DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Final Site Restoration Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Final Site Restoration Project APRIL 2015 Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Final Site Restoration Project PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY Pacific Gas & Electric Company Stillwater Sciences Environmental Services Department 850 G Street, Suite K Arcata, CA 95521 3401 Crow Canyon Road San Ramon, CA 94583 Stillwater Sciences Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the HBPP Final Site Restoration Project Suggested citation: Stillwater Sciences. 2015. Biological Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Final Site Restoration Project, Humboldt County, California. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Arcata, California for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Ramon, California. Cover photos: Photos taken by Stillwater Sciences 2013-2015. Mit-B pond (top left), ruby- crowned kinglet in Rest-1 (top right), Duck Pond (bottom right), and Rest-1 (bottom left). April 2015 Stillwater Sciences i Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the HBPP Final Site Restoration Project Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Description and Proponent .............................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Location ........................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Purpose of this Plan ..................................................................................................... 3 2 IMPACTS ON SPECIAL-STATUS HABITATS AND SPECIES ..................................... 3 2.1 Wetlands ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Plants ............................................................................................................................ 6 2.3 Fish and Wildlife ......................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Sea Level Rise ............................................................................................................. 7 3 PERMITTING AND MITIGATION NEEDS ...................................................................... 8 3.1 Restoration Requirements from Previous Permits ....................................................... 8 3.1.1 Charlie Road .......................................................................................................... 9 3.1.2 ISFSI Support Office Parking Lot (Contractor Parking Lot #2) ........................... 9 3.1.3 Bayview Heights ................................................................................................. 10 3.1.4 Trailer City .......................................................................................................... 10 3.1.5 Alpha Road .......................................................................................................... 11 3.1.6 Rest-1 .................................................................................................................. 11 3.1.7 Contractor Pedestrian Trail ................................................................................. 11 3.2 Low-Impact Design and Stormwater Management ................................................... 12 3.3 New Impacts on Existing Wetlands ........................................................................... 12 3.3.1 Alpha Road .......................................................................................................... 12 3.3.2 Intake Canal and Buhne Point Wetland Preserve ................................................ 13 3.3.3 Bayview Heights ................................................................................................. 13 3.3.4 Duck Pond ........................................................................................................... 14 3.3.5 Frog Pond stormwater detention basin ................................................................ 14 3.3.6 King Salmon Avenue wetlands ........................................................................... 15 3.4 Proposed Restoration and Mitigation Ratios and Schedule ....................................... 15 4 PROPOSED RESTORATION AND MITIGATION ........................................................ 21 4.1 MIT-7 ......................................................................................................................... 24 4.1.1 Existing ecological conditions ............................................................................. 24 4.1.2 Mitigation goals, objectives, and success criteria ............................................... 24 4.1.3 Mitigation implementation .................................................................................. 25 4.1.4 Sea-level rise ....................................................................................................... 28 4.2 ISFSI Stormwater Detention Basin ............................................................................ 28 4.2.1 Existing ecological conditions ............................................................................. 28 4.2.2 Mitigation goals, objectives, and success criteria ............................................... 28 4.2.3 Mitigation implementation .................................................................................. 29 4.3 Bayview Heights ........................................................................................................ 31 4.3.1 Existing ecological conditions ............................................................................. 32 4.3.2 Mitigation goals, objectives, and success criteria ............................................... 32 4.3.3 Mitigation implementation .................................................................................. 32 4.3.4 Sea-level rise ....................................................................................................... 35 4.4 Trailer City Stormwater Detention Basin .................................................................. 35 4.4.1 Existing ecological conditions ............................................................................. 36 4.4.2 Mitigation goals, objectives, and success criteria ............................................... 36 4.4.3 Mitigation implementation .................................................................................. 36 April 2015 Stillwater Sciences ii Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the HBPP Final Site Restoration Project 4.5 Shoreline Wetland Mitigation Area ........................................................................... 38 4.5.1 Existing ecological conditions ............................................................................. 38 4.5.2 Mitigation goals, objectives, and success criteria ............................................... 38 4.5.3 Mitigation implementation .................................................................................. 39 4.5.4 Sea-level rise ....................................................................................................... 41 4.6 Contractor Pedestrian Trail ........................................................................................ 41 4.6.1 Existing ecological conditions ............................................................................. 41 4.6.2 Mitigation goals, objectives, and success criteria ............................................... 41 4.6.3 Mitigation implementation .................................................................................. 42 4.6.4 Sea-level rise ....................................................................................................... 45 4.7 Buhne Point Wetland Preserve Fringe Area .............................................................. 45 4.7.1 Existing ecological conditions ............................................................................. 45 4.7.2 Mitigation goals, objectives, and success criteria ............................................... 45 4.7.3 Mitigation implementation .................................................................................. 46 4.7.4 Sea-level rise ....................................................................................................... 46 4.8 Frog Pond stormwater basin ...................................................................................... 46 4.8.1 Existing ecological conditions ............................................................................. 47 4.8.2 Mitigation goals, objectives, and success criteria ............................................... 47 4.8.3 Mitigation implementation .................................................................................. 47 4.9 Charlie Road .............................................................................................................. 48 4.9.1 Existing ecological conditions ............................................................................. 48 4.9.2 Mitigation goals, objectives, and success criteria ............................................... 48 4.9.3 Mitigation implementation .................................................................................. 48 4.9.4 Sea-level rise ....................................................................................................... 48 4.10 Alpha Road Overflow Parking Areas ........................................................................ 49 4.10.1 Existing ecological conditions ............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Edible Seeds and Grains of California Tribes
    National Plant Data Team August 2012 Edible Seeds and Grains of California Tribes and the Klamath Tribe of Oregon in the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum of Anthropology Collections, University of California, Berkeley August 2012 Cover photos: Left: Maidu woman harvesting tarweed seeds. Courtesy, The Field Museum, CSA1835 Right: Thick patch of elegant madia (Madia elegans) in a blue oak woodland in the Sierra foothills The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its pro- grams and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sex- ual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Acknowledgments This report was authored by M. Kat Anderson, ethnoecologist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Jim Effenberger, Don Joley, and Deborah J. Lionakis Meyer, senior seed bota- nists, California Department of Food and Agriculture Plant Pest Diagnostics Center. Special thanks to the Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum staff, especially Joan Knudsen, Natasha Johnson, Ira Jacknis, and Thusa Chu for approving the project, helping to locate catalogue cards, and lending us seed samples from their collections.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources Report City of Fort Bragg Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade
    BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT CITY OF FORT BRAGG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE 101 West Cypress Street (APN 008-020-07) Fort Bragg Mendocino County, California prepared by: William Maslach [email protected] August 2016 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT CITY OF FORT BRAGG WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT UPGRADE 101 WEST CYPRESS STREET (APN 008-020-07) FORT BRAGG MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: Scott Perkins Associate Planner City of Fort Bragg 416 North Franklin Street Fort Bragg, California PREPARED BY: William Maslach 32915 Nameless Lane Fort Bragg, California (707) 732-3287 [email protected] Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... iv 1 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope of Work ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Location & Environmental Setting ................................................................................................ 1 1.4 Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 2 1.5 Site Directions ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Ukiah Single Route Improvement
    Special Status Plant Survey Report For the Vineyard Crossing Subdivision Planned Development 156 Lovers Lane, Ukiah Mendocino County, CA Prepared for Guillon, Inc. 2550 Lakewest Drive, Suite 50 Chico, CA 95928 Office: 530-897-6458 Prepared by Jane Valerius, Botanist Jane Valerius Environmental Consulting 2893A Scotts Right of Way Sebastopol, CA 95472 707-824-1463 June 15, 2017 Vineyard Crossing Planned Development INTRODUCTION Surveys for special status plants were conducted for the 23.6-acre Vineyard Crossing Subdivision Planned Development project located at 156 Lovers Lane in Ukiah, Mendocino County, California. The purpose of the surveys was to determine if any special status plants occur on the site. The site is located in northwest Ukiah and is bordered to the north by Masonite Industrial Road (private) and Orr Springs Road (Figure 1) with Highway 101 to the east, existing vineyards to the west and Lovers Lane to the south. The assessor parcel numbers for the site are 170-030-08 and 170-040-05. The site is located on the Ukiah 7.5-minute quadrangle and the approximate center of the site is at Latitude 39°10’28.97” N and Longitude 123°12’53.15” W. METHODS Special status surveys were conducted for by Jane Valerius, botanist, on March 22, April 10, and June 13, 2017. Prior to the field visit, a list of special-status plants was compiled based on record searches of the CNDDB and the CNPS online electronic inventory. The search is based on a review of the Ukiah and Orrs Springs quadrangles which cover a 3 to 5 mile radius around the project area.
    [Show full text]
  • Fountaingrove Lodge Appendix G Rare Plant Report
    Appendix G Rare Plant Survey Report Rare Plant Survey Report FOUNTAINGROVE LODGE SANTA ROSA, SONOMA COUNTY CALIFORNIA Prepared For: Mr. Steve McCullagh Aegis Senior Living 220 Concourse Blvd. Santa Rosa, California 95403 Contact: Tom Fraser [email protected] Date: May 2007 2169-G Ea st Fra nc isc o Blvd ., Sa n Ra fa e l, C A 94901 (415) 454-8868 te l (415) 454-0129 fa x info @w ra -c a .c o m www.wra-ca.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................1 1.1 Study Area Description...............................................1 1.1.1 Vegetation................................................1 1.1.2 Soils.....................................................4 2.0 METHODS..............................................................6 2.1 Background Data...................................................6 2.2 Field Survey.......................................................6 3.0 RESULTS. .............................................................7 3.1 Background Data Search Results.......................................7 3.2 Field Survey Results.................................................7 4.0 CONCLUSIONS..........................................................7 5.0 REFERENCES...........................................................8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location Map of Fountaingrove Lodge site. 2 Figure 2. Biological Communities within the Fountaingrove Lodge site. 3 Figure 3. Soils Map for the Fountaingrove Lodge site. 5 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Study Area Photographs Appendix B Special Status Plant Species Documented to Occur in the Vicinity of the Study Area Appendix C List of Observed Plant Species 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of 5 separate special status plant surveys conducted on approximately 9.85 acres to be developed as Fountaingrove Lodge (Study Area) in Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this study is to identify the location and presence of potentially occurring sensitive plant species.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Protection Planopens in New Window
    Copy No: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN FOR THE DUCK POND COPPER-ZINC PROJECT Prepared for: Aur Resources Inc. 30-32, Route 370, Box 9 Millertown, NL A0H 1V0 Prepared by: Jacques Whitford 607 Torbay Road St. John’s, NL A1A 4Y6 November 2004 Environmental Protection Plan Duck Pond Copper-Zinc Project Table of Contents Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................i DISTRIBUTION LIST ................................................................................................................ iii 1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose of the EPP..............................................................................................................1 1.2 Organization of the EPP......................................................................................................2 1.3 Environmental Orientation ..................................................................................................3 1.4 Aur Policy ...........................................................................................................................4 1.5 Project Description..............................................................................................................5 1.5.1 Paste Backfill Preparation Plant.............................................................................5 1.5.2 Turf Point
    [Show full text]
  • Classification of the Vegetation Alliances and Associations of Sonoma County, California
    Classification of the Vegetation Alliances and Associations of Sonoma County, California Volume 1 of 2 – Introduction, Methods, and Results Prepared by: California Department of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program California Native Plant Society Vegetation Program For: The Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District The Sonoma County Water Agency Authors: Anne Klein, Todd Keeler-Wolf, and Julie Evens December 2015 ABSTRACT This report describes 118 alliances and 212 associations that are found in Sonoma County, California, comprising the most comprehensive local vegetation classification to date. The vegetation types were defined using a standardized classification approach consistent with the Survey of California Vegetation (SCV) and the United States National Vegetation Classification (USNVC) system. This floristic classification is the basis for an integrated, countywide vegetation map that the Sonoma County Vegetation Mapping and Lidar Program expects to complete in 2017. Ecologists with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the California Native Plant Society analyzed species data from 1149 field surveys collected in Sonoma County between 2001 and 2014. The data include 851 surveys collected in 2013 and 2014 through funding provided specifically for this classification effort. An additional 283 surveys that were conducted in adjacent counties are included in the analysis to provide a broader, regional understanding. A total of 34 tree-overstory, 28 shrubland, and 56 herbaceous alliances are described, with 69 tree-overstory, 51 shrubland, and 92 herbaceous associations. This report is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 (this volume) is composed of the project introduction, methods, and results. It includes a floristic key to all vegetation types, a table showing the full local classification nested within the USNVC hierarchy, and a crosswalk showing the relationship between this and other classification systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Purpose and Scope
    Appendix Q Rare Plant Communities by MRC Inventory Blocks Contents Q. RARE PLANT COMMUNITIES BY MRC INVENTORY BLOCKS Q-1 Q.1 Albion Q-1 Q.2 Big River Q-4 Q.3 Garcia Q-6 Q.4 Navarro East Q-10 Q.5 Navarro West Q-12 Q.6 Noyo Q-16 Q.7 Rockport Q-19 Q.8 South Coast Q-22 Q.9 Ukiah Q-26 i Mendocino Redwood Company HCP/NCCP Q. RARE PLANT COMMUNITIES BY MRC INVENTORY BLOCKS Appendix Q provides the following information for rare plants and plant communities in the MRC inventory blocks: Scientific name Common name Microhabitat Elevation Blooming period. Q-1 Q.1 Albion RARE PLANT SCOPING Key Quads: Noyo Hill Mendocino Mathison Peak Elk Comptche Navarro IMMEDIATE COASTAL HABITATS (COASTAL PRAIRIE/COASTAL SCRUB) Blooming Period Scientific Name Common Name Microhabitat Elevation March April May June July Aug Sept Oct ft (m) Campanula californica swamp harebell mesic/open 3-1215 (1-405 m) Carex californica California sedge mesic 270-1005 (90-335 m) Carex saliniformis deceiving sedge mesic 9-690 (3-230 m) Fritillaria roderickii Roderick's fritillary heavy clay soil 48-384 (15-120 m) Gilia capitata ssp. pacifica pacific gilia sandy coastal bluffs 15-900 (5-300m) Horkelia tenuiloba thin-lobed horkelia sandy/mesic 150-1500 (50-500m) Lilium maritimum coast lily coastal 15-1005 (5-335 m) Packera bolanderi var. bolanderi seacoast ragwort wet cliffs 98-2132 (30-650 m) Sidalcea malachroides maple-leaved checkerbloom mesic/often disturbed 6-2100 (2-700 m) Sidalcea malviflora ssp. purpurea purple-stemmed checkerbloom mesic 50-213 (15-65 m) Trifolium buckwestiorum
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Species Accounts from The
    Threatened Birds of Asia: The BirdLife International Red Data Book Editors N. J. COLLAR (Editor-in-chief), A. V. ANDREEV, S. CHAN, M. J. CROSBY, S. SUBRAMANYA and J. A. TOBIAS Maps by RUDYANTO and M. J. CROSBY Principal compilers and data contributors ■ BANGLADESH P. Thompson ■ BHUTAN R. Pradhan; C. Inskipp, T. Inskipp ■ CAMBODIA Sun Hean; C. M. Poole ■ CHINA ■ MAINLAND CHINA Zheng Guangmei; Ding Changqing, Gao Wei, Gao Yuren, Li Fulai, Liu Naifa, Ma Zhijun, the late Tan Yaokuang, Wang Qishan, Xu Weishu, Yang Lan, Yu Zhiwei, Zhang Zhengwang. ■ HONG KONG Hong Kong Bird Watching Society (BirdLife Affiliate); H. F. Cheung; F. N. Y. Lock, C. K. W. Ma, Y. T. Yu. ■ TAIWAN Wild Bird Federation of Taiwan (BirdLife Partner); L. Liu Severinghaus; Chang Chin-lung, Chiang Ming-liang, Fang Woei-horng, Ho Yi-hsian, Hwang Kwang-yin, Lin Wei-yuan, Lin Wen-horn, Lo Hung-ren, Sha Chian-chung, Yau Cheng-teh. ■ INDIA Bombay Natural History Society (BirdLife Partner Designate) and Sálim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History; L. Vijayan and V. S. Vijayan; S. Balachandran, R. Bhargava, P. C. Bhattacharjee, S. Bhupathy, A. Chaudhury, P. Gole, S. A. Hussain, R. Kaul, U. Lachungpa, R. Naroji, S. Pandey, A. Pittie, V. Prakash, A. Rahmani, P. Saikia, R. Sankaran, P. Singh, R. Sugathan, Zafar-ul Islam ■ INDONESIA BirdLife International Indonesia Country Programme; Ria Saryanthi; D. Agista, S. van Balen, Y. Cahyadin, R. F. A. Grimmett, F. R. Lambert, M. Poulsen, Rudyanto, I. Setiawan, C. Trainor ■ JAPAN Wild Bird Society of Japan (BirdLife Partner); Y. Fujimaki; Y. Kanai, H.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Bowring Park
    History of Bowring Park 1 Researcher: Gil Shalev (2009) Design: Stephanie Dunn (2016) Table of Contents GENERAL HISTORICAL FACTS The Land 3 The Design 5 Development 7 PARK FEATURES AND FACILITIES Trees/Plants/Flowers 9 The Conservatory 10 Rivers/Streams/Ponds 11 Duck Pond 12 Slate Quarry 14 Shadow Pools 14 Fountain Pond 15 The Fighting Newfoundlander 16 The Caribou 17 Peter Pan 18 The Lodge 20 The Bungalow 21 Angels’ Grove 22 The Bell 22 Horse Trough 23 Bridges 23 Fences & Benches 25 SPORT/LEISURELY FACILITIES Old Swimming Pool 26 Tennis Court 27 Skate Park 27 Swimming Pool 27 Splash Pad 27 Playground 27 Bob Whelan Field 28 Sloping Field 28 Cabot Theatre 29 AERIAL MAPS 30 REFERENCES/SOURCE 31 2 The Land Archived photo Rudolf Cochius was the original landscape architect who worked in the park for 5 years from 1912-1917. he original area which impression of a small island. which the park was to be Twas later to become In 1911, The Bowring built. The park’s original Bowring Park, was a 50 acre Brothers — an established design and construction, piece of land obtained from and successful business, carried out by Frederick the Newfoundland Govern- Newfoundland trade and Todd and Rudolf H. Cochi- ment in 1847 by William shipping firm in New- us, commenced the fol- Thorburn who, had turned it foundland and the UK lowing year. The Park was into a successful farmland. — commemorated their officially declared open on The Crown Grant Land was 100th business anniversa- July 15, 1914 by His Roy- later leased to the Neville ry in Newfoundland by al Highness the Duke of family who formally named offering the city of St.
    [Show full text]
  • Aliso 23, Pp. 335-348 © 2007, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden A
    Aliso 23, pp. 335-348 © 2007, Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden A PRELIMINARY PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF THE GRASS SUBFAMILY POOIDEAE (POACEAE), WITH ATTENTION TO STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF THE PLASTID AND NUCLEAR GENOMES, INCLUDING AN INTRON LOSS IN GBSSI JERROLD I DAVIS'"" AND ROBERT J. SORENG^ 'L. H. Bailey Hortorium and Department of Plant Biology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA; ^Department of Botany and U. S. National Herbarium, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, USA, ([email protected]) ^Corresponding author ([email protected]) Phylogenetic relationships in the grass family (Poaceae), with specific attention to the internal structure of subfamily Pooideae, are analyzed on the basis of nucleotide sequence variation in plastid- encoded genes (ma/K, ndKP, ndhïl, and rhcL,). The resulting phylogenetic hypothesis was examined with attention to the taxonomic distributions of two inversions and an insertion/deletion within ndh¥, the absence of intron 10 of the nuclear gene GBSSI (waxy), and positions of the boundaries between the Short Single Copy (SSC) region and the neighboring Inverted Repeat (IR) regions of the plastid genome, relative to the endpoints of ndh¥ and ndhH, which span these boundaries in some taxa. The PACCAD clade is resolved, and extension of the 3'-end of ndhF from the SSC region into the IR region is interpreted as a synapomorphy of this clade. The BEP clade also is resolved, with Ehrhar- toideae placed as the sister of a clade in which Bambusoideae and Pooideae are sister groups. The loss of GBSSI intron 10 is interpreted as a synapomorphy of Poeae s.l., which includes the traditionally defined tribes Poeae, Aveneae, and Hainardieae, and the results support a novel set of relationships among the tribes of Pooideae, including the placement of Brachypodieae, Bromeae, Triticeae, and Poeae s.l.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Water Quality and Fecal Contamination Sources at Hook Pond, East Hampton, New York
    Prepared in cooperation with the Village of East Hampton Assessment of Water Quality and Fecal Contamination Sources at Hook Pond, East Hampton, New York Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5071 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. Front: Hook Pond, viewed looking south from a boat during a sampling trip; photograph by Shawn Fisher, U.S. Geological Survey. Back, bottom left: Waterfowl gathered north of Davids Lane along Hook Pond Dreen (locally known as the duck pond); photograph by Tristen Tagliaferri, U.S. Geological Survey. Back, right: A culvert at Fithian Lane where stormwater from New York State Route 27 enters and Hook Pond Dreen passes through; photograph by Shawn Fisher, U.S. Geological Survey. Assessment of Water Quality and Fecal Contamination Sources at Hook Pond, East Hampton, New York By Shawn C. Fisher, Brendan A. McCarthy, Christopher M. Kephart, and Dale W. Griffin Prepared in cooperation with the Village of East Hampton Scientific Investigations Report 2020–5071 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior DAVID BERNHARDT, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey James F. Reilly II, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2020 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Investigation Report
    Biological Investigation Report: Humboldt County APN 505-121-031 Survey Dates: March 18 and March 21, 2019 Prepared for Open Door Community Health Centers Arcata, Ca 95521 Contact: Project Manager Laura Kadlecik Tel: (707) 826-8633 x 5165 Prepared by Claire Brown March 28, 2019 Natural Resources Management Corporation 1434 Third Street, Eureka, CA 95501 (707) 442-1735 Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Background: Historic Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 3 Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Pre-field Review ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Field Survey ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Survey Results ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Vegetation and Sensitive Plant Species ........................................................................................................ 5 Pre-field Review .......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]