get_agenda_document_link — Fortuna City Council, September 21, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

Fire Protection? 
Police protection? 
Schools? 
Parks? 
Other public facilities? 
The project would result in an overall benefit to public services by improving the WWTP and ensuring compliance with related regulations and regulatory guidance from the NCRWQCB directing the City of Fortuna to identify and implement alternative means of effluent disposal during Eel River low flow periods to protect water quality.
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for public services? (No Impact) While the project would alter the WWTP and expand the footprint of treatment facilities to the western side of the Eel River, such actions would not increase the intensity of the activity in the project area to the point that additional public services are needed. The eastern project area currently receives fire protection services consistent with the rest of Fortuna. The project improvements at the WWTP would not result in the need to increase staffing, create new hazardous conditions, or result in a modification to the road system that would restrict access for emergency services. The project improvements located on the effluent percolation fields are non-flammable and unstaffed.

Additional police protection is not required because the project would not result in increases to facility staffing at the WWTP. The unstaffed effluent percolation field consists largely of buried infrastructure unlikely to be the target of theft or vandalism.

The project would not affect schools because it would not induce population growth in school-age children. Further, there are no schools in the vicinity of the project area that may be physically impacted. The Fortuna dog park is located near the Fortuna WWTP and would not be affected by the project. For the reasons stated above, the project would not result in an impact to public services.

Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 3-49 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities, which might have
an adverse physical effect on the
environment?

One park is located near the project area. The Fortuna dog park is located on Dinsmore Drive south of the Fortuna WWTP. The site of the future effluent percolation field has historically been used by off-road vehicles, though it is not clear that these activities have been done legally and/or with permission from the landowner.
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (No Impact)
The proposed project would not increase the use of or impact existing neighborhood parks or recreational facilities. Fortuna dog park is an established park located near the northern terminus of the River Walk Trail and south of the WWTP. Because the project would not increase staffing at the WWTP, nor increase residential uses in the vicinity of the WWTP, the Fortuna dog park would not experience an increase in usage as a result of the project.

Informal and illegal use by off-road vehicle users at the effluent percolation field site would likely decrease during the construction phase of the project because the site would be graded, thereby destroying the existing tracks and jumps. Following construction, the City would restrict illegal offroad vehicle use to prevent impacts to operational use of the facility, including establishing vegetation planted for erosion control purposes or to comply with required compensatory mitigation of any impacted wetlands or ESHA (see Mitigation Measure BIO-5 and BIO-7). There would be no impact.
b) Include or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (No Impact) The construction or expansion of recreational facilities would not be required by the project or included in the project. There would be no impact.

Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 3-50 Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? 
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?

d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? 
The project consists of improvements to the WWTP, the drilling of a conveyance pipe under the Eel River, and the installation of an effluent percolation field on the west side of the river. The project involves very minor modifications to the road network. Modifications to the road network are the minimum necessary for operations and maintenance.
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (No Impact) City of Fortuna
The project would not involve any modification to existing roads in the vicinity of the WWTP. The WWTP is accessed solely by Dinsmore Drive and would remain so during all construction activities and operationally post-project. Because no streets would be modified, there is no conflict with a circulation-related program plan, ordinance, or policy of the City of Fortuna.

Humboldt County
Renner Lane, a gravel road, currently terminates at a privately owned farm. From this point, access would be provided via what is currently a privately-owned farm road. This farm road terminates at the edge of the field approximately 800 feet from the project site. The existing farm road would be improved by adding aggregate base and grading. The farm road would be extended from its terminus at the field’s edge to the percolation field. The new farm road section would be constructed to match the specifications of the existing portion. The City of Fortuna would procure an easement or other legal right through the private property to create legal access.

These activities do not conflict with any of the goals or policies contained in the Humboldt County General Plan Circulation Element. Renner Lane is currently a dead end road that serves a small number of parcels. The proposed road extension would not constitute an extension of the County of Humboldt roadway network; rather it would be a privately owned and maintained maintenance access road.

Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 3-51 Construction
The anticipated access route to the new waste water disposal area utilizes Highway 211 near Ferndale, California. Local roads then connect Waddington Road to Pleasant Point Road. The access road along existing farm roads would connect to Pleasant Point Road and Renner Lane and provide access to the site. Construction-related traffic would be limited to equipment mobilization at the new subsurface effluent percolation field area and daily personnel travel. Due to the rural nature of the area, existing low levels of traffic, and anticipated low levels of construction-related traffic, there would not be a need for formal traffic control.

Secondary access is also available along multiple existing unimproved gravel roads near the Eel River floodplain departing from East Ferry Road. Floodplain access may be utilized to support the mid-point directional drilling location depending on the contractor’s means and methods.

Construction traffic would be limited to earthwork and directional drilling equipment and related support vehicles. Due to the minimal construction traffic anticipated at the WWTP, traffic control would not be necessary. Approximately 40 daily haul trips are anticipated on a peak day. Up to four work-weeks of peak days may occur.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The provisions included in § 15034.3 are not applicable statewide until July 1, 2020. The following discussion is included prospectively. § 15064.3, subdivision (b), of the CEQA Guidelines lists the criteria for analyzing transportation impacts from proposed projects. The criteria are broken up into four categories, including land use projects, transportation projects, qualitative analysis, and methodology. Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles traveled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impact consistent with CEQA and other applicable requirements. Because the proposed project’s effects on roadways is limited to minor grading and an extension of a gravel maintenance access road, there would be no impact on vehicle miles travels as a result of construction. Operationally, City staff would visit the percolation field weekly (one vehicle only), which would result in a slight increase in vehicle miles traveled over the life of the project. In the project area, thresholds have not yet been established for vehicle miles traveled; however, slight increases in construction-related or operational-related vehicle miles traveled would not impact or reduce the Level of Service of associated roadways. The impact would be less than significant.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No Impact)
The road-related improvements and extension are limited in nature and would result in a narrow, low speed, gravel access road on a private roadway to access western project areas (percolation field). Because of the design of the road and the limited number of vehicles (farm-related and/or percolation field-related), uses would not prove to be incompatible. Further, there is minimal tall vegetation along the access road that would block visibility, nor does the road have sharp turns.

Construction on or near public roadways would not occur. For these reasons, there would be no hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use would not occur. There would be no impact.

Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 3-52 d) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less Than Significant) Construction activities would primarily occur primarily outside of the public right-of-way. During construction, Dinsmore Drive and Renner Lane/Pleasant Point Road/Waddington Road would experience limited construction-related traffic. Construction related traffic would consist of earthwork and directional drilling equipment and support vehicles. Construction-related road or lane closures are not expected, and emergency access would not be limited. The potential impact would be less than significant.

Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 3-53 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource listed or eligible for listing in
the California Register of Historic
Resources, or in a local register of
historic resources as defined in Public
Resources Code § 5020.1(k)?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource that is a resource determined
by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of the Public
Resources Code § 5024.1? In applying
the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
the Public Resources Code § 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American Tribe.

a, b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation)
CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on tribal cultural resources. The CEQA Guidelines define tribal cultural resources as: (1) a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k); or (2) a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

An archeological survey and Historic Property Identification Report (HPIR) was completed during December 2019 (DZC 2019). In conjunction with the archeological survey and report, the local Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) and NAHC were consulted. No Sacred Lands were identified within the APE. However, one previously recorded historical resource, as defined in § 15064.5, is reported as located within or immediately adjacent to the project APE. The historical resource is the ethnographic Wiyot village of kwigërgoyok. This resource is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (DZC 2019). Although the area is subject to periodic river flooding and surficial remains of the resource were not located during pedestrian surveys, there is a potential for discovery of the site during project activities and a subsequent potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5. The impact is considered significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 (see Section 3.5, Cultural Resources) would reduce the potential impact to tribal resources by requiring construction worker training, Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 3-54 construction monitoring, and procedures in the event of inadvertent discovery consistent with appropriate laws and requirements.

Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 3-55 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electrical power, natural gas,
or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?

b) Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?

c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing commitments?

d) Generate solid waste in excess of State
or local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?

e) Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?

The project is a public utility project designed to upgrade treatment operations at the WWTP and develop a new percolation field for treated effluent disposal during summer and fall during Eel River flow periods, benefiting the City and its populous and protecting the water quality of the Eel River from potential impacts associated with existing treatment and disposal operations. a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electrical power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (No Impact)
The project would result in the creation of new wastewater treatment infrastructure. Improvements to the existing Fortuna WWTP would involve adding Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) to the existing treatment train, which would include converting the aeration basins to Modified Ludzack Ettinger (MLE) process as well as modifying the WAS and EQ basins. This improvement would take place within the site boundaries of the existing WWTP. A conveyance pipe would be drilled under the Eel River and would connect the WWTP to the new effluent percolation field located on the west side of the river. This project does not involve the construction of water, storm water, electrical, natural gas, or telecommunications infrastructure/facilities.

The project includes upgraded wastewater treatment facilities whose potential environmental list improvements
from new section

1.6.5, or just
reference them by
section
Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 3-56 impacts are evaluated as part of this Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The following subjects are related to the proposed storm water drainage facilities, and are evaluated in other sections of this document:
 Potential impacts related to biological resources are evaluated in Section 3.4 (Biological Resources).
 Potential impacts related to cultural resources are evaluated in Section 3.5 (Cultural Resources).
 Potential impacts related to hydrology and water quality are evaluated in Section 3.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality).

No additional wastewater infrastructure or expansion of existing facilities beyond those identified in the project description and evaluated in this Initial Study are required. Therefore, no additional impact would occur.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? (No Impact)
During construction, City water supplies or local wells could potentially be used for dust control and other activities. Construction-related water demands would be short-term and minimal in volume.

Following construction, the project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth and would not result in an increased demand for water. Therefore, no new entitlements or facilities would be required. No impact would occur.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (No Impact) The project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth and would not increase the amount of wastewater generated. The project would result in improvements to the existing wastewater treatment infrastructure and would not increase wastewater treatment capacity. The WWTP would remain operational during construction; service would not be disrupted. No impact would occur.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (Less Than Significant)
Construction of the project would result in a temporary increase in solid waste disposal needs associated with demolition and construction wastes. Construction wastes would include, but not be limited to, excavated soils, construction waste resulting from the treatment upgrades at the WWTP including demolition of the compost storage, cleared trees/vegetation/top soils from the percolation fields and access road. Construction waste with no practical reuse or that cannot be salvaged or recycled would be legally disposed of at a local transfer station. Active permitted in-County transfer stations include the Humboldt Waste Management Authority facilities in Eureka or Samoa, California and the Recology Eel River Transfer Station in Fortuna, California. Solid waste generated by the project would represent a small fraction of the daily permitted tonnage of these facilities. This would be a less than significant impact on landfill capacity with the implementation of federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, the project’s constructionrelated solid waste disposal needs would be sufficiently accommodated by existing landfills, and the impact would be less than significant. Following construction, project operation would not generate Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 3-57 additional solid waste. No operational impact would occur. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (No Impact)
No applicable federal solid waste regulations would apply to the project. At the State level, the Integrated Waste Management Act mandates a reduction of waste being disposed and establishes an integrated framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and landfill compliance. The project would not conflict with or impede implementation of such programs. Following construction, project operation would not generate additional solid waste.

Therefore, no constructional or operational impact would occur.

Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 3-58 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire
hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?

b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and
other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks,
and thereby expose project occupants
to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?

c) Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing
impacts to the environment?

d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope or
downstream flooding or landslides as a
result of runoff, post-fire slop instability,
or drainage changes?

This section evaluates potential impacts related to wildfire risk; no portion of the project area is located within or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) where Cal Fire is the primary emergency response agency responsible for fire suppression and prevention. a-d) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (No Impact) The project site is not located in or near a SRA or lands classified as very high fire severity zones.

The project is located approximately 0.75 mile from the nearest SRA (Humboldt County 2019).

Therefore, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Checklist section for wildfire is not applicable to the project. No impact would result.

Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 3-59 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-thanSignificant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental
effects which would cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?

a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Less Than Significant with Mitigation) As evaluated in this IS/MND, the project would not substantially degrade the quality of the environment; substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species; or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory Mitigation measures are listed herein to reduce impacts related to Air Quality, Biological resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Hydrology, and Transportation, and Tribal Cultural Resources. With implementation of the required mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 3-60 the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (No Impact)
Cumulative impacts are defined as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines § 15355). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. Efforts to identify cumulative projects included contact with the City of Fortuna and review of appropriate local agency project lists and capital improvement plans.

Based on such efforts, no additional projects were identified that would need to be considered for cumulative impacts. Therefore, no cumulative impact would result. c) Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Less Than Significant) The project has been planned and designed to avoid significant environmental impacts. As discussed in the analysis throughout Section 3 of this IS/MND, the project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse direct or indirect effects on human beings. The impact would be less than significant.

Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 4-1 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2019. Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program.

County Data. Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp Accessed on December 4, 2019.

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2019b. EQ Zapp: California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application Web Mapping Tool. Available online:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ Accessed on December 5, 2019.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2019. EnviroStor database. Accessed on December 5, 2019.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2019. State Scenic Highway List. Available online: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/2017- 03desigandeligible-a11y.xlsx
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2019. Cortese List Data Resources.

Available online: https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2016/10/SiteCleanupCorteseList-CDOCAOList.xlsx City of Fortuna. 2010. General Plan.

City of Fortuna. 2018. 2017 Annual Report.

DZC Archaeology & Cultural Resource Management (DZC). 2019. Historic Property Identification Report for the City of Fortuna Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project, Humboldt County, California. Prepared for the City of Fortuna, CA.

GHD. 2019a. Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project Biological Resources Report. Prepared for the City of Fortuna.

GHD. 2019b. Soil and Groundwater Subsurface Investigation Report. Prepared for the City of Fortuna.

Humboldt County. 2015. Emergency Operations Plan, Humboldt Operational Area. Humboldt County, CA https://humboldtgov.org/DocumentCenter/View/51861/Humboldt-CountyEmergency-Operations-Plan-2015 Humboldt County. 2014. Eel River Area Local Coastal Plan.

Humboldt County. 2017. Humboldt County General Plan.

Humboldt County Planning and Building Department (Humboldt PBD). 2015. Liquefaction Hazard Zones: Humboldt County, California, 2015. Humboldt County Planning and Building Department. Available at: https://purl.stanford.edu/nk595pg0743 Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2019 Web Soil Survey, National Cooperative Soil Survey.

Available at https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Accessed on December 24, 2019
State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. GeoTracker web database. Available online:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ Accessed on December 5, 2019.

Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 4-2 This page intentionally left blank.

Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 5-1 Report Preparers
City of Fortuna
Merritt Perry, City Manager
Brendan Byrd, Deputy City Engineer
GHD
Andrea Hilton, Environmental Planner
Brian Heaton, Environmental Planner
Kristine Gaspar, Senior Environmental Planner
Marlys Jeane, Environmental Planner
Misha Schwarz, Senior Scientist
Elizabeth Meisman, Wildlife Biologist
Sub-consultants
DZC Archaeology & Cultural Resource Management
Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND | Page 5-2 This page is intentionally left blank
P a c i f i c O c e a n H u m b o l d t
B a y
Eureka
Fortuna
Rio Dell
E e l R i v e r
254
255
1 211
36 101
FIGURE 1
0 1 2 3 4
Miles
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146364
Date Nov 2019
City of Fortuna Wastewater Treatment and Effluent
Percolation System Upgrade Project
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
Data source: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA. Created by: jclark2
N:\US\Eureka\Projects\111\11146364 Fortuna-WW Plan Landowner\08- GIS\Maps\Deliverables\BRR\11146364_001_Vicinity_RevB.mxd Print date: 05 Dec 2019 - 10:58
Legend
Project Location
Highway
Major Road
Vicinity Map
101
101
Fortuna
Willow
Creek
Garberville
AArrccaattaa
Eureka
Arcata
McKinleyville
101
96 299
H u m b o l d t
C o u n t y
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND This page is intentionally left blank
Potential Drill Pit
Mid-Point
(Contingency)
Drill Pit
(Contingency B)
Site Access
Infiltration
Area
Drill Pit
(Option A)
Pipe Staging
Site Access
WWTP Upgrades
FIGURE 2
0 370 740 1,110 1,480
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146364
Date Jan 2020
City of Fortuna Wastewater Treatment and Effluent
Percolation System Upgrade Project
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
N:\US\Eureka\Projects\111\11146364 Fortuna-WW Plan Landowner\08- Data source: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Created by: jclark2 GIS\Maps\Deliverables\CEQA\11146364_003_AgSoils_RevA.mxd Print date: 22 Jan 2020 - 09:27
Legend
Project Study Boundary
Staging and Stockpiling
Area
Alternate Access
Potential Underground
Pipe Pathway
Western Site Access
Existing Unimproved
Road
New Road
Web Soil Survey Farmland
Classification
Not prime farmland
Prime farmland if
irrigated
Prime Agricultural Soils
Draft Document – For Discussion Only – Final Version May Differ From Draft Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND This page is intentionally
Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND Appendices
Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND This page is intentionally left blank
Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND Appendix A
Air Quality Modeling Results
Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/28/2024 6/10/2024
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 15.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 230.00 9.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 14.00
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Construction only run
Land Use - User defined as waste water treatment plant; units in acres; 400 sq ft of that is buildings Construction Phase - Project-specific durations
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
641.35 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.029 N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006
93 Climate Zone 1 Operational Year 2025
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Rural Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) Floor Surface Area Population
General Light Industry 220.00 1000sqft 5.05 220,000.00 0

1.0 Project Characteristics

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2

Page 1 of 1 ends

Fortuna Waste Water Project - Construction - North Coast Air Basin, Annual Fortuna Waste Water Project - Construction
North Coast Air Basin, Annual
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 3.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 3.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 4.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 2.00
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 3.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 4.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Dozers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Dumpers/Tenders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other Construction Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.42 0.42
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.40 0.40
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/10/2024 8/26/2024 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 1.88 10.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/29/2024 6/11/2024 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 7/13/2024 7/1/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/9/2024 7/19/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/27/2025 9/5/2024
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/12/2024 6/28/2024
5 Trenching Trenching 7/22/2024 8/23/2024 5 25
15 4 Building Construction Building Construction 8/26/2024 9/5/2024 5 9 3 Grading Grading 7/1/2024 7/19/2024 5
6 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 6/11/2024 6/28/2024 5 14 End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 6/3/2024 6/10/2024 5

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date

2.2 Overall Operational
Not Applicable

0.0000 40.9968 40.9968 9.0900e0036.4568 8.8200e- 0.0000 41.2241 003

6.4656 0.6576 8.1900e003Maximum 0.0278 0.2127 0.2274 4.6000e- 0.6658 004

0.0000 40.9968 40.9968 9.0900e0036.4568 8.8200e- 0.0000 41.2241 003

6.4656 0.6576 8.1900e0032024 0.0278 0.2127 0.2274 4.6000e- 0.6658 004
NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2

2.0 Emissions Summary

2.1 Overall Construction
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 4.00
tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 4.00
Trenching Rubber Tired Dozers 1 4.00 247 0.40
Trenching Other Construction Equipment 1 4.00 172 0.42
Trenching Dumpers/Tenders 1 5.00 16 0.38
Trenching Excavators 1 4.00 158 0.38
Trenching Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 4.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Forklifts 1 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 4.00 97 0.37
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 2.00 247 0.40
Grading Graders 1 2.00 187 0.41
Grading Excavators 1 4.00 158 0.38
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 4.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 3.00 247 0.40
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 3.00 247 0.40
Demolition Excavators 1 3.00 158 0.38
Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 2.00 81 0.73
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 10
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0

Trenching 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 5 92.00 36.00 0.00
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 16.80

16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT

6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 2 5.00 0.00 0.00
Demolition 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 16.80
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle
Class
Hauling
Vehicle
Class
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND Appendix B
Biological Resources Report
Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project – Administrative Draft IS/Proposed MND Biological Resources Report
Prepared for the City of Fortuna
Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project GHD | 718 Third Street, Eureka, CA, 95511
11146364 | 03 | Biological Resources Report | January 2020 GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page i Table of Contents

1. Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Regulatory Background................................................................................................................ 1

2.1 Federal Jurisdiction............................................................................................................ 1

2.1.1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) ....................................................................... 1

2.1.2 Clean Water Act (CWA).................................................................................... 2

2.1.3 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands .............................................. 3

2.1.4 Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species........................................................ 3

2.1.5 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)......... 3

2.1.6 Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996.................................................................... 4

2.1.7 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) .................................................................... 4

2.1.8 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) ............................................. 5

2.2 State Jurisdiction................................................................................................................ 5

2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .................................................. 5

2.2.2 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act .................................................................... 6

2.2.3 California Endangered Species Act (CESA) .................................................... 6

2.2.4 California Fish and Game Code (FGC)............................................................ 6

2.2.5 Species of Special Concern ............................................................................. 7

2.2.6 Sensitive Plant Communities............................................................................ 8

2.2.7 California Coastal Act ....................................................................................... 8

2.3 Local Jurisdiction ............................................................................................................... 9

2.3.1 Humboldt County Grading Permit..................................................................... 9

2.3.2 Humboldt County Conditional Use Permit........................................................ 9

2.3.3 Humboldt County Local Coastal Program ...................................................... 10

3. Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................ 10

3.1 Baseline Conditions ......................................................................................................... 10

3.1.1 General Information........................................................................................ 10

3.1.2 Habitat Elements ............................................................................................ 10

3.1.3 Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................... 11

3.1.4 Topography and Soils..................................................................................... 11

4. Methods...................................................................................................................................... 11

4.1 Preliminary Investigations................................................................................................ 11

4.1.1 Database Searches (IPaC, CNDDB, CNPS).................................................. 11

4.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory........................................................................... 12

4.1.3 Methods – Sensitive Natural Communities and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Survey.................................................................................................... 12

4.1.4 Methods – Wildlife Survey .............................................................................. 13

5. Results ....................................................................................................................................... 14

5.1 Sensitive Natural Communities/ Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Mapping Results14

5.2 Wildlife Survey Results .................................................................................................... 16

5.2.1 Pipe Outlets at WWTP.................................................................................... 16

5.2.1.1 Equalization Pond (Option A, Appendix B, Figure 2) ..................................... 16 GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page ii

5.2.1.2 Vegetated Area to the North of Percolation Pond (Directional Drilling Outlet) (Option B, Appendix A, Figure 2).................................................................... 16

5.2.2 Contingency Pipe Outlet/Outlet at Eel River Gravel Bar (Mid Point, Appendix A, Figure 2) ......................................................................................................... 17

5.2.3 Proposed Effluent Disposal Area (Infiltration Area, Appendix A, Figure 2).... 17

5.2.4 Pipe Staging Location (On Pasture Edge) ..................................................... 17

5.3 Summary of Sensitive Biological Resources ................................................................... 19

5.3.1 Plants.............................................................................................................. 19

5.3.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 19

5.4 Listed or Candidate Species (Under ESA and/or CESA) ................................................ 20

5.5 Special Status Species (CDFW FP, CDFW SSC, CDFW Special Animals List, or CRPR Ranked) ........................................................................................................................... 22

5.5.1 Plants.............................................................................................................. 23

5.5.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 23

5.6 Critical Habitat.................................................................................................................. 35

5.7 Essential Fish Habitat ...................................................................................................... 36

6. Summary of Potential Impacts and Conservation Measures..................................................... 36

6.1 Proposed Conservation Measures .................................................................................. 37

6.2 Porcupines ....................................................................................................................... 37

6.3 Bats.................................................................................................................................. 37

6.3.1 Migratory Birds................................................................................................ 37

6.3.2 Special-status Amphibians and Reptiles ........................................................ 38

6.3.3 Avoid Impacts to Special Status Fish ............................................................. 38

6.3.4 Avoid Special Status Plants............................................................................ 39

7. Literature Cited........................................................................................................................... 39 Appendix A - CNDDB, IPaC, CNPS, NMFS, Combined Report Table ................................................ 46 Appendix B – Figures ........................................................................................................................... 47 Appendix C – Photos............................................................................................................................ 48 Appendix D – Rapid Assessment Forms ............................................................................................. 54 Table Index
Table 3.1 NatureServe Conservation Status Ranks.......................................................................... 8 Table 6.1 Avian Species Observed Within the Project Area ........................................................... 17 Table 6.2 Other Wildlife Species Observed Within the Project Area .............................................. 19 GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 1

1. Introduction
The City of Fortuna (City) is located in coastal Humboldt County, California (see Appendix B, Figure 1). The City operates the Tom Cooke Memorial Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) located on the eastern bank of the Eel River. The goal of the Wastewater Treatment and Disposal System Upgrade Project is to address compliance issues related to the disposal of treated effluent and construction of a new disposal system to replace the existing use of percolation ponds at the existing WWTP. The project includes new wastewater treatment upgrades and a new disposal facility on the opposite (western) bank of the Eel River (see Figure 2), as well as treatment upgrades at the WWTP itself. Horizontal directional drilling would be initiated from the new wastewater treatment and disposal facility, traversing east across the Eel River to the existing WWTP. A project description, describing all project components will be included in the project’s CEQA document.

2. Regulatory Background
This project is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a suite of federal and state environmental acts, and rules. Following is an overview of agencies that have potential oversight of the proposed project related to biological resources as well as relevant laws. The regulatory setting is divided into sections on federal, state, and local jurisdiction.

2.1 Federal Jurisdiction

2.1.1 Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The ESA of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) establishes a national policy that all federal departments and agencies provide for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and their ecosystems. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce are designated in the ESA as responsible for: (1) maintaining a list of species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range (threatened) and that are currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range (endangered); (2) carrying out programs for the conservation of these species; and (3) rendering opinions regarding the impact of proposed federal actions on listed species. The ESA also outlines what constitutes unlawful taking, importation, sale, and possession of listed species and specifies civil and criminal penalties for unlawful activities.

Pursuant to the requirements of the ESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed or proposed species may be present in the project region, and whether the proposed project would result in a “take” of such species. The ESA prohibits “take” of a single threatened and endangered species except under certain circumstances and only with authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries through a permit under Section 7 (for federal entities or federal actions) or 10(a) (for non-federal entities) of the Act. “Take” under the ESA includes activities such as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 2 or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” USFWS regulations define harm to include “significant habitat modification or degradation.” On June 29, 1995, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling further defined harm to include habitat modification “…where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the ESA, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for such species (16 USC 1536[3][4]). If it is determined that a project may result in the "take" of a federally-listed species, a permit would be required under Section 7 or Section 10 of the ESA.

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

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

The USACE and the EPA announced the release of the Clean Water Rule on May 27, 2015 (80 FR 124: 37054-37127). The Rule is intended to ensure waters protected under the CWA are more precisely defined, more predictable, easier to understand, and consistent with the latest science.

The intent is to: 1) clearly define and protect tributaries that impact the quality of downstream waters; 2) provide certainty in how far safeguards extend to nearby waters; 3) protect unique regional waters; 4) focus on streams instead of ditches; 5) maintain the status of waters associated with infrastructure (i.e., sewer systems); and 6) reduce the need for case specific analysis of all waters. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed implementation of the Clean Water Rule pending further action of the court in October 2015. In response, the USACE and EPA resumed case-by-case analysis of waters of the U.S. determinations. Implementation of the Clean Water Rule was pending litigation prior to February 2017. An Executive Order (Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule) was signed on February 28, 2017, directing the USACE and EPA to review The Rule and publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising The Rule. The USACE and EPA GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 3 subsequently published a Notice of Intention to Review and Rescind or Revise the Clean Water Rule in the Federal Register on March 6, 2017. The definition of “navigable waters” under the CWA along with The Rule was published in the Federal Register on February 14, 2019 and the sixty day public comment period closed on April 15, 2019.

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

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

2.1.3 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands
Executive Order 11990 (1977) furthers the protection of wetlands under NEPA through avoidance of long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands where practicable. The order requires all federal agencies managing federal lands, sponsoring federal projects, or funding state or local projects to assess the effects of their actions on wetlands.

The agencies are required to follow avoidance, mitigation, and preservation procedures. The Presidential Wetland Policy of 1993 and subsequent reaffirmation of the policy in 1995 supports effective protection and restoration of wetlands, while advocating for increased fairness of federal regulatory programs.

2.1.4 Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species
Executive Order 13112 was issued in 1999 to enhance federal coordination and response to the complex and accelerating problem of invasive species. It provides policy direction to promote coordinated efforts of federal, state, and local agencies in monitoring, detecting, preventing, evaluating, managing, and controlling the spread of invasive species and increasing the effectiveness of scientific research and public outreach affecting the spread and impacts of invasive species.

2.1.5 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) provides the federal government with the authority to manage fisheries in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) (from state waters which end three nautical miles offshore to a distance of 200 nautical miles). In addition, the Act mandates inter-agency cooperation in achieving protection, conservation, and enhancement of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The Act defines EFH as "Those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. For the purpose of interpreting the definition of EFH: 'waters' include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 4 historically used by fish where appropriate; 'substrate' includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; 'necessary' means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and “spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” covers a species' full life cycle" (50 CFR 600.10).

EFH guidelines also address Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs) that should be evaluated within EFH. HAPCs may include both designated areas and designated habitat types. HAPCs are designated by the Fishery Management Council based on:
• “ The importance of the ecological function provided by the habitat; • The extent to which the habitat is sensitive to human-induced environmental degradation; • Whether, and to what extent, development activities are or will be stressing the habitat type; and
• The rarity of the habitat type“(Pacific Fishery Management Council 2016).

EFH designations serve to highlight the importance of habitat conservation for sustainable fisheries and sustaining valuable fish populations. EFH relates directly to the physical fish habitat and indirectly to factors that contribute to degradation of this habitat. Important features of EFH that deserve attention are adequate water quality, temperature, food source, water depth, and cover/vegetation. Adverse effects to EFH are considered to be “any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions” (50 CFR 600.10). Federal agencies are required to consult with NMFS regarding any actions (may include funding, permitting, or activities) that may adversely impact EFH.

2.1.6 Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996
The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) (Public Law 104-107) serves as an amendment to the MSFCMA to “authorize appropriations, to provide for sustainable fisheries, and for other purposes.” The SFA includes requirements for describing EFH in Fishery Management Plans (FMP) and also mandates the protection EFH. According to the SFA, “[o]ne of the greatest long-term threats to the viability of commercial and recreational fisheries is the continuing loss of marine, estuarine, and other aquatic habitats. Habitat considerations should receive increased attention for the conservation and management of fishery resources of the United States.” This act also mandates the delineation of EFH for all managed species.

2.1.7 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The MBTA of 1918 (16 USC 703-711) as amended established federal responsibilities for the protection of nearly all species of birds, their eggs, and nests. A migratory bird is defined as any species or family of birds that live, reproduce, or migrate within or across international borders at GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 5 some point during their annual life cycle. The MBTA prohibits the take, possession, buying, selling, purchasing, or bartering of any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). Only exotic species such as Rock Pigeons (Columba livia), House Sparrows (Passer domesticus), and European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) are exempt from protection.

In 2001, President Clinton defined “take” in Executive Order 13186 to include both “intentional” and “unintentional.” However, in 2017, the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) Office of Solicitor argued via Opinion M-37050 that incidental take was not prohibited under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Opinion M-37050 is currently the subject of a lawsuit between eight U.S. states and the U.S. DOI.

2.1.8 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA)
The Bald Eagle Protection Act was originally enacted in 1940 in order to protect the national emblem of the United States, the Bald Eagle. At this time, the Bald Eagle was experiencing significant population pressures from hunting, egg collection, and habitat loss (Buehler 2000). This act was expanded upon in 1962 to include protections for the Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos).

Similarly, the Golden Eagle was also experiencing precipitous population declines due to habitat loss, hunting, and electrocution from power lines (Kochert et al. 2002).

The current federal statute as amended (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) includes criminal penalties for anyone, including individuals, associations, partnerships, and corporations who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or in any manner any bald eagle commonly known as the American eagle or any golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof” without a permit (16 U.S.C. § 668a).

In the case of development projects, a permit may be required if the project activity is near an active or inactive eagle nest, roosting site, or foraging site. This is particularly true if the project is near breeding habitat (as opposed to wintering habitat or migratory stop-over sites). The act applies to all activities that may impact eagles, including projects without a federal nexus. If there is a possibility that the project could “non-purposefully take” eagles (unavoidable take associated with, but not the purpose of an activity) the USFWS may issue a programmatic take permit. In this case, the permit is subject to conditions or mitigation measures to minimize impacts. Post-construction monitoring and annual reports may also be required (50 CFR 22.26).

2.2 State Jurisdiction

2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA applies to certain activities of state and local public agencies. A public agency must comply with CEQA when it undertakes an activity defined by CEQA as a "project." A project is an activity undertaken by a public agency or a private activity which must receive some discretionary approval.

The proposed project is a project under CEQA; therefore, CEQA compliance is required. Under CEQA, a variety of technical studies including biological, cultural, traffic, and air quality studies as well as research and professional knowledge are considered to determine whether the project may have an “adverse effect” on the environment. Lead agencies are charged with evaluating the best available data when determining what specifically should be considered an “adverse effect” to the environment.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 6

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

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

2.2.4 California Fish and Game Code (FGC)
Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
Streams, lakes, and riparian vegetation as habitat for fish and other wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by the CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of the CFGC. Activity that will do one or more of the following, generally require a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement: 1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; 2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or 3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake. The term “stream,” which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the CCR as follows: “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. Riparian is defined as, “on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream.” Therefore, riparian vegetation is defined as, “vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself.” Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 7 and Streambed Alteration Agreement from the CDFW. Areas to the outer drip line of riparian vegetation are typically within CDFW jurisdiction under section 1602.

Native Plant Protection Act
The CDFW administers the Native Plant Protection Act (Sections 1900–1913 of the FGC). These sections allow the California Fish and Game Commission to designate endangered and rare plant species and to notify landowners of the presence of such species. Section 1907 of the California Fish and Game Code allows the Commission to regulate the “taking, possession, propagation, transportation, exportation, importation, or sale of any endangered or rare native plants.” Section 1908 further directs that “… [n]o person shall import into this state, or take, possess, or sell within this state, except as incident to the possession or sale of the real property on which the plant is growing, any native plant, or any part or product thereof that the Commission determines to be an endangered native plant or rare native plant.”
Birds of Prey and Native Nesting Birds
Section 3503 of the FGC prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. Subsection 3503.5 specifically prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (hawks and eagles) or Strigiformes (owls) and their eggs or nests.

These provisions, along with the federal MBTA, essentially serve to protect nesting native birds.

Non-native species, including the European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris), Rock Dove (Columba livia), and House Sparrow (Passer domesticus), are not afforded protection under the MBTA or FGC.

Fully Protected Species
The CDFW enforces the FGC, which provides protection for “fully protected birds” (Section 3511), “fully protected mammals” (Section 4700), “fully protected reptiles and amphibians” (Section 5050), and “fully protected fish” (Section 5515). As fully protected species, the CDFW cannot authorize any project or action that would result in “take” of these species even with an incidental take permit.

2.2.5 Species of Special Concern
The CDFW maintains a list of species and habitats of special concern. These are broadly defined as species that are of concern to the CDFW because of population declines and restricted distributions, and/or they are associated with habitats that are declining in California. The criteria used to define special-status species are described by the CDFW. Impacts to special-status plants, animals, and habitats may be considered significant under CEQA.

State Species of Special Concern include those plants and wildlife species that have not been formally listed, yet are proposed or may qualify as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). This affords protection to both listed species and species proposed for listing. In addition, CDFW Species of Special Concern, which are species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitat trends continue, USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern, and CDFW special-status invertebrates are considered special-status species by CDFW.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 8

2.2.6 Sensitive Plant Communities
CDFW provides oversight of habitats (i.e. plant communities) listed as Sensitive in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and on the California Sensitive Natural Communities List, based on global and state rarity rankings. The natural communities are broken down to alliance level for vegetation types affiliated with ecological sections in California. The list and alliances coincide with A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). CDFW considers alliances and associations with a S1 to S3 rank to be Sensitive (CDFW 2019a). The application of ranking for determination of Sensitive Communities is summarized as follows in Table 1 (NatureServe 2019).

Table 3.1 NatureServe Conservation Status Ranks
Name Calculated Status
Rank
Status Description
Score ≤ 1.5 G1, N1, S1 Critically Imperiled

1.5 ≤ Score ≤ 2.5 G2, N2, S2 Imperiled

2.5 ≤ Score ≤ 3.5 G3, N3, S3 Vulnerable

3.5 ≤ Score ≤ 4.5 G4, N4, S4 Apparently Secure
Score > 4.5 G5, N5, S5 Secure

2.2.7 California Coastal Act
The California Coastal Act (California Public Resources Code sections 30000 et seq) was enacted by the State Legislature in 1976 to provide long-term protection of California’s 1,100-mile coastline for the benefit of current and future generations. Coastal Act policies constitute the standards used by the California Coastal Commission (Commission) in its coastal development permit decisions and for the review of local coastal programs (LCPs) prepared by local governments and submitted to the Commission for approval. These policies are also used by the Commission to review federal activities that affect the coastal zone. Among other things, the policies require:
• Protection and expansion of public access to the shoreline; • Protection, enhancement and restoration of environmentally sensitive habitats; • Protection of productive agricultural lands, commercial fisheries and archaeological resources; and
• Protection of the scenic beauty of coastal landscapes and seascapes; The project is located within the Coastal Zone, predominantly within the state’s jurisdiction. All new development proposed on tide and submerged lands, and other public trust lands must receive a permit from the Commission (PRC 30519(b), and 30416(d)).

The Coastal Act defines an “environmentally sensitive habitat area” (ESHA) as an “area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments” (Section 30107.5). Three important elements define an ESHA:
1) A geographic area can be designated ESHA because of the presence of individual species of plants or animals or because of the presence of a particular habitat; GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 9 2) In order for an area to be designated as ESHA, the species or habitat must be either rare or it must be especially valuable; and
3) The area must be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities.

Coastal Act Section 30240 states in part that:
a) ESHA shall be protected against significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas. b) Development in areas adjacent to ESHA and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.

While there is not a specific list of habitats considered to be ESHA for the state or county, the Commission through the Coastal Act and counties or municipalities through the Local Coastal Program (LCP) are the jurisdictional agencies that exert authority in identifying and protecting ESHA in the course of project activities. In order for the Commission to determine if areas are to be classified as ESHA’s, they often refer to CDFW’s list of statewide natural communities, Hierarchical List of Natural Communities. CDFW does not use the term ESHA, but it has been inferred that CDFW terminology of “sensitive habitat” might be somewhat synonymous to Commission ESHA terminology. The Commission relies on this list to determine if habitats are considered a sensitive plant community and thus potentially ESHA. The global and state rarity ranking can be used to identify areas that may be considered ESHA and subject to protection by the Commission.

Article 4 Section 30231 of the Coastal Act provides that “(t)he biological productivity and the quality of coastal water, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and where feasible restored….” Section 30233 discusses allowable uses of fill in coastal wetlands, of which incidental public service purposes is one of the allowable uses.

2.3 Local Jurisdiction

2.3.1 Humboldt County Grading Permit
The project is anticipated to include earthwork and grading of over 50 cubic yards of earthen material, therefore a grading permit from Humboldt County will be required. The City will work with Humboldt County to provide the necessary information to receive a grading permit, including cut and fill areas, and an erosion control plan.

2.3.2 Humboldt County Conditional Use Permit
The project will be reviewed for proposed uses, in order to determine if the uses have the potential to adversely affect other land uses, air or water quality, transportation systems, or public services or facilities. The project will need to comply with Humboldt County zoning designations assigned to the parcels included in the project area. A conditional use permit (CUP) will be required.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 10

2.3.3 Humboldt County Local Coastal Program
The western portion of the project area is within and regulated by the Eel River Area Plan (ERAP) of the Humboldt County Local Coastal Program (LCP), of which Humboldt County has the primary permitting authority. Because the project area includes both state and local jurisdiction within the Coastal Zone, the project will pursue a consolidated Coastal Development Permit application from the California Coastal Commission.

3. Environmental Setting

3.1 Baseline Conditions

3.1.1 General Information
The western portion of the project is located within the riparian corridor of the Eel River in coastal Humboldt County, California; however riparian habitat within the proposed effluent disposal area has been highly impacted and largely deforested except as noted in the results below. The climate is characterized by high rainfall and summer fog supporting mesic north coast coniferous forest which is northeast of the project area, outside of the developed footprint of Fortuna. Historically, the lands west of the Eel River in the vicinity of the project were a part of the Eel River estuary and consisted of wetlands, meandering stream channels and interconnected floodplain. Currently, the lands west of the proposed facility are utilized for agricultural productivity. Lands immediately surrounding the proposed effluent disposal site are riparian forest, and agricultural pasture, and lands surrounding the WWTP are commercially developed with patches of riparian forest (adjacent to the Eel River).

The eastern portion of the project includes the WWTP, east of Eel River and west of Highway 101.

Rohner Creek borders the property to the west, where it confluences with Strongs Creek in the southwestern part of the property. Strongs Creek then borders the site to the south and west with remnant, fragmented riparian habitat occurring in the northern portion of the facility.

3.1.2 Habitat Elements
The project includes various habitats elements at four distinct locations. At the Fortuna WWTP, potential project areas are limited to two sites (potential pipe outlet locations, only one of which will ultimately be developed): an existing, developed wastewater equilization pond (surrounded by patches of Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus)), and an area of black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) forest to the north of the percolation ponds. Both pipe outlet locations likely provide seasonal habitat for nesting birds and dispersal (and possibly breeding) habitat for frogs. Areas around the percolation pond include other retention ponds and developed (concrete) areas. The black cottonwood forest habitat is adjacent to gravel access roads, developed areas at the WWTP, and the Eel River (approximately 300 feet or greater from the river at the closer point).

Habitat on the west side of the river at effluent disposal site includes extensive black cottonwood forest, arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis). The west side of the parcel is dominated by coyote bush and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). The northeast GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 11 side of the parcel contains some intact black cottonwood forest. This area is heavily impacted by ATV/off-roading trails (and evidence of target shooting was observed during the November site visit). Habitat along the edges of the parcel (cottonwood/willow forest) is intact and provides suitable nesting and wintering habitat for numerous wildlife species.

The mid-point contingency pipe outlet/outlet location on the Eel River floodplain is approximately 100 feet from the Eel River channel. Primary habitat elements include gravel bar (although vegetated) and scrub vegetation (coyote brush, willow and a cottonwood). The western project area is along the edge of pastureland/riparian forest off Renner Lane in Ferndale. The edge habitat may support common wildlife species and serve as a movement corridor for small mesocarnivores.

3.1.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
The project sites are located adjacent to the Eel River, which is designated as a Wild and Scenic River. The Eel River provides habitat for numerous special status fish species across multiple life stages. Water quality conditions vary seasonally in response to winter rains, seasonal flooding, summer drought conditions, and agricultural run-off into the river. Blue green algae is common during the late summer along the mainstem. It is the third largest watershed entirely in California and drains approximately 3,684 square miles. The project is located in the lower portion of the watershed, approximately 9.25 miles upstream from the Pacific Ocean. On the west side of the river, the majority of the project sites fall within the regulatory floodway off the Eel River (FEMA 2016).

3.1.4 Topography and Soils
Topography within the project area includes flat ground or gentle slopes characteristic of floodplains. Soils within the proposed project areas are primarily classified as Water and Fluvents, 0 to 2 percent slopes, which is reflective of the historical movement of the Eel River in the area. The soil classifications were taken from the most current USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey for Humboldt County.

4. Methods

4.1 Preliminary Investigations

4.1.1 Database Searches (IPaC, CNDDB, CNPS)
Prior to field surveys, a database search of the CNDDB (CDFW 2019b), USFWS IPaC (Information for Planning and Conservation), NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region California Species List Tools, and CNPS (California Native Plant Society) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants was conducted by GHD on October 24, 2019. The CNDDB database and CNPS Inventory were queried for all CRPR List species including CRPR 3 and 4 plant species, for informational purposes while conducting field surveys. Only CRPR 3 and 4 plant species with potential to occur in the project area are not presented on the database table included in Appendix A. In addition, citizen science databases such as eBird and iNaturalist were reviewed for additional local wildlife information. The search encompassed nine USGS quadrangles (quads) centered on the project area quad (Fortuna) GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 12 and the surrounding eight quads (Cannibal Island, Fields Landing, McWhinney Creek, Ferndale, Fortuna, Hydesville, Capetown, Taylor Peak, and Scotia).

Based on these database results, habitat assessments made during vegetation community mapping, results from the avian survey, and professionl expertiseregarding the habitat and conditions surrounding the project area, a scoping table was compiled (Appendix A). Results summarizes special status state or federal plant and wildlife species that could be present in the project area as well as special status plant communities. The table also presents information such as the likelihood of each species or community to occur in the project area. Figure 3 in Appendix B shows all special status species tracked by CNDDB that are known to occur within a five mile radius of the project area.

4.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory
A search of the NWI was conducted on October 25, 2019 for the immediate project vicinity.

Appendix B, Figure 4 shows the National Wetlands Inventory Map for the project location. The proposed facility will be located in an area which predominantly contains Freshwater Emergent Wetland (PEM1C), and to a lesser degree contains Freshwater Emergent Wetland (PEM1B) and Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland (PFO1A). An overflow channel appears north of the northern boundary of the proposed facility which is classified as Riverine habitat (R3USC). It should be noted that NWI mapping is often very coarse, and may not reflect actual on-the-ground conditions or wetland extent. The proposed access road would originate in an area of non-wetland habitat along Pleasant Point Road and traverse east through potential wetland habitat to the proposed facility. A field-based wetland delineation is planned to determine the presence of wetlands mapped on NWI, as well as observations made during the vegetation community mapping.

4.1.3 Methods – Sensitive Natural Communities and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Survey
Mapping of vegetation communities within the project area occurred on November 6 and November 12, 2019. After vegetation community mapping field work occurred, an alternate access route was added to the project area by the City of Fortuna. The alternate access route is shown in Figure 2.

This additional area has not been surveyed for sensitive vegetation communities and should be surveyed prior to project work, in order to understand potential project impacts.

Per Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities by the California Natural Resource Agency (CDFW 2018), sensitive vegetation communities were mapped following the technical approach and classification system described in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) and documented using the Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevè Field Form (CDFW 2018). Vegetation communities were identified to the alliance level. Following the approach used in the Manual of California Vegetation, a plant species dominance or importance in the stratum (tree, shrub/subshrub, or non-woody herbaceous stratum) with the greatest amount of cover, typically determines the alliance level classification.

Vegetation mapping was performed by walking the project area and assessing vegetation cover to identify and delineate vegetation alliances per the Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 13 2009). The Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Relevè Field Form (CDFW 2018) was used to document vegetation in representative stands. Field data was collected on an ipad connected to a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver. The boundaries of vegetation communities were also drawn onto field maps with aerial imagery. Boundaries of vegetation communities were digitized by GHD into ArcGIS. The natural communities identified within the project area were checked against CDFW’s most up to date California Natural Communities List dated November 8, 2019 (CDFW 2019a).

4.1.4 Methods – Wildlife Survey
A reconnaissance-level survey was conducted to assess the potential for special status terrestrial wildlife and habitat at the project site. The wildlife species evaluations were not protocol level and were intended to document known sensitive species presence and identify additional potential species and habitat that could be present at the project site during project implementation as described in GHD’s scope of work. The results of these field efforts will provide a basis to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts associated with project activities, guide future management goals and decisions, and inform the necessary environmental documents needed for this project. The results will also provide input for environmental review and permit applications. In some cases, additional pre-construction surveys may be recommended prior to ground disturbance.

Emphasis of the non-protocol site surveys was on amphibians, reptiles, and birds, with a lesser focus on mammals.

The survey was conducted by Genevieve Rozhon (GHD Wildlife Biologist) on November 6, 2019.

The surveyor had previously surveyed the parcel and adjacent properties in the spring/summer of 2015 and 2017 and was very familiar with wildlife species likely to occur at the project site. The survey area included the project area and accessible areas within 500 feet of the project's disturbance area. To the degree feasible, inaccessible areas within 500 feet of the project's disturbance area were surveyed with binoculars. Weather on the survey day was partly cloudy, without any precipitation, high winds, or other conditions that could negatively impact bird or other wildlife activities. The wildlife survey occurred prior to the scheduled start of work.

The survey methods were intended to identify confirmed or probable wildlife activity. Where the habitat allowed the surveyor to walk wildlife habitat and surrounding vegetation, the survey included a physical search of the area. This included inspecting the ground, shrubs, and trees for the presence of nest/den structures (existing nests from the previous breeding season and possible wildlife nest/den cavities). Additionally, the bark of vegetation and the ground layer under vegetation were inspected for evidence of wildlife species, such as feathers, pellets, scat, or whitewash. Where the habitat was dense or otherwise impenetrable/inaccessible, observations were made from fixed locations. The foliage was viewed with binoculars and behavioral observations of adult birds were made to infer the locations of nests. A list of all wildlife species heard or observed on site was completed after the survey (provided in Section 6).

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 14

5. Results

5.1 Sensitive Natural Communities/ Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Mapping Results
Mapping of sensitive natural communities occurred on November 6 and November 12, 2019. All components of the project were visited and surveyed for vegetation communities (Figure 5). One sensitive natural community was identified within the project area. Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) forest occurs within the proposed effluent disposal area, and this community type borders the proposed effluent disposal area on the south and east sides (Figure 6). The riparian vegetation occurring within the proposed project location for the directional drilling outlet on the east side of the Eel River, at the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant property, was also identified and mapped as black cottonwood forest (Figure 7). Black cottonwood forest alliance has a state ranking of S3 and is considered Sensitive by CDFW (CDFW 2019a).

As the black cottonwood forest alliance is considered Sensitive by CDFW, it is assumed that the areas mapped as black cottonwood forest alliance would be considered Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) under the Local Coastal Plan and the Coastal Act. No wetland delineation has been performed at the site to date, thus potential wetland extent remains unknown. As some of the project area falls under jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission, a wetland delineation of this project would include the identification and mapping of both one and three parameter wetlands.

The vegetation mapped as black cottonwood forest alliance is riparian vegetation which would also be regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife through the Lake and Streambed Alteration permit process (California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 1602). The CDFW Vegetation Rapid Assessment Field Forms were used to document this vegetation community. One Rapid Assessment was performed within the proposed area of the Option B drilling outlet at the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant property. Two Rapid Assessments (labeled Rapid Assessment 2 and 3) were performed within the proposed effluent disposal area. The location of the plots at the effluent disposal area are shown on Figure 6, and Rapid Assessment field forms are included in Appendix D.

The black cottonwood forest alliance is defined by The California Manual of Vegetation as having black cottonwood as the dominant or co-dominant species in the tree canopy. Membership rules for this alliance follow: “Black cottonwood conspicuous with > 5% absolute cover and > 30% relative cover in the tree canopy” (Sawyer et al. 2009). Within the areas mapped as black cottonwood forest, black cottonwood was the dominant overstory tree species occurring with red alder (Alnus rubra) and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). The shrub stratum was typically dense. Dominant shrub species varied by location. At the proposed Option B outlet location on the east side of the Eel River, thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus) and California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) were the dominant shrub species. At the proposed effluent disposal area, poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) were the most abundant shrub species.

The areas shown on Figure 6 mapped as “Black cottonwood forest alliance” contained a few large individual grand fir (Abies grandis) trees near the northeastern boundary of the unit, and a large GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 15 Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) near the location marked on Figure 6 for Rapid Assessment #2. One large Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii) tree occurred within the area shown on Figure 6 mapped as “Black cottonwood forest alliance-intermittent.” These individual trees are included in the vegetation alliance mapped as black cottonwood forest.

The California Manual of Vegetation defines forests and woodland alliances as having “Trees evenly distributed and conspicuous throughout the stand. In areas where vegetation cover is greater than about 20 percent, tree canopy may be as low as 10 percent over denser layers of shrubs and herbaceous species.” In the portion of the effluent disposal area mapped as “black cottonwood forest alliance – intermittent”, tree canopy is less continuous than in the area mapped as “black cottonwood forest alliance.” In the area mapped as “black cottonwood forest alliance – intermittent” tree canopy is greater than approximately 10%, which classifies this area as black cottonwood forest alliance. In this area, cottonwoods and arroyo willow occur in a lower density among patches of poison oak and coyote brush. Throughout the proposed effluent disposal area, the herbaceous layer is dense and consists primarily of non-native grasses with some forb species.

The majority of the effluent disposal site is mapped as “mixed coyote brush scrub alliance/poison oak scrub.” A Rapid Assessment plot was performed in the northwestern section of the disposal site (Figure 6), where coyote brush is the dominant species. Coyote brush scrub is a S5 community and is not considered Sensitive by CDFW and not considered ESHA. Coyote brush is especially prevalent on the north side of the proposed effluent disposal area. Other portions of the effluent disposal site (particularly towards the south) might key to the poison oak scrub alliance, a community with state rank of S4. As neither of these communities are considered Sensitive by CDFW and are not considered ESHA, their boundaries were not delineated and they were mapped together on Figure 6. Within the area mapped as “mixed coyote brush scrub alliance/poison oak scrub,” there are a few scattered willow (Salix spp.) patches and a few scattered individual black cottonwood trees. Individual occurrences do not constitute a community, so these individuals were not mapped separately but are included in the “mixed coyote brush scrub alliance/poison oak scrub” community.

The effluent disposal area is within the historic floodplain of the Eel River. Based on observations of patchy wetland vegetation made during site visits, as well as a review of the National Wetland Inventory mapping, it is probable the site contains some wetlands. GHD certified professional wetland scientist Misha Schwarz has estimated that approximately 5-15% of the site may contain wetlands. Arroyo willow and black cottonwood have wetland indicator status of FACW and FAC respectively, and this vegetation would be included in the mapping of wetlands during a wetland delineation using a one parameter approach. The effluent disposal area has been substantially disturbed by recreational off-road vehicle use, and roads traverse much of the project area.

Herbaceous wetland vegetation was observed on the site within tire ruts.

The directional drilling outlet on the west side (Option A) of the Eel River is shown on Figure 8. A few willows and one multi-stemmed cottonwood occur within the proposed area for the outlet. The vegetation alliance for this location keys to the coyote brush scrub alliance however. The coyote brush scrub alliance is not considered Sensitive. The individual willows and the multi-stemmed cottonwood will likely be mapped as one-parameter wetland during the wetland delineation.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 16 Additional vegetation that may be impacted by this project includes pastureland that is adjacent to the riparian forest along both the access route from Renner Lane to the effluent disposal area, and also along the potential staging area for the pipe (the east-west) study boundary that is north of Renner Lane (Figure 5). As no impacts to the riparian forest are anticipated, alliance level mapping was not performed for these riparian communities. However, black cottonwood was observed in the overstory canopy of the adjacent riparian forest adjacent to both the access route and also adjacent to the potential staging area for the pipe and it is likely this forest would also fit the black cottonwood forest alliance.

An equilization pond, located at the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant may be utilized as a drilling outlet (Figure 5). No vegetation alliance was mapped for this in-use percolation pond, which is surrounded by patches of Himalayan blackberry and appeared to be composed primarily of nonnative vegetation. The staging and stockpiling locations on either side of the percolation pond were added to the design after the survey of the percolation pond; however, as noted in the field, these areas are already developed and maintained and will not result in habitat impacts.

5.2 Wildlife Survey Results
The majority of wildlife species observed during the reconnaissance-level survey were common species with no special status/protection. A total of forty-six avian species were observed in or flying over the project area (Table 6.1). Other incidental wildlife sightings that occurred during the survey are also provided in Table 6.2.

5.2.1 Pipe Outlets at WWTP

5.2.1.1 Equalization Pond (Option A, Appendix B, Figure 2) The equalization pond (Appendix C, Photograph 1) was dry during the November 19th survey and overgrown with vegetation. Habitat features such as (Rubus armeniacus) are present in the equalization pond. Based on previous site visits during the breeding season, the pond likely provides breeding and foraging habitat for several common wildlife species such as Marsh Wrens (Cistothorus palustris), Song Sparrows (Melospiza melodia), and Pacific Chorus Frogs (Pseudacris sp.) (do not have any special federal or state regulatory status). The special-status Northern Redlegged Frog (Rana aurora) is known to occur onsite and may use the equalization pond during various life stages.

5.2.1.2 Vegetated Area to the North of Percolation Pond (Directional Drilling Outlet) (Option B, Appendix A, Figure 2)
Wildlife habitat at this location (Appendix A, Photograph 2) is comprised of black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) forest. Several tree cavities (woodpecker holes) were observed during the survey and, based on previous site visits, Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor), Violet-green Swallows (Tachycineta thalassina), chickadees, and woodpeckers are known to use these resources and nest onsite. Black-capped Chickadees (Poecile atricapillus), a California Watch List species were observed on site during the November 19th survey and previously during spring/summer site visits. This species is likely to nest onsite.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 17

5.2.2 Contingency Pipe Outlet/Outlet at Eel River Gravel Bar (Mid Point, Appendix A, Figure 2)
This parcel (vegetated gravel bank adjacent to the river) is dominated by coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) (Appendix A, Photos 5). The site is close enough to the Eel River that special-status frogs such as the state candidate Foothill-Yellow Legged Frog (Rana boylii) could be seasonally present (most likely as dispersers). This species is known to breed in large numbers along the Eel River and suitable gravel bar habitat exists directly adjacent to this location. Western Snowy Plovers (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) also have been known to breed on Eel River gravel bars, although nesting attempts have not been documented in several years (since 2011) (Feucht et al. 2018).

5.2.3 Proposed Effluent Disposal Area (Infiltration Area, Appendix A, Figure 2) Black cottonwood forest, arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and coyote bush provide considerable nesting and foraging substrate for birds at this location (Appendix A, Photos 3 and 4). Wintering sparrows and warblers were observed foraging and roosting in these vegetation types. In addition, several mature conifers are present and the surveyor observed over five species of raptors (Whitetailed Kite, Red-shouldered Hawk, Red-tailed Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, and Sharp-shinned Hawk) perching within them. The site appeared to be a popular foraging location for wintering raptors.

The presence of riparian forest could also provide nesting habitat for species such as the state endangered Little Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii brewsteri). Based on habitat composition, bats (including special status species) are also likely to use this site as foraging and potentially roosting habitat. In terms of mammals, Black-tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), brush rabbits (Sylvilagus bachmani), and a Coyote (Canis latrans) were also observed at this location.

5.2.4 Pipe Staging Location (On Pasture Edge)
The horizontal directional drill pipe is expected to be placed along the edge of a pasture/riparian forest interface on Renner Road. Both the pasture and riparian forest may provide nesting habitat for common avian species such as Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) and Wrentits (Chamaea fasciata).

Table 6.1 Avian Species Observed Within the Project Area AOU Code Common Name Scientific Name Special Status
WTKI White-tailed Kite Elanus leucurus CDFW FP
STJA Steller’s Jay Cyanocitta stelleri MBTA Protected
RTHA Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis MBTA Protected
COHA Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii CDFW WL (nesting) RCKI Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula MBTA Protected AUWA Audubon’s Warbler Setophaga coronata MBTA Protected PEFA Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus CDFW FP, USFWS BCC MALL Mallard Anas platyrhynchos MBTA Protected
GRYE Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca MBTA Protected BLPH Black Phoebe Sayornis nigricans MBTA Protected
WCSP White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys MBTA Protected GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 18 Table 6.1 Avian Species Observed Within the Project Area AOU Code Common Name Scientific Name Special Status
SOSP Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia MBTA Protected
GCSP Golden-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla MBTA Protected BCCH Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus CDFW WL CBCH Chestnut-backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens MBTA Protected BUSH Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus MBTA Protected
NOHA Northern Harrier Circus hudsonius MBTA Protected
MAKE American Kestrel Falco sparverius MBTA Protected
MERL Merlin Falco columbarius CDFW WL
SPTO Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus MBTA Protected
GREG Great Egret Ardea alba MBTA Protected
SSHA Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus CDFW WL (nesting) KILL Killdeer Charadrius vociferus MBTA Protected
CEDW Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum MBTA Protected
HOSP House Sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native, None
AMCR American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos MBTA Protected NOFL Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus MBTA Protected
CORA Common Raven Corvus corax MBTA Protected
EUST European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native, None WREN Wrentit Chamaea fasciata MBTA Protected
BEKI Belted Kingfisher Megaceryle alcyon MBTA Protected TUVU Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura MBTA Protected
DCCO Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus CDFW WL RSHA Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus MBTA Protected
ANHU Anna’s Hummingbird Calypte anna MBTA Protected
CAQU California Quail Callipepla californica MBTA Protected RBSA Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber CDFW Special Animals List AMRO American Robin Turdus migratorius MBTA Protected
DEJU Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis MBTA Protected
HOFI House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus MBTA Protected
EUCD Eurasian Collared-Dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native, None GBHE Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias MBTA Protected
FOSP Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca MBTA Protected
NSHO Northern Shoveler Spatula clypeata MBTA Protected
HOWR Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris MBTA Protected
AMWI American Wigeon Mareca americana MBTA Protected
MBTA Protected: Protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act CDFW Special Animals List: “Special Animals” is a broad term used to refer to all the animal taxa tracked by the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), regardless of their legal or protection status.

CDFW FP (California Department of Fish and Wildlife Fully Protected): This classification was the State of California's initial effort to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish, amphibians and reptiles, birds and mammals. Most of the species on these lists have subsequently been listed under the state and/or federal endangered species acts.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 19 Table 6.1 Avian Species Observed Within the Project Area AOU Code Common Name Scientific Name Special Status
CDFW WL (California Department of Fish and Wildlife Watch List): The CDFW maintains a list consisting of taxa that were previously designated as "Species of Special Concern" but no longer merit that status, or which do not yet meet SSC criteria, but for which there is concern and a need for additional information to clarify status.

USFWS BCC (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern): The goal of the Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 report is to accurately identify the migratory and non-migratory bird species (beyond those already designated as Federally Threatened or Endangered) that represent our highest conservation priorities and draw attention to species in need of conservation action. This report is available at: http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-ofconservation-concern.php.

Table 6.2 Other Wildlife Species Observed Within the Project Area Common Name Latin Name Special Status
Pacific Chorus Frog Pseudacris sp. None
Brush Rabbit Sylvilagus bachmani None
Columbian Black-tailed
Deer
Odocoileus hemionus columbianus None
Coyote Canis latrans None

5.3 Summary of Sensitive Biological Resources

5.3.1 Plants
One sensitive natural community was identified within the project area. Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) forest occurs within the proposed effluent disposal area, and borders the proposed effluent disposal area on the south and east sides (Figure 6). This community type also occurs within the proposed project location for the directional drilling outlet on the east side of the Eel River. Black cottonwood forest alliance has a state rank of S3 and is considered Sensitive by CDFW (CDFW 2019a), and it is assumed that the areas mapped as black cottonwood forest alliance would be considered an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area.

A seasonally appropriate survey for special status plant species has not been performed within the project area. Based on an assessment of habitats present within the project area, only two California State Special Status Species are thought to have a moderate likelihood of occurring within the project area, and no special status species are thought to have a high likelihood. Species with moderate likelihood are discussed in Section 6.2.7.

5.3.2 Wildlife
The project area may serve as nesting and foraging habitat for many common avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In addition, several California state special status avian, bat, amphibian species, and one reptile species have moderate to high potential to occur in or directly adjacent to the project area or have potential to disperse through the project area.

Special status fish or aquatic invertebrate species have no potential to occur in the project area as there is no aquatic habitat (streams or drainage ditches) present. No protocol-level wildlife surveys GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 20 were conducted and this assessment is based on database searches, historical records, a review of the primary literature, and an on-site wildlife survey and habitat evaluation.

5.4 Listed or Candidate Species (Under ESA and/or CESA) Based on database searches, historical records, and a review of the primary literature, there are three state listed or candidate wildlife species that have a moderate potential of occurring in the project area. These species are the Bald Eagle (CESA Endangered, Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Bank Swallow (CESA Threatened, Riparia riparia), and Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (CESA Candidate, Rana boylii). All species are known to occur in the project vicinity and may be present within the project area. Impacts to potential habitat for these species is anticipated to be nil with implementation of proposed mitigation measures. Several federally listed fish species including the Green Sturgeon (Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS)), Coho Salmon (Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)), Steelhead (Northern California DPS), and Chinook Salmon (California Coast ESU) are known to occur in the Eel River, which is directly adjacent to the potential mid-point directional drilling outlet/outlet. Additionally, a project component includes tunneling under the river. These species could potentially be impacted by direct (frack-out during drilling, vibration during nearby construction) or indirect (sediment, water quality) project impacts.

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), California State Endangered, California Fully Protected Species, High Potential
The Bald Eagle is the second largest bird of prey in North America with a wingspan surpassed only by that of the California Condor (Palmer et al. 1988). Bald Eagles are found throughout North America, with year-round residents along both coasts and near large bodies of water such as rivers, lakes, and reservoirs. Seasonal breeding populations occur throughout most of Canada and Alaska, with these populations wintering through the U.S. and Central America. In California, Bald Eagle breeding is restricted primarily to the northern portion of the state, with a few breeding populations along the coast south of San Luis Obispo and on the Channel Islands (Buehler 2000, NatureServe 2019).

Bald Eagles nest in large trees, on cliffs, or on the ground in treeless regions adjacent to lakes, rivers, estuaries, and dams. Platform nests are constructed out of large sticks and lined with grass, moss, down feathers, and other soft vegetation. Bald Eagles are opportunistic feeders, taking fish, waterfowl, mammals, and even carrion during the winter (Buehler 2000).

Bald Eagles received significant attention during the middle of the 20th century due to precipitous population declines. These population crashes have been attributed to the sub-lethal effects of the organochlorine pesticide DDT (Weimeyer et al. 1993). Human persecution is also thought to have historically contributed to population declines through trapping, poisoning, and egg-collecting (Buehler 2000). There are numerous records of this species from the project vicinity, and foraging and nesting habitat is available along the Eel River (eBird 2019).

Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia), State Threatened, Moderate Potential Bank Swallows breed in most of North America at low elevations in suitable habitat. Breeding ranges extend from Alaska to Texas, although most breeding occurs north of 37º. Wintering GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 21 grounds occur along the western coast of Central America. In California, Bank Swallows are found in Siskiyou, Shasta, Yolo, and Lassen Counties. Bank Swallows favor open habitat associated with water features such as coastlines, streams, rivers, lake banks, wetlands, agricultural areas, prairies, and riparian woodlands. Bank Swallows generally nest colonially along stream/river banks in burrows excavated perpendicular to the bank. These burrows are lined with grasses, straw, leaves, feathers, and other organic material. Bank Swallows capture insects on the wing but will also consume aquatic insects and larvae. (Garrison 1999). There are numerous records of this species from the immediate project vicinity, and foraging and nesting habitat is present at along the Eel River (eBird 2019).

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii), California CESA Candidate, State Species of Special Concern, Moderate Potential
Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs are small (snout-vent length 3.7-7.2 centimeters (cm)) brown, gray, reddish, or olive covered frogs. Their skin is grainy rather than smooth and can be spotted or mottled (Nafis 2016). The underside of the hind legs and abdomen of adults is yellow. The species lacks defined dorsolateral folds and a dark facial mask (NatureServe 2019).

Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs occur from sea level to elevations of 2,130 meters. They range from the Willamette River in Oregon south to the Upper San Gabriel River in California, including the Coast Ranges and Sierra Nevada Foothills (Stebbins 2003, NatureServe 2019). The species prefers partially shaded, perennial streams with rocky substrate, often near riffles. These rivers and streams are typically bordered by chaparral, riparian habitat, mixed conifer forest, or wet meadows.

Streams are usually small to mid-size with shallow pools and slow-moving water (CBD 2012). They are also found at river edges, in calm pools and vegetated backwaters (CBD 2012, NatureServe 2019). Rocky, cobble substrate (7.5 cm or larger) are preferred, particularly for egg laying sites (CBD 2012).

Breeding activity typically occurs from March through May with some regional variation (breeding in Northern California is reported to occur from April through June) (USFS 1997). Breeding coincides with a decrease in stream and river flows during the spring, following periods of winter storms and runoff (NatureServe 2019). Adult frogs congregate on river and stream gravel bars during this time, with oviposition occurring in stream and river margins (USFS 1997). Eggs are laid in masses (may include up to 3,000 eggs per mass) and attached to gravel or rocks (NatureServe 2019, USFS 2016, Nafis 2016). Eggs may be covered with a layer of silt, potentially to hide them from predators.

Hatching time occurs in 5 to 27 days and is dependent on water temperature (Nafis 2016).

Tadpoles are not known to overwinter, and larvae undergo metamorphosis during the summer to early fall (NatureServe 2019, USFS 2016). Fidelity to breeding sites has been reported in this species (USFS 2016). Tadpoles are herbivores and graze on algae and detritus stuck on the surface of rocks and vegetation (Nafis 2016). Tadpoles prefer a diet rich in diatoms to lower quality algae (USFS 2016). Adult frogs feed on terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates including ants, snails, water striders, flies, and beetles (USFS 1997).

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog populations were historically abundant in Oregon and California, but they have declined or disappeared in more southern and inland portions of their range, with notable population extirpations in southern California (CBD 2012, USFS 2016). Major threats to the species include habitat loss or degradation, introduced predators, aerial pesticide applications, disease, and GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 22 altered river and stream flow regimes (CBD 2012, NatureServe 2019). Altered stream and flow regimes, related to dam construction and management, can cause high flow releases during the spring and summer. This results in scouring, which washes away eggs and tadpoles from streams and rivers and forces adult frogs on to land, making them more vulnerable to predators (USFS 1997, NatureServe 2019, Nafis 2016). Smaller releases may result in egg stranding and desiccation (CBD 2012). In addition, controlled flows allow for the encroachment of riparian vegetation along river and stream banks, reducing gravel bar habitat for frogs (NatureServe 2019). Foothill Yellowlegged Frogs have also lost significant amounts of habitat to dam construction, intense grazing and logging practices (which causes erosion and increased sediment in stream beds), and urbanization.

Climate change may also be contributing to habitat loss (USFS 1997, CBD 2012, USFS 2016). On top of this, introduced predatory fish species and bullfrogs have impacted frog populations (USFS 1997, NatureServe 2019). There is also evidence that air-borne pesticides may be negatively impacting Foothill Yellow-legged Frog populations (NatureServe 2019). Chytrid fungus has been detected in this species and is known to reduce growth in metamorphosed frogs (USFS 1997, NatureServe 2019).

Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs are known to be present in the Eel River and likely occur along the river bank not far from the project area. They are present not far upstream but have not been observed at Fernbridge, downstream of the site. This species seldom wanders more than a few meters from water especially during the dry season, and it is not expected to be present within the portions of project areawhere there is no suitable habitat (Bourque 2008). CDFW has recommended that the north coast clade not be CESA-listed with a Fish and Game Commission expected in late 2019 or early 2020; if not listed, local populations would retain SSC status.

5.5 Special Status Species (CDFW FP, CDFW SSC, CDFW Special Animals List, or CRPR Ranked)
The CDFW maintains a list of species and habitats of special concern. These are broadly defined as species that are of concern to the CDFW because of population declines and restricted distributions, and/or they are associated with habitats that are declining in California.

State Species of Special Concern include those plants and wildlife species that have not been formally listed, yet are proposed or may qualify as endangered or threatened, or are candidates for such listing under the California Endangered Species Act. This affords protection to both listed species and species proposed for listing. In addition, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern and CDFW special-status invertebrates are considered special status species by CDFW.

Special status plant species under State jurisdiction include those listed as endangered, threatened, or as candidate species by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Plant species on CNPS California Rare Plant Ranking (CRPR) Lists 1A, 1B and 2A and 2B are considered eligible for state listing as endangered or threatened pursuant to the California Fish and Game Code and CDFW has oversite of these special status plant species as a trustee agency. As part of the CEQA process, such species should be considered as they meet the definition of Threatened or Endangered under Sections 2062 and 2067 of the California Fish and Game Code. There are occasions where CRPR List 3 or 4 species might GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 23 be considered of special concern particularly for the type locality of a plant, for populations at the periphery of a species range, or in areas where the taxon is especially uncommon or has sustained heavy losses, or from populations exhibiting unusual morphology. CDFW publishes and periodically updates lists of special status species which include, for the most part, the above categories.

Additionally, there are 64 plant species designated as “rare” which is a special designation created before plants were rolled into CESA in the 1980s (CDFW 2019c). Also under the jurisdiction of CDFW and considered Sensitive are Natural Communities with a State (“S”) ranking of S1 through S3 on the California Sensitive Natural Communities List (CDFW 2019a).

5.5.1 Plants
No seasonally appropriate surveys for special status plants have been performed within the project area. Based on database searches, historical records, and an overview of the primary literature, only two special status species have a moderate or high potential of occurring in the project area Wolf’s evening primrose, (Oenothera wolfii), has a CRPR of 1B.1 and has a moderate likelihood of occurring within the project area. Maple leaved checkerbloom (Sidalcea malachroides) has a CRPR of 4.2 and also has moderate likelihood of occurring within the project area. Five additional special status species are thought to have a low likelihood of occurring within the project area. A scoping table presenting these species is provided in Appendix A.

5.5.2 Wildlife
Mammals
North American Porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), California State Special Status Species, Moderate Potential
North American Porcupines are primarily nocturnal, but can sometimes be seen during the day.

They are approximately 27 inches in length with yellowish quills on the head, rump, and upper surfaces of the tail (Reid 2006). Their range extends across mainland Canada, Alaska, and the western and northeastern United States (Reid 2006). They use a wide variety of habitats, but are most common in montane conifer, Douglas fir, alpine dwarf‐shrub (Sweitzer 2013). A nearby population, centered in Tolowa Dunes State Park, is especially known to concentrate in riparian areas. Porcupines are herbivores and feed on a variety of plant materials depending on the season (Appel et al. 2017, SNZ and CBI 2019). They feed on berries, seeds, grasses, leaves, roots and stems during the spring and summer (SNZ and CBI 2019). In contrast, they primarily feed on evergreen needles and tree bark. They often feed heavily on single trees which can result in the death of the tree. This attribute has resulted in historic persecution of the species by proponents of the timber industry. Their populations have been in decline across California. In northwestern California, this may be caused by the regeneration of forests to an age that no longer provides food resources (Appel et al. 2017). They have also been heavily extirpated through targeted control efforts such as poisoning and shooting (Appel et al. 2017). There are numerous occurrence records (both historical and recent) from the larger project vicinity, especially the Eel River estuary, and suitable habitat for the species is present on site (CDFW 2019).

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 24 Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus), CDFW SSC, Western Bat Working Group High Priority, Moderate Potential
The Pallid Bat is found throughout most of the western U.S., from sea level up to elevations of 6,700 feet. In California, the species is found throughout the state with the exception of the high Sierras. Pallid Bats are commonly associated with habitats such as grassland, scrub, woodland, mixed conifer, and redwood forest (Erickson et al. 2002). They utilize day and night roosts in a variety of habitat types including bridges, mines, barns, rock piles, rocky outcroppings, dead tree snags, live old-growth tree basal hollows, and buildings (Baker et al. 2008). In general, this species roosts in places that protect them from temperature extremes. During the day, the species uses these sites to go into a shallow state of inactivity, or torpor. Optimal day roost temperatures are around 86 degrees Fahrenheit (in terms of maintaining low metabolic rates) (Trune and Slobodchikof 1976). Day roosts may include up to 200 individuals (in some cases, roosts may include other bat species) (Hermanson and O'Shea 1983).

Foraging habitats include agricultural areas, riparian woodland, open pine forests, oak savannah, and talus slopes (Williams et al. 2006). Pallid Bats forage close to the ground surface and glean prey from the ground or off exposed vegetation. They rely primarily on passive hearing to locate prey moving on the ground (Fuzessery et al. 1993). Preferred prey items include moths, Jerusalem crickets, beetles, grasshoppers, and scorpions (Hermanson and O'Shea 1983, Erickson et al. 2002).

The species breeds in the fall and winter (October through as late as February in coastal locations).

Females store the sperm over the winter and ovulation occurs the following spring. Maternity colonies are typically formed in April and may consist of up to 100 individuals (Erickson 2002).

Females typically give birth to twin pups in May of June (Hermanson and O'Shea 1983). The species hibernates during the winter, but may arouse to forage and drink water (Erickson et al. 2002). As a colonial roosting species, Pallid Bats are very sensitive to roost site disturbance. This is particularly true in the case of maternity colonies.

Ground foraging bats, as opposed to the aerial “hawking” species, are typically light averse. While hawking species are drawn to lights due to the increased insects, slower, less agile, ground foragers are found to avoid these areas; perhaps because they are more vulnerable to terrestrial predators that could see them in the light (Rowse et al. 2016).

There are no records of the species from the project vicinity. It is unknown whether the species may roost on the structures in the project vicinity and would require surveys to confirm. Requisite roosting and foraging habitat could be present in the project area.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), California State Species of Special Concern, Moderate Potential
Townsend’s Big-eared Bats are medium-sized bats, distinguished from other co-occurring bat species by their large ears and a two-pronged horseshoe-shaped lump on the muzzle. The species occurs throughout the western U.S. and Canada. In California, the species is found throughout the state with the exception of the high elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range (CDFW 2016).

Townsends’ Big-eared Bats are typically associated with coastal Redwood forests, foothill oak woodlands, inland deserts, pinyon-juniper and pine forests, and mixed coniferous-deciduous forests GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 25 (Erickson et al. 2002, CDFW 2016). The species roosts colonially in a variety of structures including hollow trees, buildings (barns), mines, and lava tubes. Roost site fidelity is high. Maternity colonies (of females) occur between March and June (CDFW 2016). Males roost singly (Erickson et al. 2002). Females give birth to a single pup per year between May and July. The species winters in mixed sex groups in caves and lava tubes. Townsend’s Big-eared Bats feed primarily on moths (Erickson et al. 2002, CDFW 2016).

There are no records of the species from the immediate project vicinity. The closest known record is from 2014 at Lanphere Dunes (CBI 2019). It is unknown whether the species may roost on the structures in the project vicinity and would require surveys to confirm. Foraging habitat for the species could be present in the project area. The species may forage in the project vicinity if outside residential or industrial lights attract suitable prey (moths).

Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus), Western Bat Working Group Medium Priority, Moderate Potential The Hoary Bat is a relatively large bat, brown to rufous with a white “frosting” on the tips of fur (SBDWG 2004). They are found throughout North, Central and South America but not usually in great densities (SBDWG 2004, NatureServe 2019). The species is found throughout California with the exception of xeric desert habitats in the southeast. The species breeds in inland forest habitat and winters along the coast and in the southern portion of the state. The species engages in seasonal movements which results in sexual segregation during the warmer months (males are found in greater numbers in western portions of the state while the females are more common in the northeast) Hoary Bats migrate between the summer and winter ranges from September through November. Mating occurs during migration or on the wintering grounds. Females give birth to one to four pups in May through July of the following year (Harris et al. 2008a).

Preferred habitat includes a mosaic of forested habitat for roosting and open/edge habitat for foraging. Hoary Bats are insectivorous and feed primarily on months (usually over water or over the forest canopy). The species roosts solitarily in dense tree foliage typically near water (species requires water for drinking) (SBDWG 2004, Harris et al. 2008a). Threats to the species include deforestation, wind energy developments (common source of mortality for the species), and reduced prey from over application of pesticides (NatureServe 2019).

There are no records of the species from the immediate project vicinity. The closest known record is from 2014 in Bayside (CBI 2019). It is unknown whether the species may roost on the structures in the project vicinity and would require surveys to confirm. Requisite roosting and foraging habitat could be present in the project area. The species may forage in the project vicinity.

Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis), Western Bat Working Group Low/Medium Priority, Moderate Potential
The Yuma Myotis is a medium-sized bat with light to dark brown fur and a paler underbelly (NorCalBats 2017). The species is widespread and common throughout western North America from southern British Columbia to southern Mexico (NatureServe 2019). In California, the species is widespread throughout the state except for the desert regions. The species is thought to engage in seasonal and possibly elevational migratory movements (Harris et al. 2008b). The species feeds on moths and insects over water and other open habitat types (NatureServe 2019).

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 26 Roosts include bridges, swallow nests, rock crevices, tunnels, tree cavities, and buildings (NatureServe 2019). The species mates during the fall. Females form maternity roosts in April and give birth to one pup between May through July (NatureServe 2019). Maternity roots may include several thousand individuals and are most common in mines and caves (Harris et al. 2008b).

Threats to the species include roost disturbance, roosting habitat loss, and reduced prey from over application of pesticides (NatureServe 2019).

There are no records of the species from the immediate project vicinity. The closest known record is from 2018 in Bayside (CBI 2019). It is unknown whether the species may roost on the structures in the project vicinity and would require surveys to confirm. Requisite roosting and foraging habitat could be present in the project area.

Birds
Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperi), California State Watch List, High Potential Cooper’s Hawks are year-round residents across most temperate areas in North America. In California, migrants from more northern climes (southern Canada) pass through the state during the fall months (August-November). Some of these northern populations of Cooper’s Hawks likely winter in the state. Cooper’s Hawks may be found in a variety of forested habitats included deciduous, mixed, or evergreen forests in urban, suburban, or rural areas. Cooper’s Hawk populations have increased over the past few decades in urban and suburban areas, likely as a result of readily available prey populations in these habitats (e.g., European Starling and Rock Pigeon flocks). Cooper’s Hawks build their nests in any number of tree species including pines, oaks, firs, eucalyptus, etc. Nest site selection is most likely related to dense prey availability in the surrounding area as well as canopy cover and the adjacent habitat structure. Their nests are constructed out of sticks and bark and may be built on top of existing squirrel or other raptor nests.

Cooper’s Hawks prey on a variety of small bird and mammal species including European Starlings, Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura), Rock Pigeons, Deer Mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), squirrels, and hares. (Curtis et al. 2006).

Cooper’s Hawks may occur in and adjacent to the project area due to the presence of suitable trees for nesting habitat. Based on available data, the presence of any established breeders near the site is currently unknown and would require surveys to confirm. However, based on historical records and available habitat, the species has a high potential to be present and forage around the project area. The species was detected on the proposed effluent disposal area during the November 19th reconnaissance-survey.

Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), California State Watch List, High Potential Sharp-shinned Hawks are year-round residents across most densely forested areas of western and eastern North America. In California, migrants from more northern climes (southern Canada) pass through the state during the fall months (August-November). Some of these northern populations of Sharp-shinned Hawks winter in the state. Sharp-shinned Hawks may be found in a variety of forested habitats including coniferous forests, deciduous forests, woodlots, and transitional/forested edges. They prefer to nest in dense stands of a diversity of tree species. Nests are constructed out of dead twigs and placed against a tree trunk on a horizontal limb. Sharp-shinned Hawks primarily GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 27 prey on small forest birds and mammals. In more urban/developed areas, Sharp-shinned Hawks hunt at bird feeders. (Bildstein and Meyer 2000).

Sharp-shinned Hawks may occur in and adjacent to the project area due to the presence of suitable trees for nesting habitat. Based on available data, the presence of any established breeders near the site is currently unknown and would require surveys to confirm. However, based on historical records and available habitat, the species has a high potential to be present and forage around the project area. The species was detected on the proposed effluent disposal area during the November 19th reconnaissance-survey.

Great Egret (Ardea alba), California State Special Status Species, High Potential Great Egrets are year-round residents in western California, with breeders concentrated in the Klamath and Warner basin in Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, along the coast in Humboldt County, the San Francisco Bay area, Monterey County, the Salton Sea, and the Central Valley. In term of habitat, they favor wetlands, estuaries, lakes, rivers, ponds, swamps, streams, marshes, and tidal flats. Great Egrets utilize a variety of substrates for nesting including trees, woody vegetation, or artificial nest platforms. Nests platforms are typically constructed of locally available sticks and greenery. Great Egrets nest communally with conspecifics or in mixed-species colonies. They are opportunistic foragers, wading in shallow water to feed on fish, amphibians, and invertebrates. They also hunt on shore for reptiles, birds, and small mammals. (Mccrimmon Jr. et al. 2011).

Great Egrets may occur in and adjacent to the project area due to the presence of suitable foraging and nesting habitat along the nearby Eel River. Based on available data, the presence of any established breeders near the site is currently unknown and would require surveys to confirm.

However, based on historical records and available habitat, the species has a high potential to be present and forage around the project area. The species was detected on the pipe outlet/outlet at the Eel River Gravel Bar during the November 19th reconnaissance-survey.

Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), California State Special Status Species, High Potential Great Blue Herons are year-round residents in the majority of coastal and central California.

Notable exceptions include the Sierras and the very southeastern desert regions of the state. Great Blue Herons are extremely adaptable to a variety of habitats including most saltwater and freshwater bodies, agricultural land, swamps, wetlands, as well as commercial and residential areas such as golf courses. Nesting habitat includes trees, bushes, or artificial structures. Nests platforms are typically constructed out of locally available sticks and lined with material such as grass, moss, and reeds. Great Blue Herons are colonial nesters. They are opportunistic foragers, wading in shallow water to feed on fish, amphibians, and invertebrates. They also hunt on shore for reptiles, birds, and small mammals. Additionally, they are known to scavenge carrion. (Vennesland and Butler 2011).

Great Blue Herons may occur in and adjacent to the project area due to the presence of suitable foraging and nesting habitat along the nearby Eel River. Based on available data, the presence of any established breeders near the site is currently unknown and would require surveys to confirm.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 28 Snowy Egret (Egretta thula), California State Special Status Species, Moderate Potential Snowy Egrets were hunted to the brink of extinction by the plume trade at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. However, many populations rebounded after the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was passed in 1918. Year-round populations of Snowy Egrets are found around Humboldt Bay, the San Francisco Bay area, the Central Valley, and the Salton Sea. Wintering populations are also present along much of the rest of the California coast. Snowy Egrets prefer riparian and estuarine areas, marshes, wet meadows, inland lakes, and river courses. Snowy Egrets construct stick nest platforms in a variety of tree and shrub species including: willows, holly, birch, and wax myrtle. Nests are lined with reeds, grasses, and moss. Snowy Egrets are colonial nesters, with colonies comprised of both conspecifics and allospecifics. Snowy Egrets hunt in shallow water and on shore, frequently making use of their distinctly yellow feet to attract and capture prey items. Prey includes fish, amphibians, snakes, lizards, crustaceans, insects, and worms. (Parsons and Master 2000).

Snowy Egrets may occur in and adjacent to the project area due to the presence of suitable foraging and nesting habitat along the nearby Eel River. Based on available data, the presence of any established breeders near the site is currently unknown and would require surveys to confirm.

However, based on historical records and available habitat, the species has a moderate potential to be present and forage around the project area.

White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus), California Fully Protected Species, Present White-tailed Kites are year-round residents in most of California west of the Sierras including the majority of the coastal foothills, Central Valley, and some arid regions such as Kern and Inyo Counties. White-tailed Kites prefer open landscapes at low elevations including marshes, grasslands, oak-woodlands, savannahs, and agricultural land. Nests are typically constructed on habitat edges in the upper third portion of a tree or bush. Nests consist of small sticks, grass, hay, and leaves placed in a variety of tree or shrub species including coast redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), or brooms. White-tailed Kites feed almost exclusively on small mammals captured via hover hunting. (Dunk 1995).

White-tailed Kites may occur in and adjacent to the project area due to the presence of suitable habitat in the project vicinity. Based on available data, the presence of any established breeders near the site is currently unknown and would require surveys to confirm. However, based on historical records and available habitat, the species has a moderate potential to be present and forage around the project area. The species was detected on the proposed effluent disposal area during the November 19th reconnaissance-survey.

Black-crowned Night Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), California State Special Status Species, Moderate Potential
Black-crowned Night Herons are year-round residents in much of California, with notable exceptions in the Sierras, Central Valley, and the arid southeast portion of the state. These herons can be found in a wide variety of habitats adjacent to water bodies including urban, wetland, partially forested, and agricultural landscapes. Black-crowned Night Herons are colonial nesters, building platform stick nests in trees, reeds, cattails, bushes, or on the ground. As opportunistic feeders, GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 29 Black-crowned Night Herons eat fish, insects, mammals, birds, carrion, trash, clams, crayfish, turtles, and many other food items. (Hothem et al. 2010).

Black-crowned Night Herons may occur in and adjacent to the project area due to the presence of suitable foraging and nesting habitat along the nearby Eel River. Based on available data, the presence of any established breeders near the site is currently unknown and would require surveys to confirm. However, based on historical records and available habitat, the species has a moderate potential to be present and forage around the project area.

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), California State Watch List, High Potential Ospreys have a nearly cosmopolitan distribution and their breeding range throughout North America is widespread. The majority of individuals within the breeding range are migratory (except for individuals in temperate southern areas of their range, e.g. in southern Florida, the Caribbean, southern California, and the Baja Peninsula). In California, Ospreys breed throughout the state near various bodies of water including and inland near rivers and lakes as well as on the coast near bays, estuaries, and marshes. Specific nest location preferences include: proximity to shallow fishbearing waters, and a nest site free of predators (usually highly elevated but Ospreys nest on the ground on predator-free islands). Ospreys build large stick nests on a wide variety of natural and artificial nest substrates, especially trees, but also large rocks or bluffs, as well as nest platforms, towers supporting electrical lines or cellphone relays, and channel markers). Ospreys feed almost exclusively on fish, but anecdotal observations of non-fish prey have been documented. (Bierregaard et al. 2016).

The coniferous forest habitat along the Eel River, adjacent to the project area, could serve as nesting habitat for the species. Based on available data, the presence of any established breeders near the site is currently unknown and would require surveys to confirm. However, based on historical records and available habitat, the species has a high potential to be present and forage around the project area.

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum), California Fully Protected Species, USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern, Present
The Peregrine Falcon is one of the world’s most widely distributed raptor species, occurring in urban areas, wetlands, deserts, maritime islands, mountains, tundra, and the tropics. Peregrine Falcons received significant attention during the middle of the 20th century due to precipitous population declines. These population crashes have been attributed to the lethal and sub-lethal effects of the organochlorine pesticide DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). After DDT was banned in 1972, the Peregrine Falcon started to rebound nationwide.

In western North America, resident populations of Peregrines are found along the coast of California and the majority of the interior of the state, excluding the Central Valley and arid regions in the southeast (White et al. 2002). In California, Peregrines generally prefer open landscapes for foraging and cliffs or buildings for breeding. Nests consist of a scrape in sand, gravel, or dirt on a cliff ledge, artificial nest boxes, or abandoned raptor or corvid nests. Occasionally they will also use coniferous forest tree tops (Wrege and Cade 1977, White et al. 2002). Peregrine Falcons feed on a variety of avian species including passerines, waterfowl, and shorebirds. They have also been known to take bats, amphibians, fish, and mammals. Prey are taken in flight, off the surface of GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 30 water, or on land (Sherrod 1978). The Peregrine Falcon is the fastest member of the animal kingdom with diving (“stooping”) speeds recorded at speeds of 238 miles per hour (Franklin 1999).

Peregrine Falcons may occur in and adjacent to the project area due to the presence of suitable habitat foraging habitat in the project vicinity. Based on available data, the presence of any established breeders near the site is currently unknown and would require surveys to confirm.

However, based on historical records and available habitat, the species has a moderate potential to be present and forage around the project area. This species was detected on the proposed effluent disposal area during the November 19th reconnaissance-survey.

Amphibians
Northern Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora), California State Species of Special Concern, Moderate Potential
Northern Red-legged Frogs occur along the west coast of N. America from British Columbia to California. The geographic range split between the Northern and California Red-legged Frog species occurs just south of Elk Creek in Mendocino County where both species overlap (Nafis 2016, AmphibiaWeb 2019). Northern Red-legged Frogs are typically found near freshwater sources (e.g., wetlands, ponds, streams, etc.). However, they can range widely and inhabit damp places far from water. Northern Red-legged Frogs reproduce in water from December to February in Humboldt County, with some breeding occurring as late as March. Preferred egg laying locations are in “vegetated shallows with little water flow in permanent wetlands and temporary pools” (Nafis 2016).

Northern Red-legged Frogs are relatively common in and near coastal portions of Humboldt County and recent records have documented the species near the project area (iNaturalist 2019). This being the case, Northern Red-legged Frogs have a moderate chance of occurring within the project area. Northern Red-legged Frogs have also been documented at the Fortuna WWTP on previous site visits.

Reptiles
Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata), California State Species of Special Concern, Moderate Potential
Based on molecular analysis, Spinks et al. (2014) proposed recognizing all pond turtles north of San Francisco Bay as Emys marmorata; many available literature sources refer to the species as Actinemys marmorata. Pond turtles occur in a variety of permanent and semi-permanent freshwater aquatic habitats including lakes, rivers, ponds, creeks, and marshes. Pond turtles are known to be present in the general vicinity and may occur along the river bank not far from the project area.

Breeding can occur on loose soils on south or west facing slopes so a few pond turtles may venture away from the river into the project area. The species is frequently observed basking on exposed banks, logs, and rocks. Winter activity is possible but limited to unusually warm, sunny days; normally pond turtles are dormant during winter months on the north coast; dormancy typically involved burrowing into loose substrate above the high water mark (Thompson et al. 2016). Pond turtles have been documented nesting up to 0.5 kilometers from water (CDFW 2019b). Thus, GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 31 Western Pond Turtles have a moderate chance of occurring within the project area although presence would likely be occasional, seasonal, and temporary.

Fish
Salmonids (Coho, Steelhead, Chinook), Green Sturgeon, and Pacific Lamprey are known to occur nearby in the Eel River and could potentially be impacted by direct (frack-out during drilling, vibration during nearby construction) or indirect (sediment, water quality) activities associated with the project.

Green Sturgeon, Southern DPS (Acipenser medirostris), Federally Threatened, Moderate Potential The Green Sturgeon is an anadromous fish with an olive to dark green back, yellow belly, shovelshaped snout, cartilaginous skeleton, and ossified bony scutes along its back and sides. They are long-lived fish (70+ years) that can reach lengths of up to two meters (Moyle 2002, NatureServe 2019). The full range of the species extends along the Pacific Coast from the Gulf of Alaska to Ensenada, Mexico (Moyle 2002). The southern DPS was listed as federally threatened effective June 6, 2006. The northern DPS of the species is considered a NMFS species of special concern (71 FR 17757). NMFS originally divided the species into DPSs based on genetic analysis and spawning site fidelity (74 FR 52300). The southern DPS includes all breeding populations south of the Eel River (i.e., the upper Sacramento River and more recently the Feather River) (74 FR 52300, NMFS 2015). The northern DPS includes all breeding populations north of and including the Eel River. The Southern DPS is known to breed only in the upper Sacramento River and Feather River.

During the non-breeding season, the sturgeons migrate north along the continental shelf and are found in bays and estuaries as far north as Washington and Alaska (Lindley et al. 2011, NMFS 2015). The Green Sturgeon is a benthic feeder that mostly eats small fish and invertebrates including ghost shrimp, mud shrimp, and clams. It is found in estuaries, the lower reaches of large rivers, and salt or brackish waters off river mouths. It is a demersal species that primarily occurs in the marine environment and only enters freshwater to spawn (70 FR 17386, Moyle 2002).

Spawning occurs from March to July with a peak from April to June (Moyle 2002). Eggs are broadcast-spawned and externally fertilized in relatively fast flowing water. Spawning occurs in waters with depths greater than 3 m and usually in deep pools (Emmett et al. 1991). Preferred spawning substrate includes large cobble, clean sand, or bedrock (Moyle 2002). Female Green Sturgeon produce 60,000-140,000 eggs (Emmett et al. 1991). Larvae grow quickly, reaching a length of 74 millimeters (mm) within 45 days after hatching, 300 mm by one year, and 600 mm by two years (Nakamoto et al. 1995, Deng 2000). Juveniles under 300 mm are not tolerant of salinity, and are thought to spend one to three years in freshwater before entering the ocean where they disperse widely. At maturity (13-20 years), Green Sturgeon return to freshwater spawning grounds.

Spawning is thought to occur every three to five years (Nakamoto et al. 1995).

A number of threats have been identified for the Green Sturgeon Southern DPS including impassable barriers (dams), adult migration barriers, insufficient water flow, increased water temperatures, juvenile entrainment, exotic species, pesticides, land use practices resulting in increased sedimentation, and local harvesting. Green Sturgeon are thought to occasionally enter the lower Eel River and thus have a moderate likelihood to occur near the project site (Stillwater Sciences and Wiyot Tribe 2017). However the southern DPS does not spawn in north coast rivers GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 32 and is unlikely to be present in the Eel during the warm, shallow conditions typical of construction season.

Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), State Species of Special Concern, Moderate Potential The Pacific Lamprey, Entosphenus tridentatus formerly Lampetra tridentate, is a primitive fish lacking true fins and jaws of true fishes (Streif 2007, Stillwater Sciences 2010). They appear eel-like and have a sucker-like mouth, no scales, and breathing holes instead of gills (Streif 2007). Pacific Lamprey range from the Japan to the Bering Sea in Alaska and along the west coast of North America to central Baja, California (Stillwater Sciences 2010).

Pacific Lamprey are anadromous with typical spawning from March through July (Stillwater Sciences et al. 2016). Both sexes build redds (nests) where eggs are deposited by moving stones with their mouths, typically in riffles of gravel-bottomed streams and upstream of quality ammocoete (larval lamprey) habitat. Females may lay 30 to 240 thousand eggs (Stillwater Sciences et al. 2016).

Adults then die within a few days to a month of spawning (Streif 2007). Ammocoetes hatch within approximately 19 days depending on water temperature (Streif 2007). Upon hatching, ammocoetes move downstream where they settle into silty sandy substrates (Streif 2007). They remain in these areas, often in colonies, for two to seven years filter feeding primarily on algae until they metamorphose into macropthalmia (juveniles; Streif 2007). During this metamorphosis, they develop eyes, a suctoral disc, sharp teeth, and more-defined fins allowing them to be free swimming (Streif 2007, Stillwater Sciences et al. 2016). As macropthalmia, they emigrate downstream to the ocean (Streif 2007). They mature into adults where they are parasitic on a variety of fishes. Adults return to their natal streams following one to three years in the marine environment (Streif 2007). There may be two major life strategies in which some adults spawn immediately upon returning to freshwater and other adults may overwinter in freshwater before spawning (Streif 2007, Stillwater Sciences et al. 2016).

This species is of particular cultural value to many native indigenous tribes, including the Weott Tribe in the larger Fortuna area, and was historically a major fisheries in the Eel River basin.

Threats to their populations are similar to those experienced by salmonid species (Stillwater Sciences and Wiyot Tribe 2017). These threats include limits to passage (e.g. dams), diversions, urban development, mining, pollution, estuary modification, stream and floodplain degradation, declines in prey abundance predation by non-native species, and overharvest (Streif 2007, Stillwater Sciences and Wiyot Tribe 2017). Pacific Lamprey are common in the Eel River yearround and ammocoetes have recently been documented at Fernbridge (GHD staff pers. obs.) thus are presumed to be present near the project site.

Coast Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia clarkia), Species of Special Concern. Moderate Potential
The Coastal Cutthroat Trout ranges from the Eel River to Prince Williams Sound in Alaska. Unlike most salmon, this species may spawn more than once. Adults commonly enter streams during the fall and feed on the eggs from other salmons' spawn. Spawning can occur from December through May. Young cutthroat may spend up to two weeks in the gravel before emerging and from one to nine years in freshwater before migrating to estuaries and ocean in the spring. Coastal Cutthroat Trout usually spend less than one year in saltwater before returning to spawn. Juveniles and adults are carnivorous, feeding mostly on insects, crustaceans, and other fish throughout their lives. In GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 33 freshwater, adult cutthroat typically reside in large pools while the young reside in riffles, most commonly in upper tributaries of small rivers. Coastal Cutthroat Trout utilize a wide variety of habitat types during their complex life cycle. They spawn in small tributary streams, and utilize slow flowing backwater areas, low velocity pools, and side channels for rearing of young. Good forest canopy cover, in-stream woody debris, and abundant supplies of insects are crucial for the survival of young cutthroat. During the estuarine or ocean phase of life, the Coastal Cutthroat Trout utilizes tidal sloughs, marshes, and swamps as holding areas and feeding grounds. Coastal Cutthroat Trout are known to spawn in the Eel River and thus have a moderate likelihood to occur near the project site (Native Fish Society 2019).

Coho Salmon, Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch), Federally Threatened, Moderate Potential
The southern Oregon/northern California coast Coho Salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) was federally listed as a threatened species by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Fisheries in 1997 (62 FR 33038). This ESU is defined as all Coho Salmon naturally produced in streams between Punta Gorda in northern California, Humboldt County and Cape Blanco in southern Oregon. This listing was reaffirmed on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160).

Adult Coho Salmon enter rivers from late summer to mid-winter with most spawning occurring in early-to mid-winter. Eggs incubate for one to one and a half months during winter. Fry emerge and occupy shallow areas with vegetative cover. Juvenile Coho Salmon rear in freshwater for over a year (some for two years) before migrating to the ocean in spring (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Juveniles and yearlings spend various amounts of time in freshwater/estuary transition zones. Length of stay by an individual averages about one to two months, with spring being the heaviest time of use.

Adults typically spend the next two years in the ocean before returning to their home streams to spawn (Wallace 2010).

Marine invertebrates, such as copepods, euphausids, amphipods, and crab larvae, are the primary food sources for Coho Salmon when they first enter saltwater. Fish represent an increasing proportion of the diet as Coho Salmon grow and mature (Moyle 2002). Freshwater habitat requirements for juvenile Coho Salmon include cool water temperatures (12-14 ºC is optimal), clear water, riparian vegetation that provides shade, clean silt-free gravel for spawning, in-stream large woody debris, availability of food (invertebrates), and overwintering habitat consisting of large offchannel pools with complex cover or small spring-fed tributary streams (Moyle 2002). Coho Salmon from Humboldt Bay tributaries that rear in the estuary grow larger than their cohorts that reared farther upstream, which suggests that a stream/estuary ecotone is an important overwintering and rearing habitat for juvenile Coho Salmon (Wallace and Allen 2009).

Population declines and extirpations in individual streams and tributaries have occurred due to widespread degradation of freshwater habitats from activities such as timber harvest, road building, grazing and mining activities, urbanization, stream channelization, dam construction, wetland filling or draining, beaver trapping, and water withdrawals and diversions for irrigation (NOAA Fisheries 2011). These activities have resulted in changes to channel morphology and substrate, loss and degradation of estuaries, wetlands, and riparian areas, declines in water quality (e.g., elevated pH and water temperatures, reduced dissolved oxygen, altered stream fertility and biological communities, and toxics), altered stream flows, and fish passage impediments such as dams and GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 34 road crossings (NOAA Fisheries 2011). With BMPs, no adverse impacts are expected. Coho Salmon are known to spawn in the Eel River and thus have a moderate likelihood to occur near the project site (Native Fish Society 2019).

Steelhead, Northern California DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), Federally Threatened, Moderate Potential
The Northern California Steelhead (northern California DPS) is listed as a threatened species (65 FR 36074; August 7, 2000). This coastal Steelhead DPS occupies river basins from Redwood Creek in Humboldt County to the Gualala River (near the Mendocino/Sonoma County line).

Steelhead spend their adult lives in marine environments, returning to freshwater at the age of four or five to spawn, usually in their stream of origin. Steelhead is the anadromous form of rainbow trout, although steelhead are more similar to Pacific salmon than trout in their ecological requirements. Unlike salmon, Steelhead do not necessarily die after spawning. Eggs are deposited in redds constructed in gravel, and (for winter run fish) hatch after three to 14 weeks in later winter through spring. The hatchlings, or alevins, emerge from the gravel after an additional two to five weeks. During the egg and alevin stages, survival depends in part on the presence of clean, welloxygenated gravel (excessive siltation contributes to mortality at these stages) (Barnhart 1991, Stillwater Sciences 2006). Juveniles remain in fresh water for one or two years before returning to saltwater, with emigration typically occurring from March through June. A second year of growth is thought to contribute to a much higher probability of survival in the open ocean (Stillwater Sciences 2006). Less is known about the life history of summer run Steelhead, although adult fish are believed to enter rivers in May (Yoshiyama and Moyle 2010).

Juvenile steelhead use a variety of in-stream habitats depending on age and size. Smaller fish inhabit shallow, slow moving margins of streams or other open water. Larger juveniles move to deeper water with more cover and vegetation. For upstream migration, steelhead require a minimum depth of at least seven inches and a maximum stream velocity of 8 feet/second (ft/s).

Spawning requires a minimum of 1-3 ft/s velocity, clean substrate, and temperatures of 39 - 49° F (Smith 1973).

In the Northern California DPS, the decline of Steelhead has been attributed to factors such as watershed disturbances, including logging on steep slopes, grazing, road building, water diversions, and severe habitat degradation caused by timber harvest and intensive agricultural practices. These factors have resulted in decreased flows, loss of riparian habitat, channel widening, and increased siltation and water temperatures. Despite this decline, north coast rivers and streams have the greatest amount of Steelhead habitat in California. The most abundant populations of Steelhead are in the Klamath/Trinity River system (Barnhart 1991, Stillwater Sciences 2006). Steelhead are known to spawn in the Eel River and thus have a moderate likelihood to occur near the project site (Native Fish Society 2019).

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 35 Chinook Salmon – California Coastal ESU (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Federally Threatened, Moderate Potential
The Chinook Salmon (California Coastal ESU) was listed by the Federal Government as a threatened species on September 16, 1999 (64 FR 50394) and reaffirmed on June 28, 2005 (70 FR 37160). California Coast Chinook Salmon are a distinct population of Chinook Salmon that range from Redwood Creek in Humboldt County, south to the Russian River in Sonoma County.

California Coast Chinook Salmon spawn and rear in coastal and interior rivers in northern California. Ocean-type Chinook (fall run) rear for less than one year in freshwater, while stream-type Chinook (spring run) remain in freshwater for one year or more before emigrating to forage in coastal and marine zones of California for two to five years (Healey 1991). The ideal temperature range for rearing, smolting, and migrating (seaward) Chinook Salmon appears to be 50° to 55° F (Rich 1997). Currently, only fall-run Chinook appear to be extant in the DPS. These Chinook Salmon typically migrate to the ocean within their first year from April through July, but have also been observed in Humboldt Bay in the fall (NOAA Fisheries 2007).

The destruction and modification of historic spawning habitat, fish passage barriers, overharvesting, decreased floodplain connectivity and function, as well as reduced stream flow and predation are considered moderate to very high threats to this ESU. Land use activities (logging, road construction, streambank alterations, etc.), water diversions and overutilization of rivers and streams for recreational purposes are also have contributed to the decline of the ESU. The main factors limiting this Chinook Salmon ESU are low abundance, low distribution, and negative population trends. Predation by pikeminnow in the Eel River and genetic integrity are considered significant threats to the population (NOAA Fisheries 2007).Coho Salmon are known to spawn in the Eel River and thus have a moderate likelihood to occur near the project site (Native Fish Society 2019).

Insects
Obscure Bumble Bee (Bombus caliginosus), California State Special Status Species, Moderate Potential
The project area falls within the current documented range of the Obscure Bumble Bee and includes fog-belt coastal habitat preferred by the species (Hatfield et al. 2014). Preferred plants for foraging (such as Grindelia sp, Baccharis sp., and Lupinus sp.) may be present adjacent to the project area. California Department of Fish and Wildlife records have documented the species in Humboldt County (CDFW 2019b). In addition, the species was recorded during Bombus surveys on the North Spit of Humboldt Bay and Lanphere Dunes in 2010 (Julian 2012). Based on the location of the project area, the possible presence of host plants in the area, and recent documented presence of the species in Humboldt County, the Obscure Bumble Bees has a moderate likelihood of occurring within the project area.

5.6 Critical Habitat
The Eel River is designated Critical Habitat for Coho, Steelhead, and Chinook Salmon.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 36

5.7 Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the 1996 Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297), mandates inter-agency cooperation in achieving protection, conservation, and enhancement of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The Act defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity." EFH designations serve to highlight the importance of habitat conservation for sustainable fisheries and sustaining valuable fish populations. EFH relates directly to the physical fish habitat and indirectly to factors that contribute to degradation of this habitat. Important features of EFH that deserve attention are adequate water quality, temperature, food source, water depth, and cover/vegetation.

Essential fish habitat is designated for species managed in Fisheries Management Plans under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. EFH applies to species within the project area for the proposed project. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the South Fork Eel River is designated as Essential Fish Habitat within the Coastal Pelagic Fishery Management Plan (CPS FMP), the Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (PG FMP), and the Pacific Coast Salmon Fisheries Management Plan (PCS FMP).

Due to the nature of the project, there is potential for adverse effects to these species and their habitats from construction activities occurring adjacent to the river (e.g. possibility for sediment discharge), and beneath the river (e.g. possibility for directional drilling to erroneously puncture the river bottom). However, the project is located approximately 100 feet at its closest point from the banks of the Eel River at the WWTP where the horizontal directional drilling would take place. The horizontal directional drilling will be completed by trained professionals at approximately 20 feet to 40 feet below the Eel River and 10 feet to 20 feet below Strongs Creek, which will not disturb instream habitat because no physical activity would take place within the stream channel itself.

Additionally mitigation and conservation measures (BMPs) will be implemented to ensure that the project avoids and/or minimizes any adverse effects. The proposed project will have no effect on EFH.

6. Summary of Potential Impacts and Conservation
Measures
Potential impacts will be addressed in detail in environmental review documents (CEQA) and associated permit applications. In general, impacts are expected to be minimal and, if necessary, easily mitigated below the level of significance to sensitive wildlife or plant species or sensitive natural communities. To the extent practical, impacts will be avoided or minimized as described below.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 37

6.1 Proposed Conservation Measures

6.2 Porcupines
Although there are records of Porcupines from the general project vicinity and they have a moderate potential to occur onsite, no impacts are expected to occur to this species. The species is highly mobile and, if present, is expected to leave the project area once construction activity commences. Although some foraging habitat (riparian forest) will be removed in association with this project, substantial foraging habitat suitable for this species is present in the surrounding area (riparian forest along the Eel River). As no impacts to this species are expected, no conservation measures are proposed at this time.

6.3 Bats
Habitat for bats (tree cavities, loose bark, riparian forest, etc.) is present in the project area (based on reconnaissance level surveys). Vegetation and structures on the project site likely provide habitat to a variety of bat species. Construction of the project may adversely impact special-status bat species through the removal or modification of vegetation or structures and due to ground disturbance.

A qualified bat biologist shall conduct habitat surveys for special-status bats. Survey methodology should include visual examination of suitable habitat areas for signs of bat use and may utilize ultrasonic detectors to determine if special status bat species utilize the vicinity. Trees within 300 feet of construction activities should be examined. If habitat exists, species presence and site use patterns should be documented, including roost sites. Bat presence in the project may vary seasonally and annually. Surveys should be conducted in a manner to detect the presence of hibernating or torpid bats, reproductive colonies and/or migratory stop‐over roosts. If no bat utilization or roosts are found, then no further study or action is required. If bats are found to utilize the project, or presence is assumed, a bat specialist should be engaged to advise the best method to prevent impact.

6.3.1 Migratory Birds
Ground disturbance and vegetation clearing shall be conducted, if possible, during the fall and/or winter months and outside of the avian nesting season (March 15 – August 15) to avoid any direct effects to special status and protected birds. If ground disturbance cannot be confined to work outside of the nesting season, a qualified ornithologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys within the vicinity of the project area, to check for nesting activity of native birds and to evaluate the site for presence of raptors and special status bird species. The ornithologist shall conduct at minimum a one day pre-construction survey within the 7-day period prior to vegetation removal and grounddisturbing activities. If ground disturbance and vegetation removal work lapses for seven days or longer during the breeding season, a qualified ornithologist shall conduct a supplemental avian preconstruction survey before project work is reinitiated.

If active nests are detected within the construction footprint or within the construction buffer established by the project biologist, the biologist shall flag a buffer around each nest. Construction activities shall avoid nest sites until the biologist determines that the young have fledged or nesting GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 38 activity has ceased. If nests are documented outside of the construction (disturbance) footprint, but within construction buffer, nest buffers will be implemented as needed. In general, the buffer size for common species would be determined on a case-by-case basis in consultation with CDFW. Buffer sizes will take into account factors such as (1) noise and human disturbance levels at the construction site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity; (2) distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the construction site and the nest; and (3) sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds.

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

6.3.2 Special-status Amphibians and Reptiles
No more than one week prior to commencement of ground disturbance within 50 feet of suitable Northern Red-legged Frog or Western Pond Turtle habitat, a qualified biologist shall perform a preconstruction survey and shall relocate any individuals of NRLF or WPT or egg masses of NRLF that occur within the work -impact zone to nearby suitable habitat.

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

The same measures above shall apply to Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs which are SSC and are no longer a CESA candidate.

6.3.3 Avoid Impacts to Special Status Fish
Because no in-water work is planned, impacts to special status fish in the Eel River are considered extremely unlikely. To further reduce risk of impacts to fish and other aquatic organisms, standard erosion control BMPs will be implemented. A frac-out contingency plan will be in place for directional drilling under the Eel River and will include an immediate halt to drilling activity in the event of a possible frac-out.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 39

6.3.4 Avoid Special Status Plants
Conservation measures for special status plant species are addressed collectively for all species.

Significant impacts to special-status plant species present or likely to be present onsite shall be minimized, avoided, and (if necessary) compensated by complying with the following:
• Pre-construction surveys: Seasonally appropriate pre-construction surveys for special status plant species shall occur prior to construction within the planned area of disturbance for the project, during the appropriate blooming time (spring or summer) for the target species. Survey methods shall comply with CDFW rare plant survey protocols, and shall be performed by a qualified field botanist. Surveys shall be modified to include detection of juvenile (pre-flowering) colonies of perennial species when necessary. Any populations of special status plant species that are detected shall be mapped. Populations shall be flagged if avoidance is feasible and if populations are located adjacent to construction areas.
• The locations of any special status plant populations to be avoided shall be clearly identified in the contract documents (plans and specifications).
• If special-status plant populations are detected where construction would have unavoidable impacts, a compensatory conservation plan shall be prepared and implemented in coordination with CDFW. Such plans may include salvage, propagation, on-site reintroduction in restored habitats, and monitoring.

7. Literature Cited
AmphibiaWeb (2019). University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. http://amphibiaweb.org.

Appel, C. L., W. J. Zielinski, F. V. Schlexer, R. Callas, and T. Bean (2017). Distribution of the North American porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) in northern California. Western Wildlife 4:17-28.

Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. (2012). The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Oakland, CA, USA.

Baker, M.D., M.J. Lacki, G.A. Falxa, P.L. Droppleman, R.A. Slack, and S.A. Slankard (2008).

Habitat use of Pallid Bats in coniferous forests of northern California. Northwest Science 82(4):269- 275.

Barnhart, R. A. (1991). Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). in J. Stolz and J. Schnell, Eds. Trout Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA, USA.

Bierregaard, R. O., A. F. Poole, M. S. Martell, P. Pyle, and M. A. Patten (2016). Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/osprey.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 40 Bildstein, K. L. and K. D. Meyer (2000). Sharp-shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/shshaw.

Blakesley, J. A., A. B. Franklin, and R. J. Gutierrez (1990). Sexual dimorphism in Northern Spotted Owls from northwest California. Journal of Field Ornithology 61:320-327.

Bourque, R. M. (2008). Spatial Ecology of an Inland Population of the Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) in Tehama County, California. Master’s Thesis. Humboldt State University Digital Commons, Arcata, CA, USA.

Buehler, D. A. (2000). Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/baleag.

CBD (Center for Biological Diversity) (2012). Petition to list 53 amphibians and reptiles in the United States as Threatened or Endangered Species under the Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, AZ, USA.

CBI (Conservation Biology Institute) (2019). The Bat Acoustic Monitoring Visualization Tool, a companion to BatAmp. Conservation Biology Institute, Corvallis, OR, USA. https://visualize.batamp.databasin.org.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) (2016). A status review of Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in California – report to the Fish and Game Commission. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA, USA.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) (2018). Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA, USA.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) (2019a). Natural Communities. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento, CA, USA. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/NaturalCommunities/List.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) (2019b). California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangles. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento, CA, USA. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) (2019c). State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch, Sacramento, CA, USA. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109390&inline.

Curtis, O. E., R. N. Rosenfield, and J. Bielefeldt. (2006). Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii), version

2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/coohaw.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 41 Dunk, J. R. (1995). White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/whtkit. eBird (2019). An online database of bird distribution and abundance. Ithaca, NY, USA. http://www.ebird.org.

Emmett, R. L., S. L. Stone, S. A. Hinton, and M .E. Monaco (1991). Distribution and abundances of fishes and invertebrates in west coast estuaries, Volume 2: Species life histories summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 8. NOS/NOAA Strategic Environmental Assessment Division, Rockville, MD.Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California, USA.

Erickson, Gregg A., E. D. Pierson, et al. (2002). Bat and Bridges Technical Bulletin (Hitchhiker Guide to Bat Roosts). California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, USA.

Flood Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2016. Flood insurance rate map no. 06023C1236F.

Feucht, E. J., M. A. Colwell, J. J. Pohlman, K. M. Raby, and S. E. McAllister (2018). Final Report:
2018 Western Snowy Plover breeding in coastal northern California, Recovery Unit 2. https://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/wsp/documents/siteReports/California/2018%20Coastal%20No rthern%20California,%20Recovery%20Unit%202.pdf.

Fuzessery, Z. M., P. Buttenhoff, B. Andrews, and J. M. Kennedy (1993). Passive sound location of prey by the pallid bat (Antrozous p. pallidus). Journal of Comparative Physiology 171:761-777.

Garrison, B. A. (1999). Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/banswa.

Harris, J., P. Brown, D. Alley, and R. Duke (2008a). Life History – Hoary Bat. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2341&inline=1.

Harris, J., P. Brown, D. Alley, and R. Duke (2008b). Life History – Yuma Myotis. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group, Sacramento, CA, USA.

Healey, M. C. (1991). The life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in C. Groot and L. Margolis, Eds. Life history of Pacific salmon. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, CAN.

Hermanson, J. W and T.J. O’Shea (1983). Antrozous pallidus. Mammalian Species 213:1-8.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 42 Hothem, R. L., B. E. Brussee, and W. E. Davis Jr. (2010). Black-crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/bcnher. iNaturalist (2019). Observations. California Academy of Sciences and National Geographic Society, iNaturalist Department, San Francisco, CA, USA. https://www.inaturalist.org.

Julian, L. J. (2012). A comparison of bee fauna in two northern California coastal dune systems.

Master’s Thesis. Humboldt State University Digital Commons, Arcata, CA, USA.

Lindley, S. T., D. L. Erickson, M. L. Moser, G. Williams, O. P. Langness, B. W. McCovey Jr., M Belchik, D. Vogel, W. Pinnix, J. T. Kelly, J. C. Heublein, and A. P. Klimley (2011). Electronic tagging of green sturgeon reveals population structure and movement among estuaries. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 140:108-122.

McCrimmon Jr., D. A., J. C. Ogden, and G. T. Bancroft (2011). Great Egret (Ardea alba), version

2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/greegr.

Moyle, P.B. (2002). Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayake (1995). Fish species of special concern in California. 2nd Edition. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA, USA. Technical Report for Contract No. 2128IF.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) (2015). Southern distinct population segment of the North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) 5-year review: summary and evaluation.

National Marine Fisheries Service West Coast Region, Long Beach, CA, USA.

Nafis, G. (2019). California Herps – A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. http://www.californiaherps.com.

Nakamoto, R. J., T. T. Kisanuki, and G. H. Goldsmith (1995). Age and growth of Klamath River green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Project # 93-FP-13, Klamath River Fishery Resource Office, Yreka, CA, USA.

Native Fish Society (2019). Eel River. Native Fish Society, Oregon City, OR, USA. https://nativefishsociety.org/watersheds/eel-river.

NatureServe (2019). NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.1.

NatureServe, Arlington, VI, USA. http://explorer.natureserve.org.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Fisheries (2007). Federal recovery outline for the evolutionarily significant unit of California coastal Chinook salmon. The National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Regional Office, Santa Rosa, CA, USA.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) Fisheries (2011). 5-year review:
summary and evaluation of southern Oregon/northern California coast coho salmon ESU. Southern GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 43 Oregon/northern California coast recovery domain. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region, Long Beach, CA, USA.

NorCalBats (2017). Bat Information. Northern California Bats, Davis, CA, USA. http://norcalbats.org/tag/yuma-myotis/.

Palmer, R. S., J. S. Gerrard and M. V. Stalmaster (1988). Bald Eagle. Handbook of North American birds. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.

Parsons, K. C. and T. L. Master (2000). Snowy Egret (Egretta thula), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/snoegr.

Reid, F. (2006). Peterson Field Guide to Mammals of North America: Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston, MA, USA.

Rich, A. A. 1997. Testimony of Alice A. Rich, Ph.D. regarding water rights applications for the Delta Wetlands Project. California Dept. of Fish and Game Exhibit DFG-7. Submitted to State Water Resources Control Board.

Rowse E.G., D. Lewanzik, E.L. Stone, S. Harris and G. Jones (2016). Chapter 7: Dark Matters: The effects of artificial lighting on bats. Editors C.C. Voigt and T. Kingston, Bats in the Anthropocene:

Conservation of Bats in a Changing World, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-25220-9_7.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evans (2009). A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA, USA.

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

Smith, A.K. (1973). Development and application of spawning velocity and depth criteria for Oregon salmonids. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 102: 312-316.

SNZ and CBI (Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute) (2019). North American porcupine. Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, Washington, DC, USA. https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/north-american-porcupine.

Spinks, P. Q., R. C. Thomson, and H. B. Shaffer (2014). The advantages of going large: genome wide SNPs clarify the complex population history and systematics of the threatened western pond turtle, Molecular Ecology, 23(9):2228-2241.

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

Stillwater Sciences (2006). Upper Penitencia creek: limiting factors analysis. Final technical report.

Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, Oakland, CA, USA.

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

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 44 Stillwater Sciences, C. W. Anderson, and Wiyot Tribe Natural Resources Department (2016). Adult life history of Pacific lamprey in Freshwater Creek, a tributary to Humboldt Bay, California. Final Report. Prepared for United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, USA.

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

Streif, B. (2007). Pacific Lamprey Fact Sheet. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Fish and Wildlife Service Office, OR, USA.

Sweitzer, R. A. (2013). Porcupines An Increasingly Rare Sight in California Mid‐elevation Mixed Conifer Forests: Consequences for Conservation of Pacific fishers. Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, Center for Forestry, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.

Thompson, R. C., A. N. Wright, and H. B. Shaffer (2016). California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern. University of California Press, Oakland, CA, USA.

Trune, D.R., and C.N. Slobodchikoff (1976). Social effects of roosting on the metabolism of the Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus). Journal of Mammalogy 57(4):656– 663.

USFS (US Forest Service) (1997). Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) natural history. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, California, USA.

USFS (US Forest Service) (2016). Foothill Yellow-legged Frog conservation assessment in California. General Technical Report: PSW-GTR-248. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, California, USA.

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service) (2002). General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines by the Endangered Species Recovery Program. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA, USA.

Vennesland, R. G. and R. W. Butler (2011). Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/grbher3.

Wallace, M. (2010). Juvenile coho salmon use of the tidal portions of Humboldt Bay tributaries.

Presented at the Humboldt Bay Symposium, April 23, 2010. Eureka, California, USA.

Wallace, M. and S. Allen (2009). Juvenile salmonid use of the tidal portions of selected tributaries to Humboldt Bay, California. Final Report for contract P0610522. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=17971.

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

Waples (1995). Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S.

Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-24.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 45 Western Bat Working Group (2019). Western Bat Species. Western Bat Working Group, Rapid City, SD, USA. http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/.

White, C. M., N. J. Clum, T. J. Cade, and W. G. Hunt (2002). Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole and F. B. Gill, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/perfal.

Wiemeyer, S. N., C. M. Burick and C. J. Stafford (1993). Environmental contaminants in Bald Eagle eggs 1980-1984 and further interpretations of relationships to productivity and shell thickness.

Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 24:213-227.

Wrege, P. H. and T. J. Cade (1977). Courtship behavior of large falcons in captivity. Journal of Raptor Research 11:1-46.

Yoshiyama and Moyle (2010). Historical review of Eel River anadromous salmonids, with emphasis on Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon and Steelhead, UC Davis, Center for Watershed Sciences working paper. A report commissioned by Caltrout.

Roosts must protect bats
from high temperatures.

Very sensitive to
disturbance of roosting
sites.

Moderate Potential. This
species will roost in caves,
crevices, mines, hollow
trees, porches, and
buildings (Harris et al.
2008). Requisite roosting
and foraging habitat is
present in the project
vicinity.

Aplodontia rufa
humboldtiana
Humboldt
Mountain Beaver
N N G5TN
R
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.

Moderate Potential.

Commonly occur in the
project vicinity (CDFW
2019). Requisite riparian
forest habitat exists
within project site.

Arborimus pomo Sonoma Tree
Vole
N N G3 S3 CDFW_SSC-Species 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
hardwood-conifer forests.

Feeds almost exclusively
on Douglas-fir needles.

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

No Potential. No suitable
habitat for this species
(e.g. no fir trees) is
present within the project
site.

Table 1. Fortuna Wastewater Management Regulatory Support - 9-Quad Database Search of USFWS IPaC, CDFW CNDDB, CNPS Rare Plant Inventory, and NMFS Database inventory searches of 9 USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangles centered on project quad (Fortuna) on 10.24.2019. Quads included Cannibal Island, Fields Landing, McWhinney Creek, Ferndale, Fortuna, Hydesville, Capetown, Taylor Peak, Scotia.

Most common in mesic
sites.

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

Moderate Potential. The
species will roost in manmade structures as well as
tree cavities (Erickson et
al. 2002).

Coniferous/hardwood
forest near the project
site may serve as
hibernacula for this
species and requisite
roosting and foraging
habitat is present in the
project vicinity.

Erethizon
dorsatum
North American
Porcupine
N N 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.

Moderate Potential.

Numerous occurrence
records (both historical
and recent) from the
larger project vicinity
(CDFW 2019).

Lasiurus cinereus Hoary Bat N N G5 S4 IUCN_LC-Least Concern | WBWG_M-Medium
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.

Moderate Potential. This
species generally roosts in
tree foliage (Erickson et
al. 2002). Requisite
roosting and foraging
habitat is present in the
project vicinity.

SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Martes caurina
humboldtensis
Humboldt
Marten
N SE G5T1 S1 CDFW_SSC-Species 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.

No Potential. No suitable
habitat exists within the
project site. There are no
recent records of this
species south of the
Klamath River. Current
populations are only
known from coastal
redwood forests in Del
Norte and northern
Humboldt County (CDFW
2018). Only historic
records from the project
vicinity (1913 and 1927;
CDFW 2019).

Myotis
yumanensis
Yuma Myotis N N G5 S4 BLM_S-Sensitive |
IUCN_LC-Least Concern |
WBWG_LM-Low-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.

Moderate Potential.

Foraging habitat for this
species is present at the
project site and the
species is locally common
in similar habitat types in
northwestern California
(Pierson and Rainey
2007).

Pekania pennanti Fisher - West
Coast DPS
N ST G5T2
T3Q
S2S3 BLM_S-Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-Species 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.

Low Potential. No mature
forest within project site.

Closest recent record was
within the Headwaters
Forest Reserve, a large
tract of highly suitable
habitat east of the city of
Fortuna and is separated
from the project area by
urban area and several
miles (CDFW 2019).

SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk N N G5 S4 CDFW_WL-Watch 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
flood-plains; also, live
oaks.

High Potential. There are
recent records from the
project vicinity (eBird
2019). Common species
known to nest and forage
in urban areas.

Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned
Hawk
N N G5 S4 CDFW_WL-Watch 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.

High Potential. There are
recent records from the
project vicinity (eBird
2019). Common species
known to nest and forage
in urban areas.

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

Low Potential. There is a
historical colony location
in the project vicinity
(Fortuna) but it has not
been occupied since 1997
and is considered
extirpated by CDFW
(2019). There are recent
(rare) sightings of
Tricolored Blackbirds from
the project vicinity as
close as the Ferndale
Bottoms in 2018 (eBird
2019).

Birds
SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Ammodramus
savannarum
Grasshopper
Sparrow
N N G5 S3 CDFW_SSC-Species 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.

Low Potential. There are
numerous records of this
species from the larger
project vicinity, but this
species is locally rare
(eBird 2019). Requisite
habitat is present in the
project vicinity.

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

Low Potential. There are
numerous records of this
species from the larger
project vicinity, but no
suitable habitat for this
species is present at the
project site (eBird 2019).

Rookery sites located near
marshes, tide-flats,
irrigated pastures, and
margins of rivers and
lakes.

High Potential. There are
numerous records of this
species from the larger
project vicinity, and
foraging and nesting
habitat is available along
the Eel River (eBird 2019).

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

High Potential. There are
numerous records of this
species from the larger
project vicinity, and
foraging and nesting
habitat is available along
the Eel River (eBird 2019).

SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Marbled
Murrelet
FT SE G3G4 S1 CDF_S-Sensitive |
IUCN_EN-Endangered |
NABCI_RWL-Red Watch
List
Lower montane
coniferous forest |
Oldgrowth | Redwood
Feeds near-shore; nests
inland along coast from
Eureka to Oregon border
and from Half Moon Bay
to Santa Cruz.

Nests in old-growth
redwood-dominated
forests, up to six miles
inland, often in Douglasfir.

No Potential. Although
there are numerous
occurrence records from
the project vicinity, there
is no suitable old growth
coniferous forest habitat
(for nesting) present on or
within 0.25 mile of the
project site (CDFW 2019).

Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Western Snowy
Plover
FT N G3T3 S2S3 CDFW_SSC-Species of
Special Concern |
NABCI_RWL-Red Watch
List | USFWS_BCC-Birds 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.

Low Potential. Requisite
habitat exists in close
proximity to the project
site (e.g. large gravel bars
on the Eel River; Page et
al. 2009).

Charadrius
montanus
Mountain Plover N N G3 S2S3 BLM_S-Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-Species of
Special Concern |
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened | NABCI_RWLRed Watch List |
USFWS_BCC-Birds 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.

Low Potential. Some
marginal habitat for this
species is present in the
cattle pastures adjacent
to the project site. The
closest known records
(rare) are from Crab Park
in 2015 (eBird 2019).

SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
Western Yellowbilled CuckooFT SE G5T2
T3
S1 BLM_S-Sensitive |
NABCI_RWL-Red Watch
List | USFS_S-Sensitive |
USFWS_BCC-Birds of
Conservation Concern
Riparian forest Riparian forest nester,
along the broad, lower
flood-bottoms of larger
river systems.

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

Low Potential. Requisite
habitat for this species is
present at the project
site. There are numerous
historical records of this
species from the project
vicinity, but the species is
locally rare. The closest
known record is from
2005 on Sandy Prairie
(within 0.25 miles of the
project site; eBird 2019).

Coturnicops
noveboracensis
Yellow Rail N N G4 S1S2 CDFW_SSC-Species of
Special Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least Concern |
NABCI_RWL-Red Watch
List | USFS_S-Sensitive |
USFWS_BCC-Birds of
Conservation Concern
Freshwater marsh |
Meadow & seep
Summer resident in
eastern Sierra Nevada in
Mono County.

Freshwater marshlands. No Potential. No habitat
for this species in the
project area. Most recent
record (rare incidental)
was from a cat-caught
individual near the Blue
Ox in Eureka (eBird 2019).

Egretta thula Snowy Egret N N 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.

Moderate Potential.

There are numerous
records of this species
from the larger project
vicinity, , and foraging
habitat is available along
the Eel River(eBird 2019).

SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Bald Eagle FD SE G5 S3 BLM_S-Sensitive | CDF_SSensitive | CDFW_FP-Fully Protected | IUCN_LCLeast 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.

High Potential. There are
numerous records of this
species from the project
vicinity, and foraging and
nesting habitat is available
along the Eel River (eBird
2019).

Nycticorax
nycticorax
Black-crowned
Night Heron
N N 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, mudbordered bays, marshy
spots.

Moderate Potential.

There are numerous
records of this species
from the larger project
vicinity, foraging and
nesting habitat is present
along the nearby Eel River
(eBird 2019).

Pandion
haliaetus
Osprey N N G5 S4 CDF_S-Sensitive |
CDFW_WL-Watch 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.

High Potential. There are
numerous records of this
species from the project
vicinity, and foraging and
nesting habitat is available
along the Eel River (eBird
2019).

Phoebastria
albatrus
Short-tailed
Albatross
FE N G1 S1 CDFW_SSC-Species of
Special Concern |
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable |
NABCI_RWL-Red
Watch List
Offshore Japanese Islands
| Northern Pacific Ocean |
Sea of Okhotsk
Islands with bare
ground/grass surrounded
by cliffs
Nests consist of large
scoops lined with grass in
open, grassy areas.

Forages at upwellings in
the ocean.

No Potential. Species is
extremely rare along the
west coast of the U.S.
(non-breeding season
only). Only breeds on
offshore islands in Japan
and recently Midway atoll
(BirdLife International
2019).

SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Riparia riparia Bank Swallow N ST G5 S2 BLM_S-Sensitive | 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.

Moderate Potential.

There are numerous
records of this species
from the immediate
project vicinity, and
foraging and nesting
habitat is present at along
the Eel River (eBird 2019).

Strix occidentalis
caurina
Northern Spotted
Owl
FT ST G3T3 S2S3 CDF_S-Sensitive |
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened |
NABCI_YWL-Yellow
Watch List
North coast coniferous
forest | Oldgrowth |
Redwood
Old-growth forests or
mixed stands of oldgrowth and mature trees.

Occasionally in younger
forests with patches of big
trees.

High, multistory canopy
dominated by big trees,
many trees with cavities
or broken tops, woody
debris, and space under
canopy.

Low Potential. Although
there are numerous
records of this species
from the larger project
vicinity including evidence
of historical nesting, no
nesting, roosting, or
foraging habitat for this
species is present at
project site (CDFW 2019).

Chelonia mydas Green Sea Turtle
aka East Pacific
Green Sea Turtle
FT N G3 S1 IUCN_EN-Endangered Marine bay Marine. Completely herbivorous; needs adquate supply of
seagrasses and algae.

No Potential. No marine
habitat is present within
the project site.

Dermochelys
coriacea
Leatherback Sea
Turtle
FE N Marine Marine Open ocean. Also seas,
gulfs, bays, and estuaries.

Seldom approaches land
except for nesting.

No Potential. No marine
habitat is present within
the project site.

Reptiles
SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Emys marmorata Western Pond
Turtle
N N G3G4 S3 BLM_S-Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-Species of
Special Concern |
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable |
USFS_S-Sensitive
Aquatic | Artificial flowing
waters | Klamath/North
coast flowing waters |
Klamath/North coast
standing waters | Marsh
& swamp |
Sacramento/San Joaquin
flowing waters |
Sacramento/San Joaquin
standing waters | South
coast flowing waters |
South coast standing
waters | Wetland
A thoroughly aquatic
turtle of ponds, marshes,
rivers, streams and
irrigation ditches, usually
with aquatic vegetation,
below 6000 ft elevation.

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

High Potential. This
species is present
throughout the Eel River
watershed and suitable
upland habitat is present
within the project site
(CDFW 2019).

Lepidochelys
olivacea
Olive Ridley Sea
Turtle
SE N Marine Marine Tropical and subtropical
waters including
protected, shallow,
marine and estuarine
waters, bays and lagoons,
to offshore areas. Nesting
occurs on upper beaches.

No Potential. No marine
habitat is present within
the project site.

Ascaphus truei Pacific Tailed
Frog
N N G4 S3S4 CDFW_SSC-Species 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
hardwood-conifer,
redwood, Douglas-fir &
ponderosa pine habitats.

Restricted to perennial
montane streams.

Tadpoles require water
below 15 degrees C.

No Potential. Species
requires substantially
higher gradient streams
and higher velocity waters
than are present
within/adjacent to project
site.

Amphibians
SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Rana aurora Northern Redlegged FrogN N G4 S3 CDFW_SSC-Species of Special Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least Concern |
USFS_S-Sensitive
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 non-breeding
season.

Moderate Potential.

There are multiple
records of this species
from the project vicinity
and suitable habitat exists
adjacent to the project
site (CDFW 2019,
iNaturalist 2019).

Needs at least some
cobble-sized substrate for
egg-laying. Needs at least
15 weeks to attain
metamorphosis.

Moderate Potential.

There are records of this
species from the project
vicinity (iNaturalist 2019).

This species is present
throughout the Eel River
watershed and suitable
habitat exists adjacent to
the project site at the Eel
River.

Rhyacotriton
variegatus
Southern Torrent
Salamander
N N G3G4 S2S3 CDFW_SSC-Species of
Special Concern |
IUCN_LC-Least Concern |
USFS_S-Sensitive
Lower montane
coniferous forest |
Oldgrowth | Redwood |
Riparian forest
Coastal redwood, Douglasfir, mixed conifer,
montane riparian, and
montane hardwoodconifer habitats. Old
growth forest.

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

No Potential. Species
requires substantially
higher gradient streams
and higher velocity waters
than are present
within/adjacent to project
site.

Acipenser
medirostris
Green Sturgeon FT N G3 S1S2 AFS_VU-Vulnerable |
CDFW_SSC-Species of
Special Concern |
IUCN_NT-Near
Threatened | NMFS_SCSpecies of Concern
Aquatic | Klamath/North
coast flowing waters |
Sacramento/San 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.

Moderate Potential.

Known to spawn in the Eel
River in the spring
(Stillwater Sciences and
Wiyot Tribe 2017).

Fish
SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Entosphenus
tridentatus
Pacific Lamprey N N G4 S4 AFS_VU-Vulnerable |
BLM_S-Sensitive |
CDFW_SSC-Species of
Special Concern | USFS_SSensitive
Aquatic | Klamath/North
coast flowing waters |
Sacramento/San 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.

Moderate Potential.

Known to spawn in the Eel
River basin primarily April
through mid-July (Streif
2007, Stillwater 2010,
Limm and Power 2011).

Eucyclogobius
newberryi
Tidewater Goby FE N G3 S3 AFS_EN-Endangered |
CDFW_SSC-Species of
Special Concern |
IUCN_VU-Vulnerable
Aquatic | Klamath/North
coast flowing waters |
Sacramento/San 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.

No Potential. No brackish
water is present within
the project site.

Oncorhynchus
clarkii clarkii
Coast Cutthroat
Trout
N N G4T4 S3 AFS_VU-Vulnerable |
CDFW_SSC-Species 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.

Moderate Potential.

Known to spawn in the Eel
River and its tributaries
with peak spawning in
December in large
streams (CDFW 2019,
Native Fish Society 2019).

Oncorhynchus
kisutch pop. 2
Coho Salmon -
southern Oregon
/ northern
California ESU
FT ST G4T2
Q
S2? AFS_TH-Threatened Aquatic | Klamath/North
coast flowing waters |
Sacramento/San 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.

Moderate Potential.

Known to spawn in the Eel
River and its tributaries
primarily in November
and December (CDFW
2019, Native Fish Society
2019).

Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 16
Steelhead -
northern
California DPS
FT N G5T2
T3Q
S2S3 AFS_TH-Threatened Aquatic | Sacramento/San
Joaquin flowing waters
Coastal basins from
Redwood Creek south to
the Gualala River,
inclusive. Does not include
summer-run steelhead.

Moderate Potential.

Known to spawn in the Eel
River and its tributaries
from December through
April (CalFish 2018, Native
Fish Society 2019).

SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
Chinook Salmon -
California Coastal
ESU
FT N G5 S1 AFS_TH-Threatened Aquatic | Sacramento/San
Joaquin flowing waters
Federal listing refers to
wild spawned, coastal,
spring & fall runs between
Redwood Cr, Humboldt
Co & Russian River,
Sonoma Co
Moderate Potential.

Known to spawn in the Eel
River and its tributaries
with peak spawning from
October to December
(CalTrout 2019, Native
Fish Society 2019).

Spirinchus
thaleichthys
Longfin Smelt FC ST 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.

Low Potential. Known to
occur in the Eel River, but
prefer higher salinity
waters near river mouths
(Native Fish Society 2019).

Thaleichthys
pacificus
Eulachon FT N G5 S3 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 pea-sized
gravel, sand, and woody
debris.

Low Potential. Not known
to occur in the Eel River
(NMFS 2008).

Anodonta
californiensis
California Floater N N G3Q S2? USFS_S-Sensitive Aquatic Freshwater lakes and slowmoving streams and rivers. Taxonomy under
review by specialists.

Generally in shallow
water.

Moderate Potential.

Known to occur in the Eel
River (Howard and Cuffey
2003).

Margaritifera
falcata
Western
Pearlshell
N N G4G5 S1S2 Aquatic Aquatic. Prefers lower velocity
waters.

Moderate Potential.

Known to occur in the Eel
River (Limm and Power
2011).

Mollusks
Insects
SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Bombus
caliginosus
Obscure Bumble
Bee
N N G4? S1S2 IUCN_VU-Vulnerable Coastal areas from Santa Barabara county to north
to Washington state.

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

Moderate Potential.

Project site falls within
the species current range
(Hatfield et al. 2014). In
addition, the project site
is within the coastal fog
belt and may include
several of the species'
food plants.

Bombus
occidentalis
Western Bumble
Bee
N SCE G2G3 S1 USFS_S-Sensitive |
XERCES_IM-Imperiled
Once common &
widespread, species has
declined precipitously
from central CA to
southern B.C., perhaps
from disease.

Low Potential. Although
the project site falls
within the species pre2002 range (according to
ICUN Redlist), the range
has contracted
significantly in the last
decade and now only
includes the
intermountain west and
cascade regions of the US
(Hatfield et al. 2014).

Fissidens
pauperculus
minute pocket
moss
N N G3? S2 1B.2 USFS_S-Sensitive North coast coniferous forest | Redwood
North coast coniferous
forest.

Moss growing on damp
soil along the coast. In dry
streambeds and on
stream banks. 10-1024 m.

No Potential. North coast
coniferous forest is not
present.

Abronia
umbellata var.
breviflora
pink sandverbenaN N G4G5
T2
S2 1B.1 BLM_S-Sensitive |
SB_RSABG-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.

No Potential. Coastal
dunes are not present.

Dicots
Bryophytes
SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Astragalus
pycnostachyus
var.
pycnostachyus
coastal marsh
milk-vetch
N N G2T2 S2 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive |
SB_RSABG-Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden |
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara
Botanic Garden |
SB_UCBBG-UC Berkeley
Botanical Garden
Coastal dunes | Coastal
scrub | Marsh & swamp |
Wetland
Coastal dunes,marshes
and swamps, coastal
scrub.

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

No Potential. Neither
coastal dunes nor coastal
scrub near salt marsh
occur.

Cardamine
angulata
seaside
bittercress
N N 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.

No Potential. Neither
lower montane coniferous
forest nor north coast
coniferous forest are
present.

Castilleja
ambigua var.
humboldtiensis
Humboldt Bay
owl's-clover
N N G4T2 S2 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive Marsh & swamp | Salt
marsh | Wetland
Marshes and swamps. In coastal saltmarsh with
Spartina, Distichlis,
Salicornia, Jaumea. 0-20
m.

No Potential. No salt
marsh habitat nor marsh
or swamp habitat is
present.

Castilleja litoralis Oregon coast
paintbrush
N N G3 S3 2B.2 Coastal bluff scrub |
Coastal dunes | Coastal
scrub
Coastal bluff scrub,
coastal dunes, coastal
scrub.

Sandy sites. 5-255 m. Low Potential. No coastal
bluff scrub or coastal
dune habitat is present.

Scrub-shrub vegetation is
present with sandy
substrates but project
location is probably too
far inland for this species.

Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
palustre
Point Reyes salty
bird's-beak
N N G4?T
2 S2 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive Marsh & swamp | Salt
marsh | Wetland
Coastal salt marsh. Usually in coastal salt
marsh with Salicornia,
Distichlis, Jaumea,
Spartina, etc. 0-115 m.

No Potential. No coastal
salt marsh habitat is
present.

SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Clarkia amoena
ssp. whitneyi
Whitney's
farewell-tospring
N N G5T1 S1 1B.1 SB_RSABG-Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden |
SB_UCBBG-UC Berkeley
Botanical Garden
Coastal bluff scrub |
Coastal scrub
Coastal bluff scrub,
coastal scrub.
5-125 m. Low Potential. No coastal
bluff scrub is present.

Scrub-shrub vegetation is
present. There is a 1955
CNDDB occurrence
mapped 1.5 miles west of
Fortuna.

Downingia
willamettensis
Cascade
downingia
N N G4 S2 2B.2 Cismontane woodland |
Valley & foothill grassland
| Vernal pool
Cismontane woodland,
Clarkia amoena ssp.
whitneyi
Lake margins. 15-1110 m. Low Potential. No
cismontane woodland,
valley or foothill grassland
or vernal pool habitat is
present.

Erysimum
menziesii
Menzies'
wallflower
FE SE G1 S1 1B.1 SB_RSABG-Rancho Santa
Ana Botanic Garden |
SB_UCBBG-UC Berkeley
Botanical Garden
Coastal dunes Coastal dunes. Localized on dunes and
coastal strand. 1-25 m.

No Potential. Coastal
dunes are not present.

Gilia capitata
ssp. pacifica
Pacific gilia N N 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. No Potential. No
chaparral, coastal bluff
scrub, coastal prairie,n or
valley or foothill grassland
is present.

Gilia millefoliata dark-eyed gilia N N G2 S2 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive Coastal dunes Coastal dunes. 1-60 m. No Potential. Coastal dunes are not present.

Hesperevax
sparsiflora var.
brevifolia
short-leaved evax N N G4T3 S2 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive Coastal bluff scrub | Coastal dunes | Coastal
prairie
Coastal bluff scrub,
coastal dunes, coastal
prairie.

Sandy bluffs and flats. 0-
640 m.

No Potential. Coastal
dunes, coastal bluff scrub,
coastal prairie, valley and
foothill grassland are not
present.

Hesperolinon
adenophyllum
glandular
western flax
N N G2G3 S2S3 1B.2 Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Valley and
foothill grassland
usually serpentinite 150-
1315 m.

No Potential. No
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Valley or
foothill grassland occurs.

SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Layia carnosa beach layia FE SE G2 S2 1B.1 SB_RSABG-Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden |
SB_SBBG-Santa Barbara
Botanic Garden
Coastal dunes | Coastal
scrub
Coastal dunes, coastal
scrub.

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

No Potential. No coastal
dunes are present.

Montia howellii Howell's montia N N 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.

Low Potential. North
coast coniferous forest is
not present. Vernally wet
sites with compacted soils
are present.

Noccaea fendleri
ssp. californica
Kneeland prairie
pennycress
FE N G5?T
1 S1 1B.1 Coastal prairie
(serpentinite)
Known from one
occurrence at Kneeland
Prairie.

No Potential. Specific
habitat requirements,
(coastl prairie,
serpentine), for this very
rare species are not
present.

Oenothera wolfii Wolf's eveningprimroseN N G2 S1 1B.1 BLM_S-Sensitive | SB_BerrySB-Berry 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.

Moderate Potential.

Coastal bluff scrub,
coastal dunes, and coastal
prairie are not present.

Sandy substrates are
present. Scrub shrub
vegeation is present, this
species distribution is not
limited entirely to the
coast (CNDDB 2019).

Packera
bolanderi var.
bolanderi
seacoast ragwort N N G4T4 S2S3 2B.2 Coastal scrub | North coast coniferous forest
Coastal scrub, north coast
coniferous forest.

Sometimes along
roadsides. 30-915 m.

No Potential. North cost
coniferous forest does not
occur. Scrub-shrub habitat
occurs but not coastal
scrub.

SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Polemonium
carneum
Oregon
polemonium
N N G3G4 S2 2B.2 Coastal prairie | Coastal
scrub | Lower montane
coniferous forest
Coastal prairie, coastal
scrub, lower montane
coniferous forest.
0-1830 m. Low Potential. Coastal
prairie, coastal scrub, and
lower montane coniferous
forest are not present. An
old (1935) CNDDB
occurrence documents a
location where this
species occurred with
coyote brush,
blackberry,and thimble
berry all of which are
present in project area.

However, this species is
very rare, and known
priamrily from old
occurrence data.

Sidalcea
malachroides
maple-leaved
checkerbloom
N N 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.

Moderate Potential.

Riparian forest, scrubshrub vegetation and
disturbed areas are
present.

Sidalcea
malviflora ssp.
patula
Siskiyou
checkerbloom
N N G5T2 S2 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive 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.

No Potential. Coastal
bluff scrub, coastal
prairie, and north coast
coniferous forest are not
present.

Sidalcea oregana
ssp. eximia
coast
checkerbloom
N N G5T1 S1 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive 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.

No Potential. Specific
habitats for this species
are not present at project
location, including
meadows and north coast
conifeorus forest.

SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Spergularia
canadensis var.
occidentalis
western sandspurreyN N G5T4 S1 2B.1 Marsh & swamp |
Wetland
Marshes and swamps
(coastal salt marshes).
0-3 m. No Potential. No swamp
or coastal slat marsh
habitat is present.

Carex leptalea bristle-stalked
sedge
N N 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.

No Potential. No bog, fen,
marsh, or swamp habitat
is present at project
location.

Carex lyngbyei Lyngbye's sedge N N G5 S3 2B.2 Marsh & swamp | Wetland
Marshes and swamps
(brackish or freshwater).
0-200 m. No Potential. No marsh
or swamp habitat is
present. No brackish
water is present.

Erythronium
oregonum
giant fawn lily N N G4G5 S2 2B.2 Cismontane woodland |
Meadow & seep |
Ultramafic
Cismontane woodland,
meadows and seeps.

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

No Potential. Ultramafic
soil, and cismontane
woodland is not present.

Project elevation is too
low.

Erythronium
revolutum
coast fawn lily N N 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.

No Potential. The project
area does not contain
bogs or fens, broadleaved
upland forest, or North
coast coniferous forest
directly at project area.

Lilium
occidentale
western lily FE SE G1 S1 1B.1 SB_BerrySB-Berry 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 windblown alluvium and
organic topsoil; usually
near margins of Sitka
spruce. 3-110 m.

No Potential. Vegetation
at the project location
consists of scrub-shrub
vegetation and black
cottonwood riparian
forest, but the specific
habitat requirements for
this species do not occur
within the project area.

Monocots
SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Piperia candida white-flowered
rein orchid
N N G3 S3 1B.2 BLM_S-Sensitive 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.

No Potential.

Broadleaved upland
forest, lower montane
coniferous forest are not
present at project site.

North coast coniferous
forest is not present
directly at the project site.

Puccinellia
pumila
dwarf alkali grass N N G4? SH 2B.2 Marsh & swamp |
Wetland
Marshes and swamps. Mineral spring meadows
and coastal salt marshes.
1-10 m.

No Potential. Marshes,
swamps, or mineral
springs are not present.

Sisyrinchium
hitchcockii
Hitchcock's blueeyed grassN N 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.

No Potential. Specific
habitats for this species
are not present and
project elevation is too
low.

Sitka Spruce
Forest
Sitka Spruce
Forest
N N G1 S1.1 Not Present. One large
Sitka spruce tree occurs
within the porject area,
but no Sitka spruce forest.

Coastal Terrace
Prairie
Coastal Terrace
Prairie
N N G2 S2.1 Coastal prairie Not Present.

Northern Coastal
Salt Marsh
Northern Coastal
Salt Marsh
N N G3 S3.2 Marsh & swamp |
Wetland
Not Present.
*Potential to
Occur:

No Potential:

Low Potential.

Moderate
Potential.

High Potential.

Key:

Habitats
Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).

Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is t lik l t b f d th it Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.

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

SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* FE = Federal Endangered
FT = Federal Threatened
FC = Federal Candidate
FD = Federal Delisted
PT = Proposed Threatened
BCC = USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
SE = State Endangered
SD = State Delisted
SNR=State Not Ranked
ST = State Threatened
SR = State Rare
SCE = State Candidate Endangered
SCT = State Candidate Threatened
SSC = CDFG Species of Special Concern
CFP = CDFG Fully Protected Animal
References:

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) (2019). State and federally listed endangered and threatened animals of California. State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Wildlife Biogeographic Data Branch. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind. Sacramento, CA, USA. eBird (2019). An online database of bird distribution and abundance. Ithaca, NY, USA. http://www.ebird.org.

Harris, J., P. Brown, D. Alley, and R. Duke (2008). Life History – Pallid Bat. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group, Sacramento, CA, USA.

Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, R. Thorp, L. Richardson, and S. Colla (2014). Bombus caliginosus. The IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List of Threatened Species 2014, Gland, CH. https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/44937726/69000748 Native Fish Society (2019). Eel River. Native Fish Society, Oregon City, OR, USA. https://nativefishsociety.org/watersheds/eel-river. iNaturalist (2019). Observations. California Academy of Sciences and National Geographic Society, iNaturalist Department, San Francisco, CA, USA. https://www.inaturalist.org. 2 = CRPR List 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere 3 = CRPR List 3: Plants about which more information is needed (a review list) 4 = CRPR List 4: Plants of limited distribution (a watch list) BirdLife International (2019). Species factsheet: Phoebastria albatrus. http://www.birdlife.org.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) (2018). Report to the fish and game commission. A status review of the Humboldt Marten (Martes caurina humboltensis) in California. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA, USA. 1A = CRPR List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California 1B = CRPR List 1B: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere Howard, J. K., and Cuffey, K. M. (2003). Freshwater mussels in a California North Coast Range river: occurrence, distribution, and controls. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 22 (1):63-77.

Erickson, Gregg A., et al. (2002). Bat and Bridges Technical Bulletin (Hitchhiker Guide to Bat Roosts), California Department of Transportation, Sacramento CA, USA.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) (2008). Summary of Scientific Conclusions of the Review of the Status of Eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA, USA.

SciName ComName FedLi
st
CalLi
st
GRan
k
SRan
k
RPla
ntRa
OthrStatus Habitats GenHab MicroHab Potential to Occur* Stillwater Sciences (2010). Pacific lamprey in the Eel River basin: a summary of current information and identification of research needs. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Arcata, CA, USA for Wiyot Tribe, Loleta, CA, USA.

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

Streif, B. (2007). Pacific Lamprey Fact Sheet. US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland Fish and Wildlife Service Office, OR, USA.

Pierson, E. D. and W. E. Rainey (2007). Bat distribution in the forested region of northwestern Califronia. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Non Game Bird and Mammal Section, Sacramento, California. Contract #FG-1523-WM.

Page, G. W., L. E. Stenzel, J. S. Warriner, J. C. Warriner and P. W. Paton (2009). Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (A. F. Poole, Editor).

Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/snoplo5.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 47 Appendix B – Figures
P a c i f i c O c e a n H u m b o l d t
B a y
Eureka
Fortuna
Rio Dell
E e l R i v e r
254
255
1 211
36 101
FIGURE 1
0 1 2 3 4
Miles
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146364
Date Nov 2019
City of Fortuna Wastewater Treatment and Effluent
Percolation System Upgrade Project
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
Data source: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA. Created by: jclark2
N:\US\Eureka\Projects\111\11146364 Fortuna-WW Plan Landowner\08- GIS\Maps\Deliverables\BRR\11146364_001_Vicinity_RevB.mxd Print date: 05 Dec 2019 - 10:58
Legend
Project Location
Highway
Major Road
Vicinity Map
101
101
Fortuna
Willow
Creek
Garberville
AArrccaattaa
Eureka
Arcata
McKinleyville
101
96 299
H u m b o l d t
C o u n t y
Potential Directional
Drilling Mid-Point
(Contingency B)
Directional
Drilling Outlet
(Contingency B)
Site Access
Infiltration
Area
Directional
Drilling Outlet
(Option A)
Pipe Staging
Site Access
WWTP Upgrades
FIGURE 2
0 370 740 1,110 1,480
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146364
Date Dec 2019
City of Fortuna Wastewater Treatment and Effluent
Percolation System Upgrade Project
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
N:\US\Eureka\Projects\111\11146364 Fortuna-WW Plan Landowner\08- Data source: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Created by: jclark2 GIS\Maps\Deliverables\BRR\11146364_002_ProjectArea_RevD.mxd Print date: 20 Dec 2019 - 14:14
Legend
Project Study Boundary
Staging and Stockpiling
Area
Alternate Access
Potential Underground
Pipe Pathway
Western Site Access
Existing Unimproved
Road
New Road
Project Study Area
Update polygons to
be the entire
developed site
FIGURE 3
0 1.5 3 4.5 6
Miles
ProjectNo.

Revision No.-
11146364
Date Nov 2019
City of Fortuna Wastewater Treatment and Effluent
Percolation System Upgrade Project
Map Projection:Lam bertConform alConic
HorizontalDatum :NorthAm erican 1983
Grid:NAD1983StatePlaneCaliforniaIFIPS0401Feet
PaperSizeANSIA
N:\U S\Eurek a\Projects\111\11146364Fortuna-WWPlan Landow ner\08- Datasource:CNDDB,Novem ber5th,2019;.Createdby:jclark 2 GIS\Maps\Deliverables\BRR\11146364_003_CNDDB_RevA.m xd
Printdate:05Dec2019-11:02
Legend
Project Location
5 Mile Buffer (area of interest)
Stream / River
County Boundaries
CNDDB Occurrences within 5 miles of the
project
Plant (80m)
Plant (specific)
Plant (non-specific)
Plant (circular)
Animal (80m)
Animal (specific)
Animal (non-specific)
Animal (circular)
Multiple (non-specific)
Multiple (circular)
Sensitive EO's (Commercial only)
CNDDB Occurrences
5 mile radius
DataDisclaim er
Dataw ithin theCNDDBandSpottedOw lDatabaserequirebiologicalex pertise forproperanalysis,interpretation,andapplication.Itis theuser’s responsibilityto ensurethatthedataobtainedfrom CDFWareusedcorrectly.

FIGURE 4
0 280 560 840 1,120
Feet
Project No.

Pasture
Not Sensitive Community:

Percolation Pond
Figure 6
Figure 8
Figure 7
FIGURE 5
0 300 600 900 1,200
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146364
Date Nov 2019
City of Fortuna Wastewater Treatment and Effluent
Percolation System Upgrade Project
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
N:\US\Eureka\Projects\111\11146364 Fortuna-WW Plan Landowner\08- Data source: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Created by: jclark2 GIS\Maps\Deliverables\BRR\11146364_006-8_VegetationMB_RevA.mxd Print date: 05 Dec 2019 - 11:23
Legend
Project Study Boundary
Rapid Assessment Plot
Sensitive Communities
Black Cottonwood Forest
Alliance
Black Cottonwood Forest
Alliance - Intermittant
Not Sensitive
Coyote Brush Scrub
Alliance
Mixed Coyote Brush Scrub
Alliance / Poison Oak
Scrub
Vegetation Communities
FIGURE 7
0 30 60 90 120
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146364
Date Nov 2019
City of Fortuna Wastewater Treatment and Effluent
Percolation System Upgrade Project
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
N:\US\Eureka\Projects\111\11146364 Fortuna-WW Plan Landowner\08- Data source: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Created by: jclark2 GIS\Maps\Deliverables\BRR\11146364_006-8_VegetationMB_RevA.mxd Print date: 05 Dec 2019 - 11:23
Legend
Project Study Boundary
Rapid Assessment Plot
Sensitive Communities
Black Cottonwood Forest
Alliance
Black Cottonwood Forest
Alliance - Intermittant
Not Sensitive
Coyote Brush Scrub
Alliance
Mixed Coyote Brush Scrub
Alliance / Poison Oak
Scrub
Vegetation Communities
FIGURE 8
0 10 20 30 40
Feet
Project No.

Revision No. -
11146364
Date Nov 2019
City of Fortuna Wastewater Treatment and Effluent
Percolation System Upgrade Project
Map Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Horizontal Datum: North American 1983
Grid: NAD 1983 StatePlane California I FIPS 0401 Feet
Paper Size ANSI A
N:\US\Eureka\Projects\111\11146364 Fortuna-WW Plan Landowner\08- Data source: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community. Created by: jclark2 GIS\Maps\Deliverables\BRR\11146364_006-8_VegetationMB_RevA.mxd Print date: 05 Dec 2019 - 11:23
Legend
Project Study Boundary
Rapid Assessment Plot
Sensitive Communities
Black Cottonwood Forest
Alliance
Black Cottonwood Forest
Alliance - Intermittant
Not Sensitive
Coyote Brush Scrub
Alliance
Mixed Coyote Brush Scrub
Alliance / Poison Oak
Scrub
Vegetation Communities
GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 48 Appendix C – Photos
GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 49 Figure 1. Proposed Pipe Outlet - Abandoned Equalization Pond at Fortuna WWTP.

GHD | City of Fortuna | Biological Resources Report 11146364 | Page 54 Appendix D – Rapid Assessment Forms

Addendum to the
2020 Initial Study /
Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Fortuna Wastewater Treatment Plant and
Effluent Percolation System Upgrade
Project, SCH No. 2020050104
City of Fortuna
8 June 2023

City of Fortuna | Addendum to the 2020 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration i Contents

1. Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background............................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Framework for Evaluation of Project Modifications .................................................. 2

2. Changes to Project Since 2020 MND................................................................................. 2

2.1 Construction Schedule ............................................................................................ 4

2.2 Changes in Circumstances...................................................................................... 4

3. Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects .................................................................... 4

3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources .......................................................................... 4

3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 4

3.4 Biological Resources............................................................................................... 4

3.5 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................. 5

3.6 Energy..................................................................................................................... 5

3.7 Geology & Soils....................................................................................................... 5

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.................................................................................... 5

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................... 6

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................... 6

3.11 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................... 6

3.12 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................. 6

3.13 Noise....................................................................................................................... 6

3.14 Population and Housing .......................................................................................... 6

3.15 Public Services........................................................................................................ 6

3.16 Recreation............................................................................................................... 7

3.17 Transportation/Traffic .............................................................................................. 7

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................................ 7

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................. 7

3.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance......................................................................... 7

4. List of Preparers ................................................................................................................. 7

4.1 City of Fortuna......................................................................................................... 7

4.2 GHD........................................................................................................................ 8 City of Fortuna | Addendum to the 2020 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 1

1. Introduction

1.1 Background
The City of Fortuna Wastewater Treatment Plan (WWTP) is regulated under the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) and operates under waste discharge requirements issued by the NCRWQCB in Order No. R1-2017-0005, effective November 1, 2017. Treated effluent from the WWTP is discharged to the Eel River or percolation ponds, depending on the time of year. From May 15th through September 30th, the City is prohibited from discharging treated effluent to the Eel River, and discharges to two percolation ponds, which allow disposal through infiltration into groundwater. The percolation ponds are located approximately 180 feet from the edge of the Eel River. From October 1st through May 14th, treated effluent is discharged into either the percolation ponds or Strongs Creek, a tributary of the Eel River. Studies have shown that there is the potential for hydraulic connection between the existing percolation ponds and the Eel River. The Regional Board has required the City to implement an alternative method of summertime effluent disposal due to potential connectivity during periods when river discharge is not allowed. The Regional Board is also requiring the City to upgrade the treatment system to improve treatment for ammonia and nitrate. As a result, the City must implement alternative methods of effluent disposal or reuse during the period May 15th through September 30th and upgrade the treatment system.

The City obtained funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) for planning of the Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade Project (project). The objective of the project is to address compliance issues related to the disposal of treated effluent and construct a new disposal system to replace the historic May 15th through September 30th use of the WWTP percolation ponds. This will avoid the potential connection to the Eel River during the discharge prohibition period.

The City is planning on improvements to the WWTP that includes upgrade of the WWTP within the existing developed site to add Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) and development of a treated effluent subsurface percolation facility (percolation field) on the opposite (western) side of the Eel River. Additionally, treated effluent would be pumped from the existing WWTP under the Eel River through a new, directionally-drilled pipeline.

The Notice of Determination for the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (2020 MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and approved the WWTP and Effluent Percolation System Upgrade project (project) was filed on July 15, 2020. Since adoption of the 2020 MND, the project design has been modified. Modifications are limited to improvements at the WWTP and include flow equalization system and upgrades to the existing storage ponds, a new phosphorus removal system, new backup generator, upgrades to the secondary and primary clarification system, upgrades to the anaerobic digester and associated systems, new solar panels and updates to the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA). Additionally, the project study area has been updated to identify the roadway anticipated to be used for site access and the full footprint of the existing WWTP; however, the project design footprint (staging and stockpiling, pipeline staging, infiltration area, WWTP upgrades, and directional drilling locations) would not be modified from that used in the 2020 MND. The proposed modified project study area is provided in Figure 1.

The City has evaluated the changes in the project design along with the circumstances surrounding the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The changes to the project design have been evaluated and measured against the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 which outlines the circumstances under which a CEQA Lead Agency is required to prepare a Subsequent MND. Elements requiring the preparation of a Subsequent MND have not been identified, as the changes in the project design along with the circumstances surrounding the project do not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects requiring new mitigation measures beyond those previously addressed in the 2020 MND. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, a CEQA Lead Agency may prepare an Addendum to a previously adopted negative declaration to analyze changes in a project, or in circumstances surrounding a project, where the record indicates that a subsequent negative declaration is not required. Therefore, an Addendum to the 2020 MND has been determined to be the appropriate CEQA document.

This Addendum reflects the analysis of the City as the CEQA lead agency. Further, it demonstrates that the environmental analysis, impacts, and mitigation requirements identified in the 2020 MND remain substantively unchanged by the minor changes to the project described herein. The project modifications do not result in a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact, and therefore do not exceed the level of impacts identified in the 2020 MND.

City of Fortuna | Addendum to the 2020 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 2 Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), an Addendum need not be circulated for public review. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d), the decision-making body shall consider an Addendum prior to making a decision on the project. Accordingly, this Addendum, along with the 2020 MND, will be considered by the decision-making bodies prior to any future decision on the project. This Addendum, along with the previous environmental analyses, is on file with and may be obtained from the City of Fortuna, 621 11th Street, Fortuna CA 95501.

1.2 Framework for Evaluation of Project Modifications
As directed by CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, when an MND has been adopted for a project, no subsequent MND shall be prepared, unless one or more of the following circumstances occur:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revision of the previous MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous MND was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous MND; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous MND;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

The changes in environmental impacts due to modifications in the project or changed conditions have been evaluated and measured against CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 standards set forth above. The environmental analysis is provided in Section 3.

2. Changes to Project Since 2020 MND
Section 1.6.5 of the 2020 MND described the WWTP treatment upgrades, including construction of a new aeration basin distribution box, motorized inlet valves, supplemental carbon storage tank, demolition of some of the existing compost storage and construction of new construction storage, construction of a new waste activated sludge (WAS) and filtrate equalization (EQ) tanks, converting the existing WAS and filtrate EQ tanks to expanded aeration tanks, ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, and other actions. The section would be revised to include:
- Additional upgrades to the Flow Equalization System
- Additional upgrades to the existing storage ponds
- New phosphorus removal system
- New backup generator
- Upgrades to the secondary and primary clarification system - Upgrades to the anaerobic digestor and associated systems - New solar panels and
- SCADA upgrades
The full proposed revised text for Section 1.6.5 is provided below.

City of Fortuna | Addendum to the 2020 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 3

1.6.5 WWTP Treatment Upgrades: Non-Proprietary Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) Improved Secondary Treatment and Ultraviolet Disinfection
The City is required to meet effluent targets per the NPDES permit issued by the Regional Board. The City’s NPDES permit currently required the City to upgrade the treatment system for improved removal of ammonia and nitrate. The City is currently proposing to add Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR) to the existing treatment train, which could include converting the aeration basins to the Modified Ludzack Ettinger (MLE) process or modifying tankage onsite to implement a 4-stage bardenpho system. The exact BNR method will be determined during the design process, and regardless of the system selected overall impacts to the plant would be the same. Regardless of the type of BNR system selected, both option would also require modifying the waste activated sludge (WAS) and filtrate equalization (EQ) basins.

A phased construction approach would be used for the WWTP upgrades to allow the WWTP to stay in operation during construction. The construction to modify the WWTP to include the BNR process would generally consist of the following elements:
• Construction of a new aeration basin distribution box • Sequentially converting aeration basins one at a time • Implementing new dissolved oxygen (DO) control for each new basin as it comes online • Installation of motorized inlet valves
• Connecting each basin to new distribution box as it is brought online • Building an optional supplemental carbon storage tank The upgrade to the WAS and filtrate EQ basins includes the following:
• Demolition of some of the existing compost storage and construction of new compost storage • Construction of new WAS and filtrate EQ tanks
• Connection of existing WAS and filtrate piping
• Converting existing WAS and filtrate EQ tanks to expanded aeration tanks • Aligning the new aeration tanks with the existing three aeration basins • Connecting the expanded aeration basins in sequence with the corresponding BNR tanks Conversely, if during design it is determined that new tankage is necessary beyond the existing footprint, the tanks could be constructed and a switchover could occur that the time of completion.

WWTP treatment upgrades may also include a number of additional improvements depending on overall project funding. The additional improvements could include:
• UV disinfection (If UV disinfection is implemented, iron that is present in the treated effluent can foul the UV bulbs and reduce the effectiveness over time. Therefore, an aluminum-based metal coagulant.

The UV disinfection system may also require the installation of a post-secondary filtration system) • A phosphorus removal system (chemical or biological)
• New pumps and piping to convert the existing raw effluent overflow ponds to an automatic flow equalization system
• Improvements to the primary and secondary clarification system • Improvements to the anaerobic digester gas treatment system • Updates to the WWTP SCADA system
• Improvements to the plants electrical system, including possible solar panels and a new backup power generator
City of Fortuna | Addendum to the 2020 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 4

2.1 Construction Schedule
The 2020 MND anticipated construction activities to occur over an eight-month construction window during a single construction season (2021, 2020, or 2023). Construction is currently planned to occur over two years in 2026 and 2027.

2.2 Changes in Circumstances
No substantial changes to circumstances have occurred since adoption of the 2020 MND. The project funding sources, applicable regulatory requirements, and surrounding existing environment remain consistent with the conditions existing at adoption of the 2020 MND.

3. Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects
The following discussion analyzes the likelihood of the project changes, as described in Section 2, to result in new or substantially more significant effects, or the need for new mitigation measures as compared to those studied in the 2020 MND.

3.1 Aesthetics
The project modifications do not require revisions to the evaluation of Aesthetic Resources. The project modifications would be located within the WWTP facility and would be consistent with the existing visual character of the WWTP. Construction of the project would not introduce any new sources of light. The project changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2020 MND.

3.2 Agricultural and Forest Resources
The project modifications do not require revisions to the evaluation of Agricultural and Forest Resources. The location of the project is essentially unchanged from that evaluated in the 2020 MND, and there are no agricultural and forest resources in the project area that would be affected by the project modifications details in this Addendum. The project changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects for agricultural and forest resources than previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

3.3 Air Quality
The modified project remains consistent with and does not conflict or hinder implementation of the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District’s (NCUAQMD) adopted Particulate Matter Attainment Plan with incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1. Mitigation Measure AIR-1 (Dust Control) from the 2020 MND would remain applicable, requiring implementation of protective measures during construction activities to reduce the potential for adverse dust generation. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would adequately address potential air quality impacts during construction. As the construction equipment and duration would remain essentially the same as that evaluated in the 2020 MND, the project changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2020 MND.

3.4 Biological Resources
The project modifications do not require revisions to the evaluation of Biological Resource. The location of the project is essentially unchanged from that evaluated in the 2020 MND. Project modifications are restricted to the WWTP facility, and there are no changes to the project components that would occur outside of the WWTP (such as the proposed infiltration area or directional drilling). Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (Protect Special Status Plants) from the 2020 MND would remain applicable to the modified project, requiring measures to protect special status plants through preconstruction surveys, avoidance of locations of special status plant populations, and compensatory conservation activities if special status plant populations detected where construction would have unavoidable impacts.

City of Fortuna | Addendum to the 2020 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 5 The footprint of the project is essentially unchanged from that evaluated in the 2020 MND. The intensity and duration of construction remain the same, and the modified project does not involve any new construction activities adjacent to or under the Eel River. The following mitigation measures would remain applicable:
• Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (Protect Special Status Plants), • Mitigation Measure BIO-2 (Protect Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles), • Mitigation Measure BIO-3 (Protect Special Status, Migratory, and Nesting Birds), • Mitigation Measure BIO-4 (Protect Special Status Bats), • Mitigation Measure BIO-5 (Compensatory Mitigation for Sensitive Natural Communities), • Mitigation Measure BIO-6 (Avoidance and Minimization Measures to Protect Juxtaposed Wetlands), • Mitigation Measure BIO-7 (Compensate for Loss of Wetlands and Waters), • Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 (Implement Best Management Practices to Protect Water Quality) • Mitigation Measure HWQ-2 (Development of a Horizontal Directional Drilling Hydrofracturing Contingency Plan)
The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of effects for biological resources previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

3.5 Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR-1 (Protect Archaeological or Tribal Cultural Resources during Construction) and Mitigation Measure CR-2 (Minimize Impacts to Unknown Archaeological Resources or Human Remains if Encountered) from the 2020 MND would remain applicable to the modified project, providing required procedures to address discovery of any unanticipated resources consistent with appropriate laws and requirements. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2020 MND.

3.6 Energy
As with the 2020 project, the modified project would require temporary energy use in connection with project construction. The modified project would include installation of an emergency backup generator, which would require a nominal amount of fuel for periodic testing and maintenance pursuant to regulatory requirements.

However, the modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of effects for energy previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

3.7 Geology & Soils
The project modifications do not require substantial revisions to the evaluation of geology and soils. The project site is unchanged from that evaluated in the 2020 MND, and there are no changes to the risks associated with faults, ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, expansive soils, or septic systems. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (Inadvertent Discovery of Paleontological Resources) from the 2020 MND would remain applicable to the modified project, requiring measures to protect paleontological resources if discovered during construction. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2020 MND.

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The project modifications do not require substantial revisions to the evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions. The intensity and duration of construction would be essentially unchanged from that evaluated in the 2020 MND, other than the project would begin construction in 2026 as opposed to 2022. Since adoption of the 2020 MND, the California Air Resources Board has updated the Climate Change Scoping Plan. The recommended measures in the 2022 Scoping Plan are broad policy and regulatory initiatives that will be implemented at the State level and do not relate to the construction and operation of individual projects. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects for greenhouse gas emissions than previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

City of Fortuna | Addendum to the 2020 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 6

3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The project modifications do not require substantial revisions to the evaluation of hazards and hazardous materials. The intensity and duration of construction and the types of materials to be utilized during construction would be essentially unchanged from that evaluated in the 2020 MND. An updated search of the Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List (Cortese List) identified no records of past or present hazardous materials or wastes within or adjacent to the project site. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects for hazards and hazardous materials than previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality
The project modifications do not require substantial revisions to the evaluation of hydrology and water quality. The footprint has expended modestly within the developed area of the WWTP and would not increase impaction to the Eel River, Strong’s Creek, or stormwater runoff. The project changes do not result in physical barriers that would inhibit the existing floodplain characteristics of the Eel River. Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 (Implement Best Management Practices to Protect Water Quality) from the 2020 MND would remain applicable to the modified project, requiring measures to protect soil from eroding during and after construction. Mitigation Measure HWQ-2 (Development of a Horizontal Directional Drilling Hydrofracture Contingency Plan) would continue to remain applicable to the project. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2020 MND.

3.11 Land Use and Planning
As with the 2020 project the modified project would not physically divide a community. The project modifications would occur within the WWTP facility, which is within the City of Fortuna’s land use jurisdiction. The modified project would be consistent with applicable City of Fortuna land use and zoning designations, and General Plan goals. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of effects for land use and planning previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

3.12 Mineral Resources
As with the 2020 project, the modified project is not located on, or would result in the loss of, a known mineral resource. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of effects for mineral resources previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

3.13 Noise
Aside from the projected construction timeline, the intensity and duration of construction would be unchanged from that evaluated in the 2020 MND. The modified project does not require construction work to occur at night, and no new structure demolition, blasting or other excessively noisy construction or operational activities would result. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of effects for noise previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

3.14 Population and Housing
As with the 2020 project, the modified project would not displace existing housing or people. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of effects for population and housing previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

3.15 Public Services
As with the 2020 project, the modified project would not result in a land use that would increase the need for public service. While the modified project would alter the WWTP, such actions would not increase the intensity of the activity in the project area to the point that additional public services are needed. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of effects for public services previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

City of Fortuna | Addendum to the 2020 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 7

3.16 Recreation
The project modifications would occur within the WWTP facility. As discussed in the 2020 MND, a dog park is located on Dinsmore Drive south of the Fortuna WWTP. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of effects for recreation previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

3.17 Transportation/Traffic
The modified project would not include new or revised modifications to existing roadways, driveways, sidewalks, or other transportation-related infrastructure. The updated project boundary acknowledges site access to the infiltration area would occur using a portion of Renner Lane; however, no modifications to Renner Lane are proposed. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of effects for transportation/traffic previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR-1 (Protect Archaeological or Tribal Cultural Resources during Construction) and Mitigation Measure CR-2 (Minimize Impacts to Unknown Archaeological Resources or Human Remains if Encountered) from the 2020 MND would remain applicable to the modified project, providing required procedures to address discovery of any unanticipated tribal resources. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects relative to those identified in the 2020 MND.

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems
As with the 2020 project, the modified project would result in the creation of new wastewater treatment infrastructure. The project modification should occur within the site boundaries of the existing WWTP, the environmental effects of which were evaluated as part of the 2020 MND. As with the 2020 project, no additional wastewater infrastructure or expansion of existing facilities beyond those identified in the project description and evaluated in this 2020 MND are required. The modified project does not require water or wastewater services and would not result in an appreciable increase in impervious surfaces and storm water runoff. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of effects for utilities and service systems previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

3.20 Wildfire
The project modifications would occur within the WWTP facility, which is not located in or near a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or lands classified as very high fire severity zones. The modified project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of effects for wildfires previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
This Addendum discusses the topic areas in the sequence as they are addressed in the 2020 MND. This section concludes that the project changes, together with changes in circumstances, are not likely to cause a substantial change in impacts and would not result in new significant impacts relative to the previously adopted 2020 MND, and mitigation measures are available to reduce these impacts to levels of less-than-significant. The project changes would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of effects related to the mandatory findings of significance previously addressed in the 2020 MND.

4. List of Preparers

4.1 City of Fortuna
Brendan Byrd, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer City of Fortuna | Addendum to the 2020 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 8

4.2 GHD
Andrea Hilton, Senior Environmental Scientist
Chryss Meier, Senior Environmental Planner
City of Fortuna | Addendum to the 2020 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 Attachment 1
Figures
)ORZ
(TXDOL]DWLRQ
$UHD

3LSH6WDJLQJ

3RWHQWLDO'LUHFWLRQDO
'ULOOLQJ0LG3RLQW

&RQWLQJHQF\%

'LUHFWLRQDO
'ULOOLQJ2XWOHW

&RQWLQJHQF\%

6LWH$FFHVV
,QILOWUDWLRQ
$UHD

'LUHFWLRQDO
'ULOOLQJ2XWOHW

2SWLRQ$

6LWH$FFHVV

::73
8SJUDGHV
/HJHQG
6WDJLQJDQG6WRFNSLOLQJ
$UHD
3URMHFW6WXG\%RXQGDU\
3RWHQWLDO8QGHUJURXQG
3LSH3DWKZD\
:HVWHUQ6LWH$FFHVV
([LVWLQJ8QLPSURYHG
5RDG
1HZ5RDG
),*85(
'DWH0D\
5HYLVLRQ1R
3URMHFW1R
3URMHFW6WXG\$UHD
:DVWHZDWHU7UHDWPHQWDQG(IIOXHQW
3HUFRODWLRQ6\VWHP8SJUDGH3URMHFW
&LW\RI)RUWXQD
*ULG
1$'
6WDWH3ODQH&DOLIRUQLD,),36)HHW
0DS3URMHFWLRQ
/DPEHUW&RQIRUPDO&RQLF
+RUL]RQWDO'DWXP
1RUWK$PHULFDQ
N
)HHW
3DSHU6L]H$16,$
??JKGQHW?JKG?86?(XUHND?3URMHFWV??)RUWXQD::3ODQ/DQGRZQHU?*,6?0DSV?'HOLYHUDEOHV?B)RUWXQDB::73DSU[ 'DWDVRXUFH :RUOG,PDJHU\
0D[D
BB3URMHFW$UHDB5HY,
3ULQWGDWH
0D\

City of Fortuna | Addendum to the 2020 Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration 10 ghd.com The Power of Commitment
Appendix C.

Geotechnical Investigation Data Report
(SHN)
Phone: (707) 441-8855 Email: [email protected] Web: shn-engr.com 812 W. Wabash Avenue, Eureka, CA 95501-2138
CIVIL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • GEOSCIENCES • PLANNING • SURVEYING Reference: 020143.210
July 18, 2025
Ted Couch, PE
Jacobs
2525 Airport Drive
Redding, CA 96001
[email protected]
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Data Report, Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements - City of Fortuna WWTP, 180 Dinsmore Drive, Fortuna, California; APN 200-353-028

1.0 Purpose and Scope
This report presents the results of a geotechnical subsurface investigation conducted in the proposed locations of a new chemical storage building and new aeration basins at the Fortuna Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). A site vicinity map with the project’s location is provided in Figure 1. The locations of the field explorations in relation to the proposed improvements and existing site features is provided in Figure 2.

The purpose of the investigation was to provide a characterization of soil and geologic conditions at the site to be used by the project team as a basis for design and construction of the proposed WWTP improvements.

The scope of SHN’s field investigation included overseeing the installation of two cone penetration test (CPT) soundings and one seismic cone penetration (SCPT) sounding at the pre-determined locations chosen by the project engineer. A detailed discussion of the subsurface investigation, including the final CPT and SCPT reports prepared by Gregg Drilling, is provided in Attachment 1.

Also included in this report is an assessment of geologic hazards posed to the site resulting from regional seismicity and earthquake ground shaking. Provided in Section 5.0 is the recommended soil site class and seismic design criteria determined in accordance with Chapter 16 of the California Building Code (CBC, 2022) and ASCE 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE/SEI, 2017).

2.0 Subsurface Investigation
The field exploration program included the advancement of two CPT soundings and one SCPT sounding using a 25-ton truck-mounted drill rig operated by Gregg Drilling of Benicia, California. The soundings were advanced on April 7-8, 2025, at the locations shown in Figure 2. The CPTs, designated CPT-1 N
Figure
P:\Eureka\2020\020143-FortunaNPDES\Dwgs\020143-210-SITE-LCTN, SAVED: 5/16/2025 3:02 PM JFOSTER, PLOTTED: 5/16/2025 3:03 PM, JOHN FOSTER Jacobs
Fortuna WWTP Geotechnical Investigation
180 Dinsmore Drive, Fortuna, California May 2025 - 020143.210 Project Location Map 1
Figure
P:\Eureka\2020\020143-FortunaNPDES\Dwgs\020143-210-SITE-CPT, SAVED: 5/16/2025 3:47 PM JFOSTER, PLOTTED: 5/16/2025 3:47 PM, JOHN FOSTER Jacobs
Fortuna WWTP Geotechnical Investigation
180 Dinsmore Drive, Fortuna, California May 2025 - 020143.210 Site Plan with
CPT Locations 2 N
Jacobs
Geotechnical Investigation Data Report – Fortuna WWTP, 180 Dinsmore Drive, Fortuna, CA July 18, 2025

Page 2 ends

Fortuna City CouncilSeptember 21, 2026

Fortuna City Council
September 21, 2026