addresses of the subcontractors and the amounts paid each subcontractor. “Hospitality” businesses include all bars, restaurants, hotels, motels and RV parks. “Professions” and “service” businesses include general office, attorney, architects, physicians and others in a medical/health service field, news and advertising media, printers, photographers, real estate brokers, builders, service stations, repairing and servicing businesses, renting and leasing businesses, laboratories (including dental and optical), hearing aid services, utilities, artists and designers, vending machine businesses, and other business not included in the “retail” category, as defined in this section. “Retail businesses” include all businesses not covered by other definitions set forth in this section at least 50 percent of whose gross income is derived from “retail sales” as that is defined in the California Sales and Use Tax Law. The fact that a substantial part of its business consists of other than retail sales does not exclude the business from classification so long as such other business component does not account for more than 50 percent of such business gross income.

Wholesale and Manufacturing. “Wholesale” businesses are those that sell (something) in quantity usually, for resale. “Manufacturing” businesses are those that produce something from raw materials by hand or machinery.

5.40.030 Benefit assessment.

All businesses, trades and professions located within the boundaries shown on Exhibit A attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter and found on file in the office of the city clerk, shall, commencing July 1, 1990, pay a benefit assessment in addition to the city business license fee, in the amounts identified authorized by the City Council in accordance with the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (California Streets and Highways Code, §§ 36500 et seq.). in Exhibit B as amended on March 18, 2002, and attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter and found on file in the office of the city clerk
The benefit assessment shall be payable annually during each fiscal year, as provided in FMC 5.40.080.

5.40.040 Residential exclusion.

No one shall be required to pay an assessment based on a residential use within the district.

5.40.050 Advisory committee.

A. The authorized number of members of the advisory committee of the district shall be seven five unless modified by an amendment of this chapter.

B. The city council shall appoint the advisory committee and prioritize appointments such that the advisory committee is comprised of the following appointments:

1. Four representatives from the retail, professional and service, manufacturing/wholesale, and hospitality industries within the district;

2. City council liaison, one representative;

1. Downtown core area, one representative;

2. Redwood Village Shopping Center core area, one representative;

3. Strongs Creek Plaza core area, one representative;

4. City council liaison, one representative;

5. Citywide, one representative;

6. Fortuna chamber of commerce, one representative;

7. One person nominated by the six representatives identified above.

B. The city council, in making appointments to the advisory committee, shall endeavor to make appointments so that the following categories of businesses are represented on the advisory committee:

1. Retail, three representatives;

2. Professional and service, two representatives;

3. Manufacturing/wholesale, one representative; and

4. Hospitality, one representative.

C. Each member of the advisory committee shall serve a two-year term and may be eligible for reappointment. The city council may stagger terms of the advisory committee members by resolution.

D. The advisory committee shall make recommendations and report to the city council on the general expenditure of revenues derived from the levy of assessments pursuant to this chapter, on the classification of businesses, as applicable, and on the method and basis of levying the assessments, among other responsibilities as may be directed by the city council or as required by law.

5.40.060 Allocation of funds.

A total of 62 percent of the funds raised within each of the three core areas identified in Exhibit A attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter and found on file in the office of the city clerk shall remain in such area. These funds shall be used to promote such area. The advisory committee shall appoint a subcommittee of no less than three persons from each individual core area to determine how the funds are spent within the core area and to promote the purposes of the district within the core area. The advisory committee shall act as the subcommittee until a subcommittee is appointed or in the event of a vacancy causing the number of subcommittee members to be less than three.

The funds raised within the citywide area and the remaining 38 percent of the funds raised within each of the three core areas district shall be used to promote the entire community. The advisory committee shall determine how these funds are spent.

5.40.070 Purposes of assessments.

The purposes for which the funds raised by said benefit assessment shall be devoted to the statutory purposes set forth in Section 36500 of the Act, or one or more of said purposes, which are as follows:

A. Promotion of public events which are to take place on or in public places in the district;
B. Decoration of any public place in the district;
C. Furnishing of music in any public place in the district; D. The general promotion of business activities in the district; E. Marketing to fill available space, recruiting and expansion of commercial enterprise.

Business Item 5f

Page 1 of 2 ends

STAFF REPORT
City Council Business Item
DATE: April 7, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Amy Nilsen, City Manager
SUBJECT: Correction and Modification to the Selection and Appointment of the City Council Vacancy
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

The Fortuna City Council approve and ratify the below modified schedule to fill the vacancy on the Fortuna City Council:
a. Filing deadline for City Council applications Noon (12 pm) on Friday, April 18, 2025; and
b. Special Public Meeting to conduct City Council interviews & selection Monday, April 21, 2025 at 3 pm.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On March 12th, Jerry King submitted his resignation from the Fortuna City Council effective immediately. His term would have expired at the end of 2028. Per California Government Code Section 36512 the person appointed to the City Council will hold the City Council seat until the next General Election in November 2026, not November 2028 as stated in the March 17 staff report. Because Mr. King’s resignation came early in the term, the seat will then be up for election again in 2028 in compliance with state law.

After the March 17 City Council Meeting it came to the attention of the City Manager that not every Council Member was available on April 28 to select and appoint a new City Council Member to the vacant seat. Therefore, the selection and appointment process has been moved to a date and time that all currently seated City Council Members can attend. That date and time is Monday, April 21 at 3 pm.

This staff report is intended to provide ample and clear notification of the term of the vacant seat and the modified date of the selection and appointment special meeting to fill the City Council vacancy.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

The financial impact is not direct, however, there has been and will be considerable staff time in responding to and preparing for the City Council vacancy to be filled.

Business Item 5f

Page 2 of 2 ends

RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:

1. Receive staff presentation and review questions with staff.

2. Open public comment.

3. Close public comment.

4. Motion to approve and ratify City Council application deadline to Noon (12 pm) on Friday, April 18; and notice and hold a Special Public Meeting to conduct interviews & selection on Monday, April 21, 2025 at 3 pm.

5. Roll call vote.

City Manager’s Report

Page 1 of 1 ends

STAFF REPORT
City Manager's Report
DATE: April 7, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
FROM: Amy Nilsen, City Manager

1. Upcoming Council Meeting Dates
*Special Meeting/Workshop
Monday, April 21, 2025
3:00 p.m.
**Special City Council Meeting**
Council Chambers at City Hall
Monday, April 21, 2025
6:00 p.m.

Regular City Council Meeting
Council Chambers at City Hall

2. Upcoming Planning Commission Meeting Dates
Tuesday, April 8, 2025
**CANCELLED**
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, April 22, 2025
6:00 p.m.

Regular Planning Commission Meeting
Council Chambers at City Hall

3. Upcoming Measure E Meeting Dates
Tuesday, September 16, 2025
5:30 p.m.

Regular Measure E Meeting
Council Chambers at City Hall

4. Upcoming Rohner Community Recreation and Park District (RCRPD) Meeting Dates Wednesday, May 7, 2025
**CANCELLED**
Regular RCRPD Meeting
Wednesday, June 4, 2025
2:30 p.m.

Regular RCRPD Meeting
Council Chambers at City Hall

5. Upcoming Fortuna Business Improvement District (FBID) Meeting Dates Tuesday, April 22, 2025
8:30 a.m.

Regular FBID Meeting
Council Chambers at City Hall
Tuesday, July 22, 2025
8:30 a.m.

Regular FBID Meeting
Council Chambers at City Hall

6. Verbal Report

Fortuna City CouncilApril 7, 2025

Fortuna City Council
April 7, 2025