DOCSLIB.ORG

Humboldt Bay Maintenance Dredging & Disposal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Humboldt Bay Maintenance Dredging & Disposal Humboldt Bay Maintenance Dredging & Disposal PUBLIC MEETING MAY 3, 2017 5:30-7:30 PM Agenda • Dredging Goals and History • Efforts Taken Since Previous Dredge Cycle • Disposal Opportunities Evaluation • Potential Hybrid Approach • Next Steps and other options Dredging Goals & History GOALS: HISTORY: • Maintain safety and usability of • Three Previous Maintenance Dredging Projects various recreational and commercial • Cutter Head Suction Dredge/Samoa Beach Disposal fishing waterfront facilities. • Nearshore Subtidal and Intertidal Habitat Monitoring • Break the cycle of 7-10 year dredging. Annually dredge smaller volumes to • January-March 1988 upland sites for beneficial reuse. • 131,000 cubic yards IMMEDIATE NEEDS: • January-May 1998 • Remove ~ 40-50,000 cubic yards • 226,238 cubic yards from Eureka Public Marina • November 2006-March 2007 • 230,065 cubic yards (contract dredging $3.2 million, included $600k mobilization) Efforts Taken • Samoa Beach Surf Zone Monitoring (2006-2009) • Samoa Lagoons dredge disposal site development (2006-2017) • Annual meetings with US Army Corps about flow lane disposal (2008-2017) • Coastal Regional Sediment Management Plan (CRSMP) (2011-2017) • Dredge purchase and implemented marina dredge surcharge (2014) • Bathymetric Survey (2014) and Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) (2015) • Beneficial Reuse of Dredge Materials for Marsh Restoration and Sea Level Rise Adaptation in Humboldt Bay (July 2015) • King Salmon Fisherman’s Channel Beneficial Reuse – White Slough (Nov 2015-July 2016) • Infrastructure Reuse Evaluation – filtration plant modifications and ocean outfall (2015-16) • Vibracore Purchase (2016) and sediment sampling (2016-17) • Super Bowl botanical survey (2016-2017) • Updated research and findings (2017) Samoa Beach Monitoring History and Results • Impacts of beach disposal operations are temporary and localized to the pipeline transect. • Sediment composition and biological communities returned to pre-project conditions within three to four months. • The effects on ocean water quality are considered less significant than other disposal alternatives. • A majority of the dredge material is fine grain (80% - 90% silt and clay). • Fines are transported offshore and settle on the continental margin. • Disposal operations during the winter months disperse material due to large swells, high tides, and strong currents. USGS Fine-Grained Sediment Research • 2008-2009 Tijuana River Demonstration Project • Majority of fine sediment moved far offshore of the project site due to waves and currents. (50% fines/50% sand) • 2009 Santa Cruz Harbor Demonstration Project • No significant net deposition on the seabed in or near the project site, no shift to a finer grain-size class along the beach or on the inner shelf (considered “in-bay” disposal, not ocean disposal). • Fine sediment discharged to the coastal ocean: • Did not result in observable deposition of fine-grained sediment on the beach or inner- continental shelf. • Resulted in turbidity values significantly lower than those values observed during a large wave event or small flood of the San Lorenzo River. • Eureka Public Marina and Woodley Island sediment sampling conducted 2016-17 In-House • Contaminants of concern have Sampling decreased over time and are below residential screening levels Vibracore • Purchased 2014 • 13,000 feet of pipe • Booster pump and barge In-House • Work boat and skiff Dredge • Floats, weights, anchors • New Tier 3 engines • Invested ~$1.3M into dredge and equipment Disposal Options Evaluated Based on review of feasibility, scientific data, environmental impacts and fiduciary responsibility. 1. White Slough 2. Flow Lane - In-Bay Disposal 3. ACOE Ocean Disposal (HOODS) 4. RMT II - Beach/ Ocean Outfall 5. RMT II - Clarifiers 6. Super Bowl 7. Samoa Lagoons 8. Samoa Beach Potential Disposal Option Costs White Slough Pros • Beneficial re-use • Mid-range cost ($10-15 per cubic yard) • White Slough unit needs material - Good option for South Bay if sediment is acceptable reuse. Cons • Very limited on-site capacity • Off-site dewatering significantly raises costs and environmental impacts • Distance very far for middle and North Bay – 8-9 miles and logistically difficult • High capital costs – $1 million (1st year - pipe and booster pumps) Flow Lane (In-Bay) or ACOE Ocean Disposal (HOODS) Pros • Low to mid-range cost ($10-$11 per cubic yard) Cons • No beneficial re-use and debris difficult to remove • Flow Lane considered “In-bay disposal” (ACOE mandated to reduce in-bay disposal in San Francisco Bay) • Regulatory hurdles (3 years and $3 million) • Requires ACOE approval – In discussions since 2008. Harbor District offered to reimburse (Flow Lane = in navigation channel on outgoing tide) costs of removal to HOODS; told too difficult to (HOODS = existing ACOE ocean disposal site) permit material removed from non- jurisdictional area. Redwood Marine Terminal II - Options 1, 2 Option 1) Beach disposal with debris clean-up on beach Pros Option 2) Mud pond debris clean-up with outfall discharge • Low to mid-range cost ($11 per cubic yard) Cons • Compliance with Ocean Plan • No beneficial re-use if outfall used • High capital costs - $500,000 1st year • Modification could damage or plug pipe eliminating other important uses Redwood Marine Terminal II – Option 3, Clarifiers Pros • Man made dewatering option, no sensitive habitat issues • Potential for beneficial re-use • Possible use with dewatering belt press or geotubes • Possible use to clarify decanted water from other upland dewatering sites Cons • Extensive modifications to clarifiers and plumbing – high capital costs ($300,000 1st year) • High costs ($27 per cubic yard – includes sediment transportation) • Limited volume (15-20k cubic yards maximum) • Beneficial re-use raises costs and environmental impacts from trucking Super Bowl - Upland Site Used by Army Corps and Simpson in the 1980’s Pros • Low to mid-range cost ($11 per cubic yard) • High capacity (~100k cubic yards) • Potential for beneficial re-use Cons • 1998-CCC stated that use of this site would not be a less environmentally damaging alternative to beach disposal • Recent botanical survey identified protected species (Layia carnosa and Erysimum menziesii ) • Expensive mitigation costs – take permit Samoa Lagoons –Upland Site Pros • Low to mid-range cost ($11 per cubic yard) • Potential for beneficial re-use Cons • Limited volume • Beneficial re-use raises costs and environmental impacts from trucking • Contamination of freshwater lens – current testing to determine sustainability of freshwater lens • Water board stopped use in 2010 requiring a membrane liner be installed Samoa Beach Options Option 1 - Temporary Off-shore Outfall Option 2 – Beach Disposal • Pros • Pros • Low to mid-range costs ($11 per cubic yard) • Low cost ($7 per cubic yard) • Accommodates high volume locations, lessening environmental impacts • Cons • Beach nourishment • Compliance with Ocean Plan • Outfall monitoring issues – removal of • Cons marine debris • Compliance with Ocean Plan • No beneficial re-use • Compliance with Special Condition 17 of • Maintaining pipe anchoring system 2006 CDP • Public concerns Potential Hybrid Approach • Samoa Lagoons for debris removal and sediment settling • Pump decanted water to RMT II clarifiers for further treatment • Discharge water through RMT II ocean outfall or back to Bay Next Steps • Receive public input • Continue coordination with regulatory agencies • Determine path forward for immediate needs (Eureka Marina), prepare CEQA document and submit permit applications • Continue to pursue potential upland sites and wetland restoration/ beneficial reuse opportunities.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Right Thing to Do: Returning Land to the Wiyot Tribe
    THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE by Karen Elizabeth Nelson A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of Humboldt State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts In Sociology May, 2008 THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE by Karen Elizabeth Nelson Approved by the Master’s Thesis Committee: Jennifer Eichstedt, Committee Chair Date Elizabeth Watson, Committee Member Date Judith Little, Committee Member Date Jennifer Eichstedt, Graduate Coordinator Date Chris Hopper, Interim Dean for Research and Graduate Studies Date ABSTRACT THE RIGHT THING TO DO: RETURNING LAND TO THE WIYOT TRIBE Karen Elizabeth Nelson In 2004, the Eureka City Council legally returned forty acres of Indian Island to the Wiyot tribe. This return occurred one hundred and forty four years after the Indian Island massacre. This research explores the returning of sacred tribal land in the context of collective apologies and reconciliations after generations of Native genocide. The significance of this case study includes a detailed narration of how the land transfer occurred and more importantly why it was labeled “the right thing to do” by Eureka City Council members and staff. This case study was examined with a grounded theory methodology. Using no hypotheses, the research and the research methodology unfolded in a non-linear process, letting the research speak for itself. Detailed interviews and a review of documents were used to qualify and quantify this unique community based social act. The results of this case study include how and why the Eureka City Council returned forty acres of Indian Island to the Wiyot people.
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay Water Trails
    Aldergrove Marsh HBNWR To Trinidad 299 Arcata Ja ne s C Humboldt Bay reek National Wildlife Refuge ARCATA HIKING BY APPOINTMENT ONLY Arcata Community Bottoms 101 Forest Mad River k Slough e e r C Boat Ramp 255 s e n a BLM Manila J Dunes Mad River Arcata Marsh Slough Wildlife Area and Wildlife Manila Sanctuary h g ou Community l S l ie n Park Mc Da BAYSIDE MANILA Humboldt Bay National Manila Dunes Jac ob Recreation Area Wildlife y C r e e Refuge k a Arcata Bay l u s 255 n Bracut Ocean i n Marsh e P SAMOA Indian Island HBNWR Fay Slough Wildlife Area INDIANOLA see inset at left Murray Eureka Field a Slough Airport Slough Eurek Eureka a Boat Ramp o Pacific Marina m a S Eureka Marsh EUREKA FAIRHAVEN Samoa Boat Ramp 3 Corners County Park Sequoia h g Park u o l S n a Samoa Dunes Hilfiker y R N o r Recreation Area th Je Elk Beach tty River S o City ut h Jetty Wildlife Area DANGEROUS CURRENTS h g u o South Jetty l S i n Mar t Humboldt Bay t i Water Trails Map p Elk River State S Wildlife Area King Salmon Always yield to swimmers, motorized vessels and other watercraft. th u o S Water Trail Access Wildlife Viewing Area E l k Field's Landing R i Low Tide Water Trails v e County Park r Camping To High Tide Water Trails Headwaters Forest Reserve Public Lands FIELDS Interpretive Center LANDING Mud Flats HUMBOLDT Pedestrian Access HILL Parking Interpretive Trail Boat Launch 101 Wheelchair Accessible South Bay Marina Table Bluff County Park Restrooms Pets on Leash HBNWR Picnic Area Fishing Humboldt Bay National SCALE Wildlife Refuge KILOMETERS 0.5 1.5 2.5 KILOMETERS Table Bluff 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 N MILES 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 MILES 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 Hookton Slough Base map layer courtesy Natural Resources Services Boat Dock To Loleta Headwaters S:\Maps\Humboldt Bay Water Trails Map_2 sided.pdf (print 11x17 in color using HP ProB9180 printer) Forest Reserve S:\Maps\Humboldt Bay Water Trails Map_2 sided.pdf (print 11x17 in color using HP ProB9180 printer).
    [Show full text]
  • 4.8 Humboldt Bay Area, Humboldt County CWPP Final
    HUMBOLDT COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN, 2019 HUMBOLDT BAY AREA PLANNING UNIT ACTION PLAN Humboldt Bay. Photo: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Digital Visual Library. Chapter 4.8: Humboldt Bay Area Planning Unit Action Plan HUMBOLDT COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN, 2019 Table of Contents — Humboldt Bay Area 4.8 Humboldt Bay Area Planning Unit Action Plan ........................................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.1 Humboldt Bay Area Planning Unit Description ................................................................... 4.8-1 4.8.2 Humboldt Bay Area Assets and Values at Risk .................................................................... 4.8-2 4.8.3 Humboldt Bay Area Wildfire Environment ......................................................................... 4.8-3 4.8.4 Humboldt Bay Area Fire Protection Capabilities ................................................................ 4.8-7 4.8.5 Humboldt Bay Area Evacuation ........................................................................................ 4.8-10 4.8.6 Humboldt Bay Area Community Preparedness ................................................................ 4.8-11 4.8.7 Humboldt Bay Area Local Wildfire Prevention Plans ........................................................ 4.8-13 4.8.8 Humboldt Bay Area Community Identified Projects ......................................................... 4.8-14 4.8.9 Humboldt Bay Area Action Plan .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay Dredged Materials Reuse Feasibility Study
    COASTAL CONSERVANCY Staff Recommendation January 19, 2012 HUMBOLDT BAY DREDGED MATERIALS REUSE FEASIBILITY STUDY Project No. 11-065-01 Project Manager: Joel Gerwein RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorization to disburse up to $85,000 to the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District to study the feasibility of reusing dredged materials for tidal marsh restoration and climate change adaptation in Humboldt Bay. LOCATION: Humboldt Bay, Humboldt County PROGRAM CATEGORY: Integrated Coastal and Marine Resources Protection EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Project Location and Site Map Exhibit 2: Project Letters RESOLUTION AND FINDINGS: Staff recommends that the State Coastal Conservancy adopt the following resolution pursuant to Sections 31111 and 31220 of the Public Resources Code: “The State Coastal Conservancy hereby authorizes disbursement of up to eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000.00) to the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District (“Harbor District”) to study the feasibility of utilizing dredged materials for tidal marsh restoration and climate change adaptation projects in Humboldt Bay, subject to the condition that prior to disbursement of Conservancy funds, the Harbor District shall submit for the review and written approval of the Executive Officer of the Conservancy a final work program, including budget and schedule, and the names of any contractors to be employed.” Staff further recommends that the Conservancy adopt the following findings: “Based on the accompanying staff report and attached exhibits, the State Coastal
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay Fishes
    Humboldt Bay Fishes ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> ·´¯`·._.·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> Acknowledgements The Humboldt Bay Harbor District would like to offer our sincere thanks and appreciation to the authors and photographers who have allowed us to use their work in this report. Photography and Illustrations We would like to thank the photographers and illustrators who have so graciously donated the use of their images for this publication. Andrey Dolgor Dan Gotshall Polar Research Institute of Marine Sea Challengers, Inc. Fisheries And Oceanography [email protected] [email protected] Michael Lanboeuf Milton Love [email protected] Marine Science Institute [email protected] Stephen Metherell Jacques Moreau [email protected] [email protected] Bernd Ueberschaer Clinton Bauder [email protected] [email protected] Fish descriptions contained in this report are from: Froese, R. and Pauly, D. Editors. 2003 FishBase. Worldwide Web electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org/ 13 August 2003 Photographer Fish Photographer Bauder, Clinton wolf-eel Gotshall, Daniel W scalyhead sculpin Bauder, Clinton blackeye goby Gotshall, Daniel W speckled sanddab Bauder, Clinton spotted cusk-eel Gotshall, Daniel W. bocaccio Bauder, Clinton tube-snout Gotshall, Daniel W. brown rockfish Gotshall, Daniel W. yellowtail rockfish Flescher, Don american shad Gotshall, Daniel W. dover sole Flescher, Don stripped bass Gotshall, Daniel W. pacific sanddab Gotshall, Daniel W. kelp greenling Garcia-Franco, Mauricio louvar
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Eureka Area Humboldt County, California
    Geology and Ground-Water Features of the Eureka Area Humboldt County, California By R, E. EVENSON GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1470 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1959 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. S EATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U. S. Geological Survey Library has cataloged this publication as follows: Evenson, Robert Edward, 1924- Geology and ground-water features of the Eureka area, Humboldt County, California. Prepared in cooperation with the California Dept. of Water Eesources. Washing­ ton, U. S. Govt. Print. Off., 1959 iv, 80 p. maps, diagrs., tables. 25 cm. (U. S. Geological Survey Water-supply paper 1470) Part of illustrative matter fold. col. in pocket. Bibliography: p. 77. 1. Water-supply California Humboldt Co. 2. Water, Under­ ground California Humboldt Co. i. Title: Eureka area, Hum­ boldt County, California. (Series) TC801.U2 no. 1470 551.490979412 GS 59-169 copy 2. GB1025.C2E9 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D. C. CONTENTS Page Abstract___-_____-__--_--_-_-_________-__--_--_-_-______ ___ 1 Introduction._____________________________________________________ 2 Purpose and scope of the work________ _________________________ 2 Location and extent of the area_______________-_-__-__--________ 3 Previous work_______________________________________________ 3 Well-numbering system________________________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay and Eel River Estuary Benthic Habitat Project
    Humboldt Bay and Eel River Estuary Benthic Habitat Project Susan Schlosser and Annie Eicher Published by California Sea Grant College Program Scripps Institution of Oceanography University of California San Diego 9500 Gilman Drive #0231 La Jolla CA 92093-0231 (858) 534-4446 www.csgc.ucsd.edu Publication No. T-075 This document was supported in part by the National Sea Grant College Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and produced under NOAA grant number NA10OAR4170060, project number C/P-1 through the California Sea Grant College Program. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of any of those organizations. Sea Grant is a unique partnership of public and private sectors, combining research, education, and outreach for public service. It is a national network of universities meeting changing environmental and economic needs of people in our coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes regions. Photographs: All photographs taken by S. Schlosser, A. Eicher or D. Marshall unless otherwise noted. Suggested citation: Schlosser, S., and A. Eicher. 2012. The Humboldt Bay and Eel River Estuary Benthic Habitat Project. California Sea Grant Publication T-075. 246 p. This document and individual maps can be downloaded from: http://ca-sgep.ucsd.edu/ humboldthabitats Humboldt Bay and Eel River Estuary Benthic Habitat Project Final Report to the California State Coastal Conservancy Agreement Number 06-085 August 2012 Susan Schlosser1 and Annie Eicher2 1 California Sea Grant, 2 Commercial Street Suite 4, Eureka, CA 95501 2 HT Harvey & Associates, Arcata, CA Acknowledgements The co-authors of the Humboldt Bay and Eel River Estuary Benthic Habitat Report have many people to thank who were involved in this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Eel River CCA Factsheet 2019
    CCA #6 Eel River Critical Coastal Area DESCRIPTION The Eel River flows from southeastern Mendocino County through southern Humboldt County to the Eel River Delta, 10 miles south of Humboldt Bay, with approximately 8 river miles within the coastal zone. Municipal, agricultural, fish and wildlife habitat (including habitat for threatened or endangered salmonids), and recreational uses are among the significant uses of this coastal watershed. Activities that may impair water quality in this Critical Mouth of the Eel River Coastal Area (CCA) watershed include illegal waste (Copyright © 2013 Kenneth & disposal; vehicle and railroad maintenance yard Gabrielle Adelman, California operations; herbicide application; gravel extraction; timber Coastal Records Project). harvesting; road building, operation, and maintenance For more photos, see the activities; dairy operations; automotive wrecking yard California Coastal Records activities; wood treatment facilities; publicly owned Project. treatment works; grazing; and failing septic systems. Waterbodies in this CCA that are listed as impaired on the current (2016) Clean Water Act 303(d) list are the Lower Eel River and Eel River Delta (impaired by sedimentation/siltation, water temperature, and aluminum); McNulty Slough in the Lower Eel River (impaired by dissolved oxygen); and Van Duzen River (impaired by sedimentation/siltation). Potential sources of these pollutants, organized by Source Categories, are listed as Agriculture (riparian and/or upland range grading); Silviculture (silviculture, harvesting/restoration/residue management, logging road construction/maintenance, and silvicultural point sources); Hydromodification (flow alteration/regulation/ modification, channel erosion, and streambank modification/destabilization); Habitat Modification (habitat modification, removal of riparian vegetation, and erosion/siltation); Construction/Land Development (construction/land development); Unspecified Nonpoint Source (nonpoint source); Natural Sources; and Source Unknown.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Communities in Eelgrass, Oyster Culture, and Mudflat Habitats of North Humboldt Bay, California Final Report
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fisheries Technical Report Number TR2005-02 Fish Communities in Eelgrass, Oyster Culture, and Mudflat Habitats of North Humboldt Bay, California Final Report William D. Pinnix, Thomas A. Shaw, Kirsten C. Acker, and Nicholas J. Hetrick U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 882-7201 August 2005 Funding for this study was provided in part by the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District (project # 11331-1937-1003) and NOAA Fisheries (project # 11331-1937-1010). Disclaimers Disclaimer: The mention of trade names or commercial products in this report does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the Federal government. The U.S. Department of Interior prohibits discrimination in Department Federally Conducted Programs based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or if you desire further information please write to: U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Equal Opportunity 1849 C. Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20240 Key words: fish, community structure, estuary, Humboldt Bay, eelgrass, oyster culture, mudflat The correct citation for this report is: Pinnix, W. D., T. A. Shaw, K. C. Acker and N. J. Hetrick. 2005. Fish communities in eelgrass, oyster culture, and mudflat habitats of North Humboldt Bay, California Final Report. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata Fisheries Technical Report Number TR2005-02, Arcata, California.
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay Cooperative Eelgrass Project
    UC San Diego Extension Publications Title Humboldt Bay Cooperative Eelgrass Project Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9g98z1z1 Author Schlosser, Susan Publication Date 2007-11-30 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Report Humboldt Bay Cooperative Eelgrass Project Prepared by: Susan Schlosser Marine Advisor and Annie Eicher Staff Research Associate UC Sea Grant Extension Program Humboldt and Del Norte Counties 2 Commercial Street, Suite 4 Eureka, CA 95503 707-443-8369 November 30, 2007 CONTENTS Introduction.....................................................................................................................1 Project Background...........................................................................................................1 Study Area....................................................................................................................... 2 Zostera japonica--Species Profile ....................................................................................... 4 Potential Impacts ............................................................................................................. 5 Management Policies........................................................................................................ 5 Permits ........................................................................................................................... 6 Objectives.......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ryan Creek Community 083012
    Arcata Community Forest Ma-le’l Dunes 255 ek Humboldt Bay NWR re C n Fickle Hill Road Mad River Slough ma tz ro The Trust for PuWbildlilifec L Aareand G Sunny Brae h C Beit re Forest Ryan Creek Community Forest ek Arcata Marsh HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA HBNWR To Arcata Arcata Bay n Bracut Marsh Coastal Conservancy a e Samoa Beach d ) c T e 101 a R C J C 255 out a y R c ail ( a O r ld Arcat o T T B 16 15 14 13 O b CC Samoa y c oastal Eureka i d Slough Unit Jacoby f Redwood Hwy HBNWR Fay Slough Creek Forest C i ase R Wildlife e ornia C Area (DFG) (Arcata) r c out e alif avy B t C 4th S e24 a M Freshwater 20 21 22 23 k w N t y e 5th S rt N Cooper le P St nland R Gulch Slou T I t Park St gh C M C 101 14th S H yr a M r Dead Mouse t Wabash St rison S yr le S t Marsh le S t Eureka t 28 27 26 25 t tle St H S yr roadway Buhne St S M Eureka Dunes I S Protected Area B t Redwood Acres t t M Henderson St Fairground H itchell Harris St Harris St all A D F S olbee ve Freshwater t Farms Reserve r S 36 H S Sequoia Park Samoa Dunes 33 34 35 36 t 35 W Recreation t 31 32 R alnut D Area d Fre Ca R sh r mpton R Elk River r y w a a Wildlife n t way D h e Sanctuary g air r u d F o l 2 S 3 1 6 5 C Herrick St 4 3 2 1 y in r rt e a a Municipal e l M k Golf i B a Freshwater r Arcata South quadrangle Course T Eurek a quadrangle ) E County Park T lk Rive C Fields L anding quadrangle McW hinney Creek quadrangle C Senestraro Property– D C Martin Slough r 9 ail ( r R 8 10 r South Spit 10 11 12 7 r T e Cooperative Elk River d 11 12 Bear Gulch e Management Wildlife Proposed
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Mailing List
    Appendix A Mailing List Appendix A. Mailing List TABLE A-1 PUBLIC LIBRARIES Name Address Humboldt County Library 1313 3rd St, Eureka, CA 95501 TABLE A-2 AGENCIES AND APPLICANT Contact Name and Title Agency/Organization Address Lead Agency John Edward Forsythe, Project California Public Utilities Commission 300 Capital Mall, Suite 518 Manager Sacramento, CA 95814 Applicant Jillian Blanchard Attorney at Law 1101 Marina Village Parkway, Suite #201 Alameda, CA 94501 Erin Rice, Project Manager Pacific Gas & Electric 2730 Gateway Oaks Drive, Rm 220, #235B Sacramento, CA 95833 Janet Liver, Project Manager ERM 114 Sansome Street, Suite 750 San Francisco, CA 94104 Federal Agencies San Francisco District, Eureka Field U.S Army Corps of Engineers 601 Startare Drive, Box 14 Office Eureka, CA 95501 Jennifer L. Norris, Deputy Field U.S Fish and Wildlife Service 1655 Heindon Drive Supervisor, U.S Fish and Wildlife Aracta CA 95521-4573 Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office William G., Bell, Principal Operations Federal Aviation Administration 1420 Harbor Bay Parkway Inspector Alameda, CA 94502 State Agencies Tina Bartlett, Regional Manager California Department of Fish and 601 Locust St. Wildlife (Northern Region-Region 1) Redding, CA 96001 Julie East, Environmental Coordinator California Department of Transportation 1656 Union Street (District 1) Eureka, CA 95501 Mike Tollstrup California Air Resources Board 1001 I Street, PTSDAQTPB Sacramento, CA 95814 Bob Merrill, North Coast District California Coastal Commission 1385 8th Street #130 Manager Arcata, CA, 95521 Eric Knight, Environmental Office California Energy Commission 1516 9th Street MS-40 Manager Sacramento, CA 95814 Frank Roddy State Water Resources Control Board P.O.
    [Show full text]