DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Lake Mendocino Master Plan Master Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Draft Lake Mendocino Master Plan MendocinoMaster County, CaliforniaPlan U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District Revised 2019 Page Intentionally Blank APPROVAL I have reviewed this Master Plan and Environmental Assessment for Lake Mendocino and Coyote Valley Dam for the guidance of future development for recreation and environmental stewardship efforts within the Lake Mendocino Project located near the City of Ukiah, Mendocino County, California. This Master Plan is technically sound, environmentally acceptable, and is in compliance with ER/EP 1130-2-550, Project Operations, Recreation Operations and Maintenance Policies. Therefore, I approve this Master Plan for the Lake Mendocino and Coyote Valley Dam Project, subject to updates as needed for the benefit of flood risk management, public use, and environmental stewardship. __________________________ __________________________ Date Travis J. Rayfield Lieutenant Colonel Commander, San Francisco District i Draft Lake Mendocino April 2019 Master Plan Executive Summary The Lake Mendocino Master Plan (Master Plan) provides the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) a vision and direction to manage Lake Mendocino and its resources. The original Master Plan for Lake Mendocino was approved in 1959 and last updated in 1977, and serves as the guiding document for USACE responsibilities to preserve, conserve, restore, maintain, manage, and develop these project lands and associated resources. This revision to the 1977 Master Plan and the associated Environmental Assessment (EA) describe the existing conditions at Lake Mendocino and identify recreational opportunities and measures to preserve and protect natural and cultural resources. The Master Plan also outlines developmental needs, analyzes special problems, and provides guidance on public use, water quality, invasive species, natural areas, and historic properties within the USACE project boundaries. The Master Plan and EA provide a synopsis of the history of the area and recreational development of Lake Mendocino. This Master Plan presents a comprehensive inventory of natural, cultural, and recreational resources; land use classifications to guide future management; modernization of existing park facilities; resource objectives for each management unit; and an evaluation of existing and future needs required to provide a balanced management plan to improve outdoor recreation opportunities and sustain natural resources. The Master Plan makes recommendations for future improvements to Lake Mendocino’s facilities based on the land use classifications. It provides guidance to balance recreation opportunities, flood risk management, and the preservation of natural and cultural resources for current and future generations. Public participation is an important aspect of the development of the Master Plan. Public scoping meetings were held in the City of Ukiah in February 2018 to kick off the Master Plan process. The purpose of the public meetings was to provide information to the public on the USACE master planning process and to identify the changes and improvements the public would desire to see in the future at Lake Mendocino. Coordination with Tribal partners was also part of the Master Plan development process. Following internal USACE reviews, the Master Plan and EA will be made available for a final public review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and official NEPA public meetings will be held before the plan is finalized. ii Draft Lake Mendocino April 2019 Master Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 – Introduction 1 1.1 Project Authorization 1 1.2 Project Purpose 1 1.3 Watershed and Project Location 2 1.4 Purpose of the Master Plan 2 1.5 Master Plan History and REvision 3 1.6 Applicable Laws and Policy Guidance 6 Chapter 2 – Project Setting and Factors Influencing Resource Management and Development 10 2.1 Lake Mendocino Access 10 2.2 Description of the Reservoir 10 2.3 Hydrology (Surface Water, Ground Water) 12 2.4 Water Quality 12 2.5 Topography, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 13 2.6 Climate 21 2.7 Fish and Wildlife Resources 24 2.8 Vegetation 27 2.9 Cultural Resources 34 2.10 Demographics and Economics 36 2.10 Recreation Facilities, Activities, and Needs 39 2.11 Real Estate 42 Chapter 3 – Resource Objectives 44 3.1 Goals and Objectives 44 Chapter 4 – Land Allocation, Land Classification, Water Surface, and Project Easement Lands 53 4.1 Land Allocation. 53 4.2 Land Classification. 53 Chapter 5 – Resource Plan 59 5.0 Resource Plan 59 5.1 Management Unit #1 – Lake Mendocino 61 5.2 Management Unit #2 – Dam Operations, Dam, Control Tower, Spillway 63 5.3 Management Unit #3 – Pomo Cultural Center 68 iii Draft Lake Mendocino April 2019 Master Plan 5.4 Management Unit #4 – Unique Wildflower Area 71 5.5 Management Unit #5 – Winery Point 78 5.6 Management Unit #6 – Sho-da-kai Recreation Area 82 5.7 Management Unit #7 – Chekaka Recreation Area 84 5.8 Management Unit #8 – Pomo Recreation Area 92 5.9 Management Unit # 9 – Kyen Campground/Oak Grove Day Use Area/North Boat Ramp 95 5.10 Management Unit # 10 – Miti Recreation Area 98 5.12 Management Unit # 12 – Bushay Campground/Mesa Day Use Area 104 5.13 Management Unit # 13 – Bill Townsend Fish Hatchery 108 5.14 Management Unit # 14 – Disc Golf Course 110 5.15 Management Unit # 15 – Project Administrative Buildings 112 Chapter 6 – Special Topics/Issues/Considerations 113 Chapter 7 – Agency and Public Coordination 114 Chapter 8 – Summary and Recommendations 117 8.1 Summary Overview 117 8.2 Land Classifications 117 8.3 Recommendation 118 8.4 Using the Master Plan 122 8.5 Updating the Master Plan 123 8.6 Including Others in the Master Planning Process 123 Chapter 9 – Bibliography 125 iv Draft Lake Mendocino April 2019 Master Plan FIGURES Figure 1. Monthly climate data for the City of Ukiah, CA. ....................................................... 21 Figure 2. Distribution of jobs by industry in Mendocino County as compared to the State of California. .................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 3. Recreational Activities ................................................................................................. 61 Figure 4. Paved pathway along the top of the CVD. ................................................................... 63 Figure 5. Control tower at the CVD. ........................................................................................... 65 Figure 6. Spillway for CVD. ...................................................................................................... 65 Figure 7. Pomo Cultural Center. ................................................................................................ 68 Figure 8. Tribal decorations and display cases within the Pomo Cultural Center. ..................... 68 Figure 9. Main sign for the Pomo Cultural Center ...................................................................... 70 Figure 10. Burke’s Goldfields .................................................................................................... 71 Figure 11. Burke’s Goldfields site located in the Wildlife Management Area. .......................... 72 Figure 12. Burke’s Goldfields site identified below the CVD ................................................... 75 Figure 13. 1977 Master Plan map showing the location of 2 Wildflower Areas. ...................... 77 Figure 14. Garzini Winery. ......................................................................................................... 78 Figure 15. Garzini Winery. ......................................................................................................... 78 Figure 16. Cliffside erosion at Winery Point. ............................................................................ 79 Figure 17. Tractor artifact at the Garzini Winery site. ............................................................... 80 Figure 18. Sho-da-kai/Rattlesnake Island. ................................................................................. 82 Figure 19. South Boat Ramp and Jet Ski Beach. ......................................................................... 84 Figure 20. Jet Ski Beach. ............................................................................................................ 85 Figure 21. Cabin at Lake Sonoma. ............................................................................................. 86 Figure 22. Before and after images of vegetation clearing at the overlook. .............................. 87 Figure 23. Site and building plan for overlook kiosk from original 1977 Master Plan. ............ 88 Figure 24. Shelters with interpretive signage from Lake Sonoma. ............................................ 89 Figure 25. Parking lot at the overlook. ....................................................................................... 89 Figure 26. Illegal activity at the overlook area. .......................................................................... 89 Figure 27. Beach used to park boats at Miti Campground. ........................................................ 98 Figure 28. Deteriorating campsite facilities at Miti Campground. ............................................. 99 Figure 29. View of Inlet Road leading to Bushay Campground. ............................................. 105 Figure 30. Bill Townsend Fish Hatchery ................................................................................. 108 Figure 31. Disc golf basket.
Recommended publications
  • Scoping Document 1 for the Potter Valley Project

    Scoping Document 1 for the Potter Valley Project

    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20426 June 1, 2017 OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS Project No. 77-285 – California Potter Valley Project Pacific Gas & Electric Company Subject: Scoping Document 1 for the Potter Valley Project To the Party Addressed: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is currently reviewing the Pre-Application Document submitted by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) for relicensing the 9.4-megawatt (MW) Potter Valley Project (FERC No. 77). The proposed project is located on the Eel and East Fork Russian Rivers, in Lake and Mendocino Counties, California. The project occupies lands owned by PG&E and National Forest System Lands administered by the United States Forest Service, Mendocino National Forest. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, Commission staff intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which will be used by the Commission to determine whether, and under what conditions, to issue a new license for the project. To support and assist our environmental review, we are beginning the public scoping process to ensure that all pertinent issues are identified and analyzed and that the EIS is thorough and balanced. We invite your participation in the scoping process and are circulating the enclosed Scoping Document 1 (SD1) to provide you with information on the Potter Valley Project. We are also soliciting your comments and suggestions on our preliminary list of issues and alternatives to be addressed in the EIS. We are also requesting that you identify any studies that would help provide a framework for collecting pertinent information on the resource areas under consideration necessary for the Commission to prepare the EIS for the project.
  • The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Supplement II December 2014

    The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Supplement II December 2014

    The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Supplement II December 2014 In the pages that follow are treatments that have been revised since the publication of the Jepson eFlora, Revision 1 (July 2013). The information in these revisions is intended to supersede that in the second edition of The Jepson Manual (2012). The revised treatments, as well as errata and other small changes not noted here, are included in the Jepson eFlora (http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html). For a list of errata and small changes in treatments that are not included here, please see: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/JM12_errata.html Citation for the entire Jepson eFlora: Jepson Flora Project (eds.) [year] Jepson eFlora, http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html [accessed on month, day, year] Citation for an individual treatment in this supplement: [Author of taxon treatment] 2014. [Taxon name], Revision 2, in Jepson Flora Project (eds.) Jepson eFlora, [URL for treatment]. Accessed on [month, day, year]. Copyright © 2014 Regents of the University of California Supplement II, Page 1 Summary of changes made in Revision 2 of the Jepson eFlora, December 2014 PTERIDACEAE *Pteridaceae key to genera: All of the CA members of Cheilanthes transferred to Myriopteris *Cheilanthes: Cheilanthes clevelandii D. C. Eaton changed to Myriopteris clevelandii (D. C. Eaton) Grusz & Windham, as native Cheilanthes cooperae D. C. Eaton changed to Myriopteris cooperae (D. C. Eaton) Grusz & Windham, as native Cheilanthes covillei Maxon changed to Myriopteris covillei (Maxon) Á. Löve & D. Löve, as native Cheilanthes feei T. Moore changed to Myriopteris gracilis Fée, as native Cheilanthes gracillima D.
  • Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Evaluation Report Term 17

    Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Evaluation Report Term 17

    State Water Resources Control Board Order 5/1/2013 Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Evaluation Report Term 17 April 30, 2015 Prepared by Sonoma County Water Agency 404 Aviation Blvd Santa Rosa, CA 95403 LAKE MENDOCINO WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY EVALUATION REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Organization of Report ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Project History and Description ........................................................................................................ 4 2.2 Flood Management Operations ....................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Water Supply Operations ................................................................................................................. 5 2.4 Potter Valley Project Operations .....................................................................................................
  • Russian River Hydrologic Report June 25, 2021 - July 1, 2021

    Russian River Hydrologic Report June 25, 2021 - July 1, 2021

    State Water Resources Control Board Temporary Urgency Change Order (6/14/2021) Russian River Hydrologic Report June 25, 2021 - July 1, 2021 Prepared as a requirement of the Order approving Sonoma Water's Petition for Temporary Urgency Change in Permits 12947A, 12949, 12950, and 16596 (Applications 12919A, 15736, 15737, and 19351). Instream Flow Requirements as of July 1, 2021 Basis Reach Instantaneous (cfs) 5-day Average (cfs) Modified Per Order: Critical Condition Upper Russian River 15 25 D-1610: Dry Condition Dry Creek 25 - Modified Per Order: Critical Condition Lower Russian River 25 35 Upper Russian River and Lower Russian River based on criteria as established in the Order issued 6/14/2021. Lake Mendocino Lake Mendocino Storage 2015 - 2021 and Storage Curve 120,000 100,000 80,000 feet - 60,000 Acre 40,000 July 01, 2021 30,586 Acre-feet 20,000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Storage Curve Major Deviation Curve Emergency Regulation Storage Threshold 0 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 1/1 2/1 10/1 12/1 11/1 Storage July 1, 2021 30,586 (acre-feet) Total Average Daily Rate Change in Storage Last 30 days -4,337 -145 (acre-feet) Last 7 days -1,112 -159 Min 7 Daily Inflow Last 7 days Max 24 (cfs) Mean 15 Min 82 Release (cfs) Last 7 days Max 84 Mean 83 Release Flow Change Ramping Rates : Approved Adjusted Rates Event Requested: 3/1/2021 Purpose: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has requested the discharge from Coyote Valley Dam be increased from 25 cfs to 100 cfs to facilitate the second and final release of steelhead smolts from the Coyote Valley Fish Facility.
  • A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River

    A History of the Salmonid Decline in the Russian River

    A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored by Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting August 1996 Steiner Environmental Consulting Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Quality P. O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 A HISTORY OF THE SALMONID DECLINE IN THE RUSSIAN RIVER A Cooperative Project Sponsored By Sonoma County Water Agency California State Coastal Conservancy Steiner Environmental Consulting Prepared by Steiner Environmental Consulting P.O. Box 250 Potter Valley, CA 95469 August 1996 (707) 743-1815 (707) 743-1816 f«x [email protected] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND Introduction This report gathers together the best available information to provide the historical and current status of chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, and steelhead in the Russian River basin. Although the historical records are limited, all sources depict a river system where the once dominant salmonids have declined dramatically. The last 150 years of human activities have transformed the Russian River basin into a watershed heavily altered by agriculture and urban development. Flows in the main river channel river are heavily regulated. The result is a river system with significantly compromised biological functions. The anthropogenic factors contributing to the decline of salmonids are discussed. Study Area The 1,485 square mile Russian River watershed, roughly 80 miles long and 10 to 30 miles wide, lies in Mendocino, Sonoma, and Lake counties. The basin topography is characterized by a sequence of northwest/southeast trending fault-block ridges and alluvial valleys. Lying within a region of Mediterranean climate, the watershed is divided into a fog-influenced coastal region and an interior region of hot, dry summers.
  • Index of Surface-Water Records

    Index of Surface-Water Records

    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 72 January 1950 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PART 11.PPACIFIC SLOPE BASINS IN CALIFORNIA TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1948 Prepared by San Francisco District UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director WASHINGTON, D. C. Free on application to the Director, Geological Survey, Washington 26, D. C. INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PART 11.PPACIFIC SLOPE BASINS IN CALIFORNIA TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1948 EXPLANATION The index lists the stream-flow ana reservoir stations in the Pacific Slope Basins in California for which records have been or are to be pub­ lished for periods prior to September 30, 1948. The stations are listed in downstream order. Tributary streams are indicated by indention. Station names are given in their most recently published forms. Paren­ theses around part of a station name indicate that the enclosed word or words were used in an earlier published name of the station or in a name under which records were published by some agency other than the Geological Survey. The drainage areas, in square miles, are the latest figures published or otherwise available at this time. Drainage areas that were obviously inconsistent with other drainage areas on the same stream have been omitted. Some drainage areas not published by the Geological Survey are listed with an appropriate footnote stating the published source of the figure of drainage area. Under "period of record" breaks of less than a 12-month period are not shown. A dash not followed immediately by a closing date shows that the station was in operation on September 30, 1948.
  • (Coyote Valley Dam) in the Upper Russian River System. Storage

    (Coyote Valley Dam) in the Upper Russian River System. Storage

    Planning Alternatives for Lake Mendocino (Coyote Valley Dam) in the Upper Russian River System Storage and Water Supply Reliability Study By PABLO TOMAS SILVA JORDAN B.S. (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) 2010 THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Hydrologic Sciences in the OFFICE OF GRADUATE STUDIES of the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS Approved: _____________________________________ (Samuel Sandoval-Solis, Chair) _____________________________________ (Carlos E. Puente) _____________________________________ (Jay R. Lund) Committee in Charge 2016 1 To Vero, Tomas, Joaquin and the ones to come… 2 “A model is a platform for a disciplined discourse” Professor Uri Shamir 3 Table of Contents List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 6 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 7 Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 10 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Research objectives ................................................................................................................
  • DRAFT Aquatic Life and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife Selenium Water Quality Criterion for Freshwaters of California (Xx November 2018)

    DRAFT Aquatic Life and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife Selenium Water Quality Criterion for Freshwaters of California (Xx November 2018)

    United States Region 9 & Office of Water EPA-xxx-x-xx-xxx Environmental Protection November 2018 Agency DRAFT Aquatic Life and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife Selenium Water Quality Criterion for Freshwaters of California (xx November 2018) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 Water Division San Francisco, CA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Office of Science and Technology Washington, D.C. TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. IV LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... IX PART 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 1 1.1 Early Selenium Efforts .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 California Toxics Rule .................................................................................................... 4 PART 2 PROBLEM FORMULATION ................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Overview of Selenium Sources and Occurrence in
  • School Way Bridge Replacement Project Delineation of Waters of the United States

    School Way Bridge Replacement Project Delineation of Waters of the United States

    School Way Bridge Replacement Project Delineation of Waters of the United States February 24, 2010 Prepared for: Mendocino County Department of Transportation Attn: Park Steiner 340 Lake Mendocino Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 Prepared by: North State Resources, Inc. 5000 Bechelli Lane, Ste. 203 Redding, CA 96002 (530) 222-5347 51175 Delineation of Waters of the United States School Way Bridge Replacement Project BRLSZO 5910(039) Township 16N, Range 12W, Unsectioned Portion of Yokaya Land Grant Mendocino County, Redwood Valley, California USGS quadrangle February 24, 2011 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation Consultant Prepared by: Date: 2/24/11 Paul Kirk Botanist/Wetland Scientist North State Resources, Inc., Chico, CA (530) 345-4552 Local Agency Approved By: Date: Park Steiner Environmental Compliance Specialist Mendocino County Department of Transportation (707) 463-4363 Caltrans Approved By: Date: Brandon Larsen Associate Environmental Planner, Office of Local Assistance District 1, Caltrans (707) 445-6410 Caltrans SEP Approved By: Date: Deborah Harmon Senior Environmental Planner District 1, Caltrans (707) 445-6431 School Way Bridge Replacement Project Delineation of Waters of the United States S ection 1 Summary............................................................................................................................ 1 S ection 2 Project Location ................................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Proximity to Major Highways and Streets ...............................................................
  • Russian River Integrated Water Management

    Russian River Integrated Water Management

    RUSSIAN RIVER INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT Raising Coyote Valley Dam Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Study. Term 17 Project. Pablo Silva Samuel Sandoval, Ph.D. Tuesday, October 6th, 2015 – ANR Strategic Initiative Joint Conference Outline 1. Background 2. Methodology i. Lake Mendocino Water Allocation Model ii. Raising Coyote Valley Dam Assessment 3. Results 4. Discussion / Conclusion 5. Communications and Outreach West Fork PVP Project Calpella Lake Mendocino Hopland Cloverdale Healdsburg 1. Background Technical Assessment and Hydrologic Modeling on the Russian River i. Phase 1 (2014 – 2015): • Became the technical advisor for hydrologic, planning and forecasting models of the RRFC – RVCWD. • Provide communication and briefings to RRFC-RVCWD regarding the current and future modeling efforts in the Russian River. ii. Phase 2 ( 2015 – 2016): • Continue Phase 1 status of technical advisor. (Only RRFC) • Water Allocation Model • Evaluate Scenarios: (1) Raising Coyote Valley Dam (CVP) (2) Failure of Imported water from Potter Valley Project (PVP) 2. Methodology PVP • Build a Model • Scenarios: Calpella Lake Mendocino 1)Raising Coyote Valley Dam (CVD) (Coyote Valley Dam) Ukiah 2)Evaluate the failure/influence of Potter Valley Project (PVP) Hopland River Russian Mendocino County CVD Project Background: Sonoma County Cloverdale Two Phases Lake Sonoma – First one finished in 1959 (Warm Springs Dam) Healdsburg (Storage Capacity: 145,000 acre-feet), – Second phase considered 75,000 acre-feet of additional storage capacity (220,000 acre-feet, never completed) Pacific Ocean 2. Methodology: Lake Mendocino Allocation Model West Fork PVP PVP Project Calpella Calpella Lake Mendocino Lake Mendocino (Coyote Valley Dam) Ukiah Hopland Hopland River Russian Mendocino County Sonoma County Cloverdale Cloverdale Lake Sonoma Healdsburg (Warm Springs Dam) Healdsburg Pacific Ocean 2.
  • December 30, 2020 Meghan Ryan, Senior Planner Humboldt County

    December 30, 2020 Meghan Ryan, Senior Planner Humboldt County

    DocuSign Envelope ID: E5C692CF-07C4-418C-BAA5-844F4DE45981 State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Northern Region 601 Locust Street Redding, CA 96001 www.wildlife.ca.gov December 30, 2020 Meghan Ryan, Senior Planner Humboldt County Planning and Building Department 3015 H Street Eureka, CA. 95501 [email protected] Subject: Rolling Meadows (SCH# 2020070339) Conditional Use Permits Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Meghan Ryan: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received from the County of Humboldt (Lead Agency) a recirculated Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), dated November 25, 2020, for the Rolling Meadows (Project), in McCann, Humboldt County, California. CDFW understands the Lead Agency will accept comments on the Project through December 30, 2020. Previously, on July 16, 2020, the Lead Agency circulated an IS/MND. On Thursday, August 13, 2020, CDFW staff conducted a site visit of Facilities #1-16 of the Project area. On August 17, 2020, CDFW submitted written comments on the IS/MND. On October 8, 2020, CDFW issued a final Lake or Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement to rebuild an existing bridge on Larabee Creek that will serve as an alternate access to the Project from Alderpoint Road. Work at several additional stream crossing locations disclosed in the IS/MND are subject to LSA Notification and have not yet been evaluated or authorized by CDFW. The Project is located on Humboldt County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 217- 181-028, 217-201-001, 217-022-004, 217-201-001, 211-281-006, and 217-181-017.
  • HREC Plant List (.Pdf)

    HREC Plant List (.Pdf)

    HREC Species List Family Genus Species ssp Common Name Nativ Aceraceae Acer macrophyllum Big-leaf maple Aizoaceae Cypselea humifusa Alismataceae Alisma plantago-aquatica water plantain Amaranthaceae Amaranthus albus tumbleweed Amaranthus retroflexus rough pigweed Anacardiaceae Rhus trilobata squaw bush Toxicodendron diversilobum western poison oak Apiaceae Angelica tomentosa Californica angelica Anthriscus caucalis bur-chervil Berula erecta cutleaf water-parsnip Daucus pusillus rattlesnake weed Eryngium aristulatum aristulatum coyote-thistle Foeniculum vulgare fennel Heracleum lanatum cow-parsnip Lomatium ciliolatum ciliolatum Lomatium dasycarpum wooly-fruited lomatiu Lomatium dissectum Lomatium utriculatum Lomatium vaginatum Osmorhiza chilensis sweet cicley Perideridia gairdneri gairdneri Gairdner's Yampah Perideridia kelloggii Yampah Sanicula bipinnata poison sanicle Sanicula bipinnatifida purple sanicle Thursday, July 20, 2000 Page 1 of 24 Family Genus Species ssp Common Name Nativ Sanicula crassicaulis gamble weed Sanicula sp. Sanicula tuberosa Tuberous sanicle Scandix pecten-veneris Shepard's needle Tauschia kelloggii Torilis arvensis Japanese Hedge-Parsl Torilis nodosa knotted hedge-parsley Yabea microcarpa California hedge-parsl Apocynaceae Apocynum cannabinum indian hemp or dogba Asclepiadaceae Asclepias cordifolia purple milkweed Asclepias fascicularis Narrow-leaf milkweed Asteraceae Achillea millefolium Yarrow Achyrachaena mollis blow-wives Agoseris grandiflora Agoseris heterophylla Agoseris retrorsa Ancistrocarphus filagineus