Appendix C - Biological Resources Investigation Report

PROJECT

Recycled Water

Federally-Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

April 2015

Federally-‐Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project 1 April 2015

Federally-‐Listed Biological Resources

Investigation Report City of Ukiah

Recycled Water Project

Prepared by:

SMB Environmental, Inc.

April 2015



Table of Contents

1.1 Purpose of this Assessment ............................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Species of Concern ......................................................................................................................... 5

Plant Species ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Mammals ............................................................................................................................................. 6

Birds ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

Reptiles ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Amphibians .......................................................................................................................................... 6

Invertebrates ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Fish ....................................................................................................................................................... 6

Section 2 -‐ Description of Proposed Action ............................................................................................ 7 2.1 Project Location and Background ................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Goal and Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Proposed Action Description ........................................................................................................ 10

2.3.1 Potential Users and Phasing .................................................................................................. 12

2.3.3 Pump Station ......................................................................................................................... 13

2.3.4 Storage Facilities ................................................................................................................... 13

2.4 Construction Considerations ........................................................................................................ 15

2.5 Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Board’s Recycled Water Policy ..................................... 16

2.6 Operational Plans ......................................................................................................................... 17

Section 3 – Environmental and Regulatory Setting .............................................................................. 18 3.1 Regulatory Environment .................................................................................................................. 18

3.1.1 Federal Regulations ................................................................................................................... 18

3.1.1.2 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act ..................................................................................... 19

3.1.1.3 Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .................................................................. 19

3.1.1.4 River and Harbor Act and Clean Water Act ....................................................................... 20

3.2 Regional Setting ........................................................................................................................... 20

3.3 Local Setting ................................................................................................................................. 21



3.4 Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. ....................................................................................... 21

3.5 Potentially Affected Federal Species and Habitats ....................................................................... 21

Section 4 – Effects on Species and Habitat ........................................................................................... 32 4.1 General Effects ............................................................................................................................. 32

4.2 Effects to Federally-‐Listed Species and Habitat ........................................................................... 33

4.2.1 Plants ..................................................................................................................................... 33

4.2.2 Mammals ............................................................................................................................... 34

4.2.3 Reptiles .................................................................................................................................. 34

4.2.4 Birds ....................................................................................................................................... 34

4.2.5 Fish ........................................................................................................................................ 36

4.2.6 Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands ................................................................. 42

Section 5 Determination of Effects ................................................................................................... 45 5.1 No Effect ....................................................................................................................................... 45

Plant Species ...................................................................................................................................... 45

Mammals ........................................................................................................................................... 45

Birds ................................................................................................................................................... 45

Amphibians ........................................................................................................................................ 45

Invertebrates ..................................................................................................................................... 46

Fish ..................................................................................................................................................... 46

5.2 Potential to Affect, But Not Likely to Adversely Affect ................................................................ 46

Plants ................................................................................................................................................. 46

Mammals ........................................................................................................................................... 46

Reptiles .............................................................................................................................................. 46

Birds ................................................................................................................................................... 46

Invertebrates ..................................................................................................................................... 46

Fish ..................................................................................................................................................... 46

Section 6 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 47 List of Figures Figure 1: General Location Map ................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 2: Proposed Action Pipeline Aligments ........................................................................................... 11 Figure 3: Proposed Recycled Water Storage Pond .................................................................................... 14 Figure 4: Special Status Species In The Proposed Action Area…….……………………………………………………….…22



List of Tables Table 1: Proposed Action Parameters ....................................................................................................... 12 Table 2: Annual Recycled Water Demand Summary ................................................................................. 12 Table 3: Proposed Pipeline Facilities ......................................................................................................... 14 Table 4: Potential for Special-‐Status Species to Occur in the Proposed Action Study Area ...................... 23 Attachment A Federally-‐Listed Species List for the City of Ukiah’s Recycled Water Project



Section 1 -‐ Introduction

This document identifies potential federally-‐listed species and species of concern that could be affected by the implementation of the City of Ukiah’s (City) proposed Recycled Water Project (Proposed Action). This section describes the existing biological resources within the Proposed Action footprint and addresses potential impacts to biological resources associated with implementation of the proposed Action. This evaluation includes a review of potentially occurring federally-‐listed special-‐status species, wildlife habitats, waters of the U.S. including wetlands, and tree resources. The results of this evaluation are based on literature searches, database queries, and a reconnaissance-‐level survey of the Proposed Action area.

1.1 Purpose of this Assessment

The purpose of this document is to analyze the potential effects of the City’s Proposed Action on the federally-‐listed and proposed species that may occur in the Proposed Action Area. This document conforms to and with the legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C 1536(c) and 50 CFR 402). The City is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has prepared all of the necessary environmental documents under CEQA as well as prepared environmental documents pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on behalf of a potential NEPA Lead Agency. The City approved the Proposed Action at its City Council Meeting on June 5, 2013 and filed the Notice of Determination (NOD) under CEQA on June 6, 2013. The City is pursuing funds from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program that is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) on behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as potentially under the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program administered by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) under the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Public Law 102-‐575. As a result, either the State Board and/or USBR would be the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Therefore, this document evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects the Proposed Action may have upon federally-‐listed and proposed species. Based on this analysis, a determination is made as to whether the Proposed Action may adversely affect these federally-‐listed species and, if so, recommends mitigation measures to avoid and/or reduce potential adverse effects.

1.2 Species of Concern Pursuant to Section 7 (c) (1) of the Endangered Species Act, SMB Environmental, Inc. (SMB) obtained a list of federally-‐listed species potentially found within the Proposed Action Area from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – See Attachment A. This list was also updated using a list provided from the California Natural Diversity Database (April 2015). This document analyzes the potential effects of the Proposed Action upon the following federally-‐listed and proposed candidate species.

Plant Species • Arabis macdonaldiana (FE) McDonald’s rock-‐cress • Arenaria paludicola (FE) marsh sandwort • Chorizanthe howellii (FE) Howell’s spineflower



• Eriogonum kelloggii (FC) Red Mountain (=kellogg’s) buckwheat • Erysimum mensiesii (includes ssp. Yadonii) (FE) Menzies’s wallflower • Howellia aquatillis (FT) water howellia • Lasthenia burkei Burke’s goldfields • Lasthenia conjugens (FX) Critical habitat, Contra Costa goldfields • Navarretia leucocephala (ssp. pauciflora) (FE) few-‐flowered navarretia • Navarretia leucocephala (ssp. pileantha) (FE) many-‐flowered navarretia • Orcuttia tenuis (FT) slender Orcutt grass • Orcuttia tenuis (FX) Critical habitat, slender Orcutt grass • Sedum eastwoodiae (FC) Red Mountain stonecrop

Mammals • Aplodontia rufa nigra (FE) Point Arena mountain beaver • Eumetopias jubatus (FT) Steller (=northern) sea-‐lion • Martes pennanti) (C) fisher

Birds • Brachyramphus marmoratus (FT) (FX) Marbeled Murrelet • Charadrius alexandrines nivosus (FT) western snowy plover • Coccyzus americanus occidentalis (FT) Western yellow-‐billed cuckoo • Diomedea albatrus (FE) short-‐tailed albatross • Pelecanus occidentalis Californicus (FE) California brown pelican • Strix occidenallis caurina (FT) northern spotted owl

Reptiles • Caretta caretta (FT) (NMFS) loggerhead turtle • Chelonia mydas (includes agassizi) (FT) (NMFS) green turtle • Dermochelys coriacea (FE) (NMFS) leatherback turtle • Lepidochelys olivacea (FT) (NMFS) olive (=pacific) ridley sea turtle

Amphibians • Rana draytonii (FT) (FX) California red-‐legged frog

Invertebrates • Branchinecta conservation (FE) Conservancy fairy shrimp • Lycaeides argyrognomon (FE) Lotis blue butterfly • Speyeria zerene behrensii (FE) Behren’s silverspot butterfly • Syncaris pacifica California freshwater shrimp

Fish • Oncorhynchus kisutch (FE) FX) Central California coast coho salmon • Oncorhynchus mykiss (FT) (FX) Central Valley/Coastal steelhead • Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (FT) (FX) California coastal Chinook salmon



Section 2 -‐ Description of Proposed Action This section provides a detailed description of Proposed Action including a discussion of the construction considerations, compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Board Requirements, operational plans, and potential approvals and permits that may be necessary.

2.1 Project Location and Background As shown in Figure 1, the City is located in Mendocino County in the northern coastal region of California. The City is situated in the Ukiah Valley approximately 60 miles north of Santa Rosa, 20 miles south of Willits, and 5 miles southwest of Lake Mendocino, and is surrounded by coastal ranges in southern Mendocino County. The Valley is bordered on the west by the Mendocino Range and on the east by the Mayacamas Mountains. Elevations in the nearby mountains reach over 1,800 feet above mean sea level (MSL), while elevations in the Valley range from about 560 feet above MSL in the south near El Robles Ranch to 670 feet above MSL in the north near Calpella. Interstate Highway 101 runs north to south through the City along its eastern boundary and the Russian River flows from north to south through the Ukiah area. Ukiah is the county seat for Mendocino County.

Originally part of a Mexican Land Grant, the City began its history as a Valley settlement in 1856. Due to the City’s moderate climate and productive soil, lumber production became a major industry by the end of the 1940s. Agriculture is currently the largest industry in Ukiah and the rest of Mendocino County (www.cityofukiah.com). Ukiah is home to wineries, grape vineyards, pear orchards, and wood production plants, in addition to up-‐and-‐coming nonagricultural manufacturers.

Surface waters, namely the Russian River and Lake Mendocino, and groundwater are the major water resources that sustain the people and industries of Ukiah area. The City and several other water service providers in the area use a combination of these water supplies to support the urban demands within their service area boundaries. Agricultural entities also draw groundwater and surface water to both irrigate their crops and protect them from frost and heat events. Over the years, these water resources have become increasingly taxed to meet urban and agricultural demands as well as in-‐stream flow requirements for endangered species. As a result, the need to procure alternative water supplies, including recycled water, has increased.

Environmental groups have increasingly studied how river and groundwater diversions have negatively affected the species of the Russian River stream system and have requested increased regulation of these diversions. In 2009, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) presented the State Board with information that water withdrawn from the Russian River for frost protection of agricultural crops poses a threat to federally threatened and endangered salmonids in the Russian River watershed. They documented two episodes of fish stranding mortality that occurred in April 2008, one on Felta Creek in Sonoma County and the second on the mainstream of the Russian River near Hopland in Mendocino County (Draft EIR Russian River Frost Protection Regulation, 2007). NOAA Fisheries requested the State Board take regulatory action immediately to regulate diversions for frost protection to prevent salmonid mortality. The State Board is currently considering regulatory action that would deem any diversions for frost protection from March

Proposed Action

Figure 1 - General Location Map

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp.,GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL,April 7, 2015

0 2.5 51.25 mi

0 4 82 km

1:144,448

Printed from http://bios.dfg.ca.govAuthor: cnddb_com



15 through May 15 unreasonable, unless approved by the State Board through the completion of an extensive Water Demand Management Program (WDMP). In February 2012, the Courts granted a stay of the State Board regulations that declare frost protection diversions unreasonable in Mendocino and Sonoma Counties.

Faced with this future regulatory consideration, farmers in the Ukiah area are looking for alternative water supplies to sustain their agricultural practices. In addition to this, during dry years, water service providers in the surrounding area are limited on the amount of water they can withdraw from the River and Lake Mendocino. Developing recycled water supplies in the Ukiah Valley and surrounding area would increase the overall water supply and its reliability under a range of hydrologic conditions.

The recycled water supply that is being considered under this study is the treated wastewater effluent of the UWWTP. While water users are being limited by the water they can take out of the River, the City is limited on the treated effluent they can put in the River. The City must comply with increasingly stringent discharge requirements that regulate both the volume and quality of the water that can be discharged to the Russian River. As a result, when discharging to the River, the City currently discharges very high quality effluent that meets recycled water needs. Limited on the volume and time at which treated effluent can be discharged, the City could benefit from additional disposal alternatives including delivery of recycled water to irrigation customers.

2.2 Goal and Objectives The goal and objectives and purpose of the Proposed Action is to construct an approximately 9.4-‐mile pipeline system to serve a combined set of agricultural and urban landscape irrigation demands in the Ukiah Valley with approximately 1,375 afy of tertiary treated recycled water from the City’s existing Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant (UWWTP) that meets the requirements for disinfected tertiary recycled water “unrestricted use” as defined in California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Sections 60301 through 60355.

The City held a visioning workshop on February 28, 2011 early in the master planning process to ensure the Recycled Water Master Plan (RWMP) aligned with the goals and values of the City and other potentially affected interests. To ensure the master plan addressed both local and regional issues and provided local and regional benefits, the City of Ukiah invited City engineering, planning, management, and operations staff, water service providers in the surrounding area from Redwood Valley to Willow County Water District, and agricultural entities to partake in the visioning workshop. Attendees included representatives from the following entities:

• City of Ukiah • Ukiah Valley Sanitation District • Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District • Mendocino County Farm Bureau • Millview Water District • Rogina Water District • Willow Water District • Redwood Valley Water District



The group discussed values and challenges pertaining to the RWMP and identified several goals and objectives. The primary goals and objectives that were identified include:

• Implementing a recycled water program that is safe and meets the needs of the City and surrounding communities, including local agricultural businesses;

• Reducing withdrawals from the Russian River and Lake Mendocino surface waters;

• Implementing a program that helps the City with its disposal options for its treated wastewater

effluent; and

• Implementing a program that is financially viable and minimizes costs to ratepayers.

It was agreed during the workshop that implementing recycled water anywhere within Ukiah Valley and the surrounding area would improve the regional water supply from Redwood Valley to Hopland. The attendees also identified major water uses located near the recycled water source – the UWWTP.

2.3 Proposed Action Description The purpose of the Proposed Project is to replace/augment existing water supplies in Ukiah Valley. Recycled water use within the Ukiah Valley would offset existing and future water demands for irrigation and frost protection of agricultural land, and in doing so, would support the local agricultural industry. It would also offset urban irrigation demands, ease storage limitations at the Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant (UWWTP), and reduce treated wastewater discharges to the Russian River.

The Proposed Action was developed through an extensive engineering and feasibility study process, culminating in a recommended or preferred alternative. The basis for the Proposed Project for this report and environmental analysis is identified as the Preferred Alternative in Chapter 7 of the City’s February 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan. As shown in Figure 2 below, the Proposed Action would consist of 9.4-‐miles of recycled water pipeline ranging in size from of 8-‐ to 16-‐inches in diameter to provide recycled water from the City’s existing Ukiah WWTP to approximately 990 acres of agricultural and urban landscape irrigation lands within the Ukiah Valley. Specifically, a total of 44 parcels covering 703 acres would be supplied with 1,234 AFY of recycled water for irrigation purposes. In addition, about 284 acres would be supplied with 142 AFY of recycled water for frost protection. Table 1 provides a summary of the key parameters of the overall Proposed Action. What follows is a discussion of the major features of the Proposed Action.

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*

US Hwy 101

State Rte 222

State Rte 253

US Hwy 101Redwood Hwy

S State St

S Dora St Talmage RdN Bush St

N State StLow Gap Rd

E Gobbi St

Ford Rd

Vichy Springs Rd

N Oak St

Elm St

S Oak St

Watson Rd

W Mill St

Boonville Rd

River Rd

W Clay St

Helen Ave

Stanley Ave W Standley St E Perkins St

Ford St

Rudd

ick C

unnin

gham

Rd

Airport Rd

Brigg

s St

Taylor Dr

Maple Ave

S Orchard Ave

Empire Dr

Waugh Ln

W Church St

Quail DrBrush St

Clara Ave

Lewis Ln

S Main St

Knob Hill Rd

Leslie St

Desp

ina D

r

Recreation Rd

Jefferson Ln

Fircrest Dr

Beacon Ln

Vichy Hills Dr

Walnut Ave

Rede

meye

r Rd

Laws Ave

Gielow Ln

Dora Ave

Pomo Dr

Norgard Ln

Lorraine St

Luce Ave

Brunner St

Wabash Ave

N Ma

in St

S School St

Howell Creek Rd

Mendocino DrHillview Ave

Hastings Ave

Toyon Rd

Mazz

oni S

t

Eunice Ct

Perry St

Whitmore Ln

River

St

Luft Ct

Calvert DrRedwood Hwy

E Gobbi St

Rede

meye

r Rd

Figure 2Proposed Action Pipeline

Alignments Recycled Water Project, City of Ukiah

O3,0001,500

Feet

Discharge Location

Proposed Storage Pondfor Phases 1 and 2

Legend

Phase 3 and 4 Pipeline

Phase 1 PipelinePhase 2 Pipeline

Phase 3 and 4 Customers

Phase 1 CustomersPhase 2 Customers

#* Proposed Service ConnectionProposed Storage PondWWTP FacilitiesPLSS Boundary 0



Table 1 Proposed project Parameters

Parameter Number of

Units Irrigation Demand (AFY) 1,234

Irrigated area Served (Acres) 703 Parcels Provided irrigation (Number) 44

Frost Protection Demand (AFY) 142 Frost Protected land (Acres) 284

Parcels Provided Frost Protection (Acres) 17 Pipeline Length (Miles) 9.4

Pipeline Diameter (Inches) 8-16 Pump Station 1

2.3.1 Potential Users and Phasing There are two categories of potential users, agricultural and landscape irrigation. The Proposed Action will be developed in four phases. Figure 2 also provides a summary of the recommended phasing for the implementation of the Proposed Action. Table 2 provides a summary of the estimated annual demand for recycled water by phase as well as by irrigation and frost protection.

Table 2 Annual Recycled Water Demand Summary Estimated Recycled Water Demand (AFY)

Irrigation

Phase

Agricultural Urban

Landscape Frost

Protection Total by Phase

Cumulative Total

1 309.2 0.0 94.6 403.8 403.8 2 210.4 0.0 4.8 215.1 618.9 3 311.8 22.2 42.3 376.3 995.2 4 0.0 380.6 0.0 380.6 1,375.8

Total 831.4 402.8 141.7 1,375.8



2.3.2 Pipeline Facilities As mentioned above and shown on Figure 2, the proposed recycled water system includes 9.4 miles of recycled water pipelines ranging between 8-‐ and 16-‐inches in diameter. The recycled water would be pumped from the existing UWWTP to those landowners with storage, and would also be available up to the UWWTP and pump station capacity to those landowners without storage facilities. The pipeline will be constructed in paved streets and in existing agricultural service roads. The first phase is anticipated to be entirely within the Ukiah WWTP and along agricultural and would not be along paved roads. Phases 2 and 3 would be along both agricultural easements where possible, or along paved roads, primarily River Road, Babcock Lane, and Hastings Frontage Road. Pipelines installed as a part of Phase 4 would be along paved streets, and are routed to enter the urban area from the east to minimize the total length of pipeline along paved streets. The pipeline route would cross six ephemeral streams and/or drainages that lead to the Russian River.

2.3.3 Pump Station A single pump station is included in the alignment shown in Figure 2 at the Ukiah WWTP. Initially, it is planned that two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units will be installed in the pump station, with spare bays for an additional two (2) 100 horsepower electric pump units, which would be installed in Phase 2. Phase 3 and 4 are not anticipated to require any additional pump units, since the demands for frost protection are significantly higher than what would be required for urban landscape irrigation.

2.3.4 Storage Facilities As also shown on Figure 2 and Figure 3 below, the Proposed Action also includes the construction and operation of a new single tertiary treated recycled water storage pond at the wastewater treatment plant sized at a capacity of approximately 1.6 MG and encompassing approximately 5 acres of a 43-‐acre parcel which is owned by the City. The storage pond at the wastewater treatment plant will accommodate the variation in potential customer demand patterns and also serve as an equalization basin to buffer the potential variation in effluent flow at the WWTP. This storage pond will be setback from the Russian River by approximately 500 feet and will be designed and lined with a synthetic liner to prevent the movement of recycled water and pollutants such as salts and nutrients to groundwater or surface waters. In addition to this storage pond, individual farmers will either use their existing storage ponds and/or develop additional storage ponds on their own which will be designed to the same water quality design standards as the City’s proposed storage pond. These specific farmer activities are not known at this time, but will be developed once individual agreements are made with each farmer/individual. These activities will be further identified and explained in the City’s Report of Waste Discharge and Recycled Water Technical Report that the City will submit to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board for approval prior to implementation.



Figure 3 – Recycled Water Storage Pond

Table 3 Proposed Pipeline Facilities

Phase Type of Alignment1

Diameter (inches)

Length (feet)

Length (miles)

Construction

Schedule 1 Ukiah WWTP Site Piping 16 1,300 0.25 2015 - 2016 1 Agricultural Land Service Roads 12 5,600 1.06 2015- 2016

Phase 1 Subtotal 6,900 1.31 2015 - 2016 2 Paved Public Street 16 5,600 1.06 2020 - 2021 2 Agricultural Land Service Roads 16 4,200 0.80 2020 - 2021

Phase 2 Subtotal 9,800 1.86 2020 - 2021 3 Agricultural Land Service Roads 16 9,000 1.70 2025 - 2026 3 Paved Public Street 16 4,000 0.76 2025 - 2026 3 Agricultural Land Service Roads 12 400 0.08 2025 - 2026 3 Paved Public Street 8 1,000 0.19 2025 - 2026

Phase 3 Subtotal 14,400 2.73 2025 - 2026 4 Paved Public Street 12 4,700 0.89 2031 - 2032 4 Paved Public Street 8 13,800 2.61 2031 - 2032

Phase 4 Subtotal 18,500 3.50 2031 - 2032 Proposed Action Total 49,600 9.40 2015 - 2032

Note:

1). Laterals to individual agricultural parcels are assumed to be the responsibility of the farmer or landowner and are not included in the lengths presented here.



2.4 Construction Considerations As shown in Table 3 above, construction of the Proposed Action is expected to begin in the summer of 2015 and continue over approximately a 20 year period as each of the four phases are planned to be developed in five (5) year increments. Construction work will typically be done within normal working hours, weekdays between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., and possibly on Saturdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. The Proposed Action would be constructed primarily within existing paved and unpaved roadways and any damages occurring during construction will be returned to the pre-‐construction condition or better. Detailed below is a summary of the construction techniques and activities.

• The majority of the pipelines would be installed using conventional cut and cover construction techniques and installing pipe in open trenches. It is assumed that up to a 50-‐foot wide construction corridor would be used to help maximize the efficiency during construction. However, in most places a 25-‐foot construction corridor could be realized, especially for the smaller diameter pipelines. It is anticipated that excavation would typically be no more than 3-‐5 feet wide and 3-‐6 feet deep.

• The Proposed Action would also require crossing six small ephemeral creeks and/or drainages that flow to the Russian River. Each of the crossings will be done using trenchless construction techniques and will be done in the dry season and will not occur during rainy weather and during the months between October 15 and through April 1.

• Dewatering of the pipeline as a result of hydrostatic testing during construction as well as any

dewatering as a result of operations and maintenance activities shall be discharged to land and not into any creeks, drainages, or waterways and shall require prior approval from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (North Coast RWQCB).

Construction activities for this kind of project will typically occur with periodic activity peaks, requiring brief periods of significant effort followed by longer periods of reduced activities. In order to characterize and analyze potential construction impacts, the City has assumed that each phase of the project would be constructed by two (2) crews of 10-‐15 workers each and would proceed at a rate of approximately 500-‐1,000 feet per day. However, specific details may change or vary slightly. Staging areas for storage of pipe, construction equipment, and other materials would be placed at locations that would minimize hauling distances and long-‐term disruption. Excavation and grading activities would be necessary for construction of the Proposed Action. Excavated materials resulting from site preparation would either be used on-‐site during construction or disposed of at a fill area authorized by the City. It is not anticipated that any soils would be imported for this project. Additional truck trips would be necessary to deliver materials, equipment, and asphalt-‐concrete to the site. During peak excavation and earthwork activities, the Proposed Action could generate up to 40 round-‐trip truck trips per day. In support of these activities and for the assumptions for this document, the types of equipment that may be used at any one time during construction may include, but not limited to:



• Track-‐mounted excavator

• Backhoe

• Grader

• Crane

• Dozer

• Compactor

• Trencher/boring machine

• End and bottom dump truck

• Front-‐end loader

• Water truck

• Flat-‐bed delivery truck

• Forklift

• Compressor/jack hammer

• Asphalt paver & roller

• Street sweeper

It is recognized that details of the construction activities and methods may change slightly as the specific details will be developed during final design and by the selected contractor. However, this description provides sufficient information to base the conclusions to probable environmental impacts associated with construction activities for this kind of project. Therefore, as long as the construction methods are generally consistent with these methods and do not conflict with any of the City’s design standards or established ordinances, and does not create any new potential environmental impacts that are not described within this document, then no new environmental analyses will likely be required for any minor change in construction activities, timing, and/or schedule.

2.5 Compliance with CCR Title 22 and State Board’s Recycled Water Policy The Proposed Action will be designed and operated in accordance with the applicable requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22 and any other state or local legislation that is currently effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled water. The State Board adopted a Recycled Water Policy (RW Policy) in 2009 to establish more uniform requirements for water recycling throughout the State and to streamline the permit application process in most instances. As part of that process, the State Board prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the use of recycled water. That document and the environmental analyses contained within are incorporated by reference for this document and Proposed Action. The newly adopted RW Policy includes a mandate that the State increase the use of recycled water over 2002 levels by at least 1,000,000 AFY by 2020 and by at least 2,000,000 AFY by 2030. Also included are goals for storm water reuse, conservation and potable water offsets by recycled water. The onus for achieving these mandates and goals is placed both on recycled water purveyors and potential users. The State Board has designated the Regional Water Quality Control Boards as the regulating entity for the Recycled Water Policy. In this case, the North Coast



RWQCB is responsible for permitting recycled water projects throughout the North Coast Area and including Mendocino County.

The Proposed Action will be provided high quality unrestricted use tertiary treated recycled water from UWWTP and made available to users within the Ukiah Valley. All irrigation systems will be operated in accordance with the requirements of Title 22 of the CCR, the State Board Recycled Water Policy, and any other local legislation that is effective or may become effective as it pertains to recycled water and any reclamation permits issued by the North Coast RWQCB. Recycled water permits typically require the following:

• Irrigation rates will match the agronomic rates of the plants being irrigated;

• Control of incidental runoff through the proper design of irrigation facilities;

• Implementation of a leak detection program to correct problems within 72 hours or prior to the release of 1,000 gallons whichever occurs first;

• Management of ponds containing recycled water to ensure no discharges; and

• Irrigation will not occur within 50 feet of any domestic supply wells, unless certain conditions have been met as defined in Title 22.

2.6 Operational Plans The City will enforce an irrigation schedule among its users. The irrigation schedule is assumed as follows:

• Agricultural Irrigation: 6 AM to 6 PM • Landscape Irrigation: 6 PM to 5 AM • Frost Protection Irrigation: Only as required

By irrigating using the above scheduling, peak flows are reduced and pipe sizing is optimized.



Section 3 – Environmental and Regulatory Setting This section describes the regulatory and existing environment within and around the Proposed Action Study Area as it pertains to federally-‐listed species.

3.1 Regulatory Environment

The following discussion identifies federal regulations that serve to protect sensitive biological resources relevant to the environmental review process.

3.1.1 Federal Regulations The following discussion identifies federal regulations that serve to protect sensitive biological resources relevant to the environmental review process. 3.1.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act

The Secretary of the Interior (represented by the USFWS) and the Secretary of Commerce (represented by the National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS) have joint authority to list a species as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) (United States Code [USC], Title 16, Section 1533[c]). FESA prohibits the “take” of endangered or threatened fish, wildlife, or plants species in areas under federal jurisdiction or in violation of state law, in addition to adverse modifications to their critical habitat. Under FESA, the definition of “take” is to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The USFWS and NMFS also interpret the definition of “harm” to include significant habitat modification that could result in the take of a species. If an activity would result in the take of a federally listed species, one of the following is required: an incidental take permit under Section 10(a) of FESA, or an incidental take statement issued pursuant to federal interagency consultation under Section 7 of FESA. Such authorization typically requires various measures to avoid and minimize species take, and to protect the species and avoid jeopardy to the species’ continued existence.

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 7 of FESA, a federal agency reviewing a proposed project which it may authorize, fund, or carry out must determine whether any federally listed threatened or endangered species, or species proposed for federal listing, may be present in the project area and determine whether implementation of the proposed project is likely to affect the species. In addition, the federal agency is required to determine whether a proposed project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or any species proposed to be listed under FESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed or designated for such species (16 USC 1536[3], [4]).

Generally, the USFWS implements FESA for terrestrial and freshwater fish species and the NMFS implements FESA for marine and andromous fish species. USFWS and/or NMFS must authorize projects



where a federally listed species is present and likely to be affected by an existing or proposed project. Authorization may involve a letter of concurrence that the project will not result in the potential take of a listed species, or may result in the issuance of a Biological Opinion that describes measures that must be undertaken to minimize the likelihood of an incidental take of a listed species. A project that is determined by USFWS or NMFS to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species cannot be approved under a Biological Opinion.

Where a federal agency is not authorizing, funding, or carrying out a project, take that is incidental to the lawful operation of a project may be permitted pursuant to Section 10(a) of FESA through approval of a habitat conservation plan (HCP).

FESA requires the federal government to designate “critical habitat” for any species it lists under the Endangered Species Act. “Critical habitat” is defined as: (1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing, if they contain physical or biological features essential to the species conservation, and those features that may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species if the regulatory agency determines that the area itself is essential for conservation.

3.1.1.2 Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC, Section 703, Supp. I, 1989), as amended by the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act, prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The act addresses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. For projects that would not cause direct mortality of birds, the MBTA is generally interpreted in CEQA analyses as protecting active nests of all species of birds that are included in the “List of Migratory Birds” published in the Federal Register in 1995 and as amended in 2005. Though the MBTA allows permits to be issued for import and export, banding, scientific collecting, taxidermy, and rehabilitation, among other reasons, there is no provision in the MBTA that allows for species take9 related to creation or other development (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50: Wildlife and fisheries Part 21; Migratory Bird Permits).

3.1.1.3 Federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668-‐668c), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since then, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The act provides criminal penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle…[or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.” The act defines “take” as pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb.”



3.1.1.4 River and Harbor Act and Clean Water Act

The Secretary of the Army (represented by the Corps of Engineers [USACE]) has permitting authority over activities affecting waters of the United States under Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act (33 USC 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water (33 USC 1344). Waters of the United States are defined in Title 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) and include a range of wet environments such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds. Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act requires a federal license or permit prior to accomplishing any work in, over, or under navigable10 waters of the United States, or which affects the course, location, condition or capacity of such waters. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a federal license or permit prior to discharging dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, unless the activity is exempt (33 CFR 324.4) from Section 404 permit requirements (e.g., certain farming and forestry activities). To obtain a federal license or permit, project proponents must demonstrate that they have attempted to avoid the resource or minimize impacts on the resource; however, if it is not possible to avoid impacts or minimize impacts further, the project proponent is required to mitigate remaining project impacts on all federally-‐regulated waters of the United States.

Section 401 of the Act (33 USC 1341) requires any project proponents for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the creation or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into navigable waters of the United States to obtain a certification from the state in which the discharge originates or would originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or would originate, that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. A certification obtained for the creation of any facility must also pertain to the subsequent operation of the facility. The responsibility for the protection of water quality in California rests with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its 9 Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).

3.2 Regional Setting

The City of Ukiah is located within southern Mendocino County, along the Russian River in the Ukiah Valley. The City lies within the Northern California Coast Ranges Ecological Section and the Central Franciscan Ecological Subsection. This subsection is influenced somewhat by marine air but lacks summer fog and has a temperate and humid climate. Many rapid to moderately rapid flowing rivers and streams in deeply incised canyons flow westerly into the Pacific Ocean in this Section. This subsection is characterized by mountains with rounded ridges, steep and moderately steep sides, and narrow canyons, with several broad valleys, including the Ukiah Valley, site of the Proposed Action. Regional natural plant communities common to this area include oak woodlands, mixed oak and conifer woodlands, grasslands, chaparral, and riparian woodlands. Agriculture and urban development have modified most of the native habitat in the Ukiah Valley, creating fragmented and isolated habitats along riparian corridors, designated open space, ranches, and



parks. The Ukiah Valley was once entirely oak forest. Within approximately one quarter mile of the Russian River and other waterways, valley oaks grew in a continuous canopy with a dense undergrowth of varied plant species. Farther from the waterways, valley oaks grew in more open woodlands and savanna. Black oaks grew on drier ground, and mixed oak woodlands, including blue oak, interior live oak, Oregon white oak, and canyon live oak, covered the hills. Overall, remaining native habitats in the region surrounding the City of Ukiah are found in riparian areas and floodplains as well as native mixed oak and conifer woodlands in the Coast Ranges east and west of the City. Vegetation communities and wildlife habitats present within Ukiah include urban, ruderal, annual grassland, sporadic stands of oaks, and narrow ribbons of riparian along the larger creeks and the Russian River.

3.3 Local Setting The Project is located primarily in the City of Ukiah, California. Average annual precipitation is 37.4 inches. Mean maximum temperature is approximately 74 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and mean minimum temperature is approximately 44°F. Due to urbanized conditions, existing vegetative resources are limited to landscaping, ornamental plantings, and agricultural fields. Ornamental and native trees are planted throughout parking lot islands, at the perimeter of commercial buildings, and along streets bordering the Project site. Those trees tall enough to be used by birds such as raptors do not include species typically used by raptors for nesting. Due to high tree canopy fragmentation, the Project site provides limited habitat for wildlife. The number and diversity of species that use the urban habitat is generally low and includes common birds such as rock doves, house sparrows, starlings, American crows, and yellow-‐billed magpies.

3.4 Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. Based upon a literature search and a reconnaissance field study on May 18, 2012 and April 1, 2015, there are no known wetlands or vernal pools which exist in the Proposed Action Area. The Proposed Action would cross six ephemeral drainages that lead to the Russian River and would be considered Other Waters of the U.S.

3.5 Potentially Affected Federal Species and Habitats A list of federally-‐listed special-‐status plant and animal species that have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the study area was compiled based on data from the USFWS – See Attachment A. This list was also updated using a list provided from the California Natural Diversity Database [CNDDB, (CDFW, 2015)] and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS, 2015. Figure 4 provides a graphic of the special status species known to occur within the Proposed Action Area. On May 18, 2012 and April 1, 2015, a field reconnaissance site visits were conducted for the entire Proposed Action Area to search for suitable habitats for species identified in the species list as occurring in the vicinity. The potential for each federally-‐listed special status species to occur in the Study Area was evaluated according to the following criteria:

• No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp.,GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL,Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

Figure 4 - Special Status Species in Proposed Action Area

Plant (80m)Plant (specific)Plant (non-specific)Plant (circular)Animal (80m)Animal (specific)Animal (non-specific)

Animal (circular)Terrestrial Comm. (80m)Terrestrial Comm. (specific)Terrestrial Comm. (non-specific)Terrestrial Comm. (circular)Aquatic Comm. (80m)Aquatic Comm. (specific)

Aquatic Comm. (non-specific)Aquatic Comm. (circular)Multiple (80m)Multiple (specific)Multiple (non-specific)Multiple (circular)Sensitive EO's (Commercial only)

November 24, 2014

0 2.5 51.25 mi

0 4 82 km

1:144,448

Printed from http://bios.dfg.ca.govAuthor: cnddb_com



• Unlikely. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site.

• Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.

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

• Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded on the site recently. The site assessment was intended to identify the actual presence or absence of suitable habitat for each state and federally-‐listed special status species known to occur in the vicinity in order to determine its potential to occur in the Study Area. No special status species were observed during the field visit. The site visits do not constitute a protocol-‐level survey and were not intended to determine the actual presence or absence of a species. However, Table 4 below lists the state and federally-‐listed species that have the potential to exist within the Proposed Action Area, along with their preferred habitats, the potential to occur within the Action Study Area, and recommendations to avoid and minimize potential effects to these species.

Table 4 Potential for Federally-‐Listed Special-‐Status Species to Occur in the Proposed Action Study Area

Species

Status

Habitat

Potential for Occurrence

Recommendations

Plants Arabis macdonaldiana McDonald’s rock-‐cress

FE/SE/-‐-‐ McDonald’s rock-‐cress is currently considered to be restricted to Mendocino and Del Norte Counties, the very west portion of Siskiyou County in California, and the southern extent of Curry and Josephine Counties in southwest Oregon.

Unlikely. Study area does not provide suitable habitat.

No further actions are recommended for this species.

Arenaria paludicola Marsh sandwort

FE/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ It is native to the west coast of North America in California, where it is known from only a few remaining occurrences in the Central Coast of California region.



Chorizanthe howellii Howell’s spineflower

FE/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ It is endemic to coastal Mendocino County, California, where it is






Species

Status

Habitat


Recommendations

known only from the sand dunes and coastal scrub near Fort Bragg. It is estimated that 95% of the remaining individuals of this plant are part of a single population growing at MacKerricher State Park.

Eriogonum kelloggii Red Mountain buckwheat

FC/SE/-‐-‐ Red Mountain buckwheat is only known from serpentine habitat located on Red Mountain and Little Red Mountain, Mendocino County, California.



Erysimum menziesii Menzies’s wallflower

FE/SE/-‐-‐ Menzies’ wallflower is known from 16 or more sites, scattered within four dune systems in northern and central California: Humboldt Bay in Humboldt County, Ten Mile River in Mendocino County, the Marina Dunes at Monterey Bay, and the Monterey Peninsula in Monterey County.



Howellia aquatillis Water howellia

FT/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ The plant grows in wetland habitat surrounded by forests, which provide organic material.



Lasthenia burkei Burke’s goldfields

FE/SE/1B.1 Found in meadows, seeps, and vernal pools.



Lasthenia conjugens Critical Habitat, Contra costa goldfields

FX/SE/-‐-‐ Occurs in Napa, Santa Barbara, Solano, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, Monterey and Alameda Counties. This annual herb typically flowers from March through June, and its colonies grow in vernal pool






Species

Status

Habitat


Recommendations

habitats at elevations not exceeding 100 meters above sea level.

Navarretia leucocephala ssp. pauciflora Few-‐flowered navarretia

FE/-‐-‐/1B.1 Found in cismontane woodland, lower elevation montane coniferous forests, meadows, seeps, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools.



Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha Many-‐flowered navarretia

FE/-‐-‐/1B.1 It is native to North America, including much of the western United States and central Canada. It generally grows in wet or moist terrestrial habitat such as vernal pools.



Orcuttia tenuis Slender Orcutt grass Critical habitat, slender Orcutt grass

FX/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ Associated with vernal pools. Plants sprout when the while pools are full but grow and flower after the pool bed has dried.



Sedum eastwoodiae Red Mountain stonecrop

FC/FE/-‐-‐ The entire known distribution of Red Mountain stonecrop occurs in the vicinity of Red Mountain, near the town of Leggett, Mendocino County, California.



Mammals Aplodontia rufa nigra Point Arena mountain beaver

FE/CSC/-‐-‐ Is only found within a 24-‐square mile area in western Mendocino County, California. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the range of the Point Arena mountain beaver to include areas five miles inland from the Pacific Ocean extending from a point two miles north of Bridgeport Landing south to a






Species

Status

Habitat


Recommendations

point five miles south of the town of Point Arena.

Eumetopias jubatus Steller Sea-‐lion

FT/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ Prefers the colder temperate to sub-‐arctic waters of the North Pacific Ocean. Haul outs and rookeries usually consist of beaches (gravel, rocky or sand), ledges, rocky reefs.



Birds Brachyramphus marmoratus Marbeled murrelet

FT/SE/-‐-‐ FX

Occur in calm, shallow, coastal waters and bays, but breed inland, up to 45 miles from shore, in mature, wet forest



Charadrius alexandrines nivosus Western snowy plover

FT/CSC/-‐-‐ Lives and breeds on sandy coasts and brackish inland lakes, and is uncommon on fresh water.



Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Western yellow-‐billed cuckoo

FT/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ Yellow-‐billed Cuckoos use wooded habitat with dense cover and water nearby, including woodlands with low, scrubby, vegetation, overgrown orchards, abandoned farmland, and dense thickets along streams and marshes. Once common in the California’s Central Valley, coastal valleys, and riparian habitats east of the Sierra Nevada, habitat loss now constrains the California breeding population to small numbers of birds along the Kern,






Species

Status

Habitat


Recommendations

Sacramento, Feather, and Lower Colorado Rivers.

Diomedea albatrus Short-‐tailed albatross

FE/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ During non-‐breeding season they range across the North Pacific, with the males and juveniles gathering in the Bering Sea, and the females feeding off the coast of Japan and eastern Russia.[10] They can also be found as far east as California.



Pelecanus occidentalis californicus California brown pelican

FE/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ Typically found on rocky, sandy or vegetated offshore islands, beaches, open sea (for feeding), harbors, marinas, estuaries, and breakwaters. Nesting colonies are established on islands without mammalian predators and permanent human habitation.



Strix occidentalis caurina northern spotted owl

FT/SC/-‐-‐ FX

Prefer old growth coniferous forests with multi-‐layered, multi-‐species canopy with moderate to high canopy closure.

Moderate. Study Area may provide suitable habitat for this species near the Russian River and adjacent to agricultural fields.

Conduct pre-‐construction surveys.

Reptiles Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle

FT/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ Loggerheads nest on ocean beaches, generally preferring high energy, relatively narrow, steeply sloped, coarse-‐grained beaches.



Cheleonia mydas Green turtle

FT/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ Primarily use three types of habitat including beaches for nesting, open ocean convergence zones, and coastal areas for






Species

Status

Habitat


Recommendations

"benthic" feeding. Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle

FE/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ Commonly known as pelagic (open ocean) animals, but they also forage in coastal waters. In fact, leatherbacks are the most migratory and wide ranging of sea turtle species.



Lepidochelys olivacea olive ridley sea turtle

FT/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ Is mainly a "pelagic" sea turtle, but has been known to inhabit coastal areas, including bays and estuaries. Olive ridleys mostly breed annually and have an annual migration from pelagic foraging, to coastal breeding and nesting grounds, back to pelagic foraging.



Amphibians Rana draytonii California red-‐legged frog

FT/CSC/-‐-‐ FX

This species now occurs most commonly along the northern and southern Coast Ranges, and in isolated areas in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains.



Fish Eucyclogobius newberri Tidewater goby

FE/SE/-‐-‐ Found primarily in waters of coastal lagoons, estuaries, and marshes.



Hypomesus transpacificus Delta smelt

FT/SE/-‐-‐ Endemic to the upper Sacramento-‐San Joaquin Estuary of California, it mainly inhabits the freshwater-‐saltwater mixing zone of the estuary, except during its spawning season when it migrates upstream to freshwater






Species

Status

Habitat


Recommendations

following winter "first flush" flow events (approximately March to May).

Oncorhynchus kisutch Central California coast coho salmon

FE/SE/-‐-‐ This ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of coho salmon from Punta Gorda in northern California south to and including the San Lorenzo River in central California, as well as populations in tributaries to San Francisco Bay, excluding the Sacramento-‐San Joaquin River system.

Moderate. Construction of the Proposed Project/ Action could cause siltation and water quality issues through drainages and creeks that ultimately discharge into the Russian River.

Implement best management practices and erosion control measures as required by the North Coast RWQCB.

Oncorhynchus kisutch Central California coast coho salmon, So OR/No CA

FT/ST/-‐-‐ Central and northern California coastal rivers and streams.



Oncorhynchus mykiss Central California Coastal steelhead

FT/CSC/-‐-‐ FX

Drainages of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, Central California Coastal Rivers.



Oncorhynchus mykiss Central Valley steelhead

FT/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ This DPS is found in coastal streams from the Russian River in Sonoma County south to Aptos in Santa Cruz County, including tributaries to San Francisco and San Pablo bays.

Moderate. Construction of the Proposed Project/ Action could cause siltation and water quality issues through drainages and creeks that ultimately discharge into the





Species

Status

Habitat


Recommendations

Russian River. Oncorhynchus tshawytscha California coastal chinook salmon

FT/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ This ESU naturally occurs in coastal rivers and streams south of the Klamath River to the Russian River, California.



Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Sacramento River winter-‐run

FE/CSC/-‐-‐ This specific species occurs in the Sacramento River.

Unlikely. This is specific to the Sacramento River.


Invertebrates Branchinecta conservatio Conservancy fairy shrimp

FE/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ Inhabit highly turbid water in vernal pools. Known from six populations in the northern central valley.

Unlikely. Suitable habitat does not appear to be present in the Study Area.


Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis Lotis blue butterfly

FE/SE/-‐-‐ Possibly extinct, the Lotis Blue has not been seen alive since 1983. Little is known about this mysterious butterfly. It is only known from a few sites near Mendocino on California's north coast. Thought to have been restricted to a rare coastal bog type of habitat.



Speyeria zerene behrensii Behren’s silverspot butterfly

FE/-‐-‐/-‐-‐ The Behren’s silverspot butterfly inhabits coastal terrace prairie habitat west of the Coast Range in southern Mendocino and northern Sonoma Counties, California. This habitat is strongly influenced by proximity to the ocean, with mild temperatures, moderate rainfall, and






Species

Status

Habitat


Recommendations

frequent summer fog. Syncaris pacifica California freshwater shrimp

FE/SE/-‐-‐ Endemic to Marin, Napa, and Sonoma Counties. Found in shallow pools away from streamflow in low gradient streams where riparian cover is moderate to heavy.

Unlikely. Suitable habitat is not present in the Study Area


KEY: Federal: (USFWS) FE = Listed as Endangered by the Federal Government FT = Listed as Threatened by the Federal Government FC = Candidate for listing by the Federal Government FX = Federal Critical Habitat State: (CDFW) SE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California ST = Listed as Threatened by the State of California SR = Listed as Rare by the State of California (plants only) CSC = California Species of Concern SX = State Critical Habitat CNPS: (California Native Plant Society) List 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California List 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere List 2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere List 3 = Need more information 0.1 = Seriously endangered in California 0.2 = Fairly endangered in California 0.3 = Not very endangered in California – = No Listing SOURCE: USFWS, 2015; CDFW, 2015; CNPS, 2015



Section 4 – Effects on Species and Habitat

This section describes the potential effects on federally-‐listed species and habitats as a result of implementing the Proposed Action.

4.1 General Effects Implementation of the Proposed Action has the potential to cause the following general effects on federally listed species and habitat in the Action Area.

• Increase in Human Activity. The Proposed Action will require construction crews to be working in the Proposed Action Area for several months. In addition, construction activities will cause an increase in noise and vibration in the Action Area, thereby potentially disturbing fish and wildlife causing them to avoid the area. This may indirectly cause reduced viability, as foraging opportunities may temporarily become more limited and/or chances for predation increase.

• Increase in Sedimentation and decrease in water quality. The Proposed Action may temporarily decrease water quality in the Action Area and immediately downstream if sediments or chemicals are discharged from the construction site. A decrease in water quality may cause a decline in preferred food sources or reduce concentrations of available oxygen for fish and/or amphibian eggs or young.

As a result, the following general construction best management practices and mitigation measures are recommended to reduce and/or avoid these potential adverse impacts.

• Implement Construction Best Management Practices. To reduce potentially significant erosion and siltation, the City and/or its selected contractor(s) shall obtain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) and implement Best Management Practices and erosion control measures as required by the North Coast RWQCB. Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and siltation shall include, at a minimum, the following measures: Avoidance of construction activities during inclement weather; limitation of construction access routes and stabilization of access points; stabilization of cleared, excavated areas by providing vegetative buffer strips, providing plastic coverings, and applying ground base on areas to be paved; protection of adjacent properties by installing sediment barriers or filters, or vegetative buffer strips; stabilization and prevention of sediments from surface runoff from discharging into storm drain outlets; use of sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated by dewatering; and returning all drainages to preconstruction conditions. Construction crews shall avoid entering the stream channels during installation.



4.2 Effects to Federally-‐Listed Species and Habitat This section describes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects the Proposed Action may have to those species identified in Section 3.0 as having a medium or higher potential to occur within the Proposed Action Area. Potential species and habitats deemed to be absent or unlikely to occur are not discussed further below. Possible interrelated and interdependent actions to the Proposed Action are also discussed. Potential effects are defined as follows.

• Direct Effect. Those effects generated directly from the Proposed Project/ Action, such as an incidental take during construction and elimination of suitable habitat due to construction (50CFR 402.02)

• Indirect Effect. Those effects that are caused by the Proposed Action and are later in time, such as the discharge of sediment or chemicals adversely affect water quality downstream of the Action Area (50 CFR 402.02).

• Cumulative Effect. Effects of future state or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the Proposed Action Area (50 CFR 402.02).

• Interrelated Actions. Those actions that are part of, and dependent upon, a larger action (50 CFR 402.02).

• Interdependent Actions. Actions that have no independent utility apart from the Proposed Action (50 CFR 402.02).

Construction of the Proposed Action could likely have temporary direct effects to federally threatened and endangered species and habitat. The Proposed Action could also incidentally take listed species if they are present in the Proposed Action Area during construction activities. However, following construction, the Proposed Action would not have any adverse effects on any federally-‐listed species and habitats. Summarized below are the potential effects on federally-‐listed species and recommended measures to reduce and/or avoid these potential adverse effects as a result of construction activities.

4.2.1 Plants The Proposed Action would take place on paved roads and on unpaved agricultural services roads in agricultural fields. Due to the urban and agricultural activities, suitable habitat does not exist for special-‐status plant species in the Proposed Action area. A reconnaissance survey on May 18, 2012 and April 1, 2015 did not identify any federally-‐listed special-‐status plant species. Nevertheless, the following measures are recommended to ensure that no special-‐status plant species would be harmed as a result of construction activities.

• Survey for Special-‐Status Plants. Prior to construction, conduct a survey for all special-‐status plants, which could occur in areas where the pipeline facilities would be constructed. All surveys will be carried out in the appropriate blooming period prior to construction. If special-‐status plants are found in an area where the pipeline infrastructure is to be built, the pipeline will be rerouted to avoid these plants. If the plants cannot be avoided for some reason, the City shall replant and/or replace the plant species, resulting in a no net loss of the plant species.



4.2.2 Mammals

The construction and/or operation of the Proposed Action are not anticipated to have any adverse impacts on special-‐status mammal species. Further, the Proposed Action is unlikely to have significant cumulative effects on special-‐status mammal species or its supporting habitat. No other known development is currently planned in the Proposed Action Study Area that would remove or further degrade habitat within the vicinity of Proposed Action Area. In addition, the Proposed Action would also not have any long-‐term effects to habitat quality in the region after construction is complete. The Proposed Action is considered to be an action that has independent utility apart from other Projects in City and Ukiah Valley and would not have any additional adverse interrelated effects on special-‐status mammal species or supporting habitat.

4.2.3 Reptiles The construction and/or operation of the Proposed Action are not anticipated to have any adverse impacts on special-‐status reptile species. Further, the Proposed Action is unlikely to have significant cumulative effects on special-‐status reptile species or its supporting habitat. No other known development is currently planned in the Proposed Action Study Area that would remove or further degrade habitat within the vicinity of Proposed Action Area. In addition, the Proposed Action would also not have any long-‐term effects to habitat quality in the region after construction is complete. The Proposed Action is considered to be an action that has independent utility apart from other Projects in City and Ukiah Valley and would not have any additional adverse interrelated effects on special-‐status reptile species or supporting habitat.

4.2.4 Birds

The construction of the Proposed Action could potentially have an adverse impact on special-‐status bird species if they are present during construction activities. Once constructed, operation of the Proposed Action would not affect special-‐status bird species. During the field surveys, no special-‐status birds or supporting habitat were identified. However, the Proposed Project Area has been determined to have a low to moderate potential chance to occur for the northern spotted owl (strix occidentalis caurina) due to the presence of marginally suitable habitat in or near the area. The potential for construction activities to actually affect this species is low, but the following general precautionary measures are recommended to ensure avoidance of potential impacts to potential this species as well as other potentially undocumented special-‐status bird species that could occur during construction.

• Conduct Breeding/Nesting Surveys. For construction activities that occur between February 1 and August 31, preconstruction breeding bird surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to and within 10 days of any initial ground-‐disturbance activities. Surveys shall be conducted within all suitable nesting habitat within 250 feet of the activity. All active, non-‐status passerine nests identified at that time should be protected by a 50-‐foot radius minimum exclusion zone. Active raptor or special-‐status species nests should be protected by a buffer with a minimum radius of 200 feet. USFWS recommend that a minimum 500-‐



foot exclusion buffer be established around active white-‐tailed kite and golden eagle nests. The following considerations apply to this mitigation measure:

o Survey results are valid for 14 days from the survey date. Should ground disturbance commence later than 14 days from the survey date, surveys should be repeated. If no breeding birds are encountered, then work may proceed as planned.

o Exclusion zone sizes may vary, depending on habitat characteristics and species, and are generally larger for raptors and colonial nesting birds. Each exclusion zone would remain in place until the nest is abandoned or all young have fledged.

o The non-‐breeding season is defined as September 1 to January 31. During this

period, breeding is not occurring and surveys are not required. However, if nesting birds are encountered during work activities in the non-‐breeding season, disturbance activities within a minimum of 50 feet of the nest should be postponed until the nest is abandoned or young birds have fledged.

• Survey for Migratory Bird Nests. All initial vegetation clearing, including grading of

grasslands or removal or trimming of trees or shrubs will take place outside of the migratory bird nesting season. If vegetation removal must occur during the migratory bird nesting season vegetation, clearing activities will be preceded by a survey for migratory bird nests. If active nest(s) are located within the area to be cleared, all vegetation clearing activities within 50-‐feet of active nest(s) will take place after the nest(s) are no longer active.

• Survey for Active Raptor Nests. Before construction activity commences, all suitable raptor

nesting habitat within 0.5 mile of the impacted area will be surveyed for active raptor nests. If an active raptor nest is located within 0.5 mile of the construction site, a no-‐activity buffer will be erected around the nest while it is active to protect the nesting raptors. This buffer distance may be amended to account for nests that are not within the line-‐of-‐sight of the construction activity.

Strix occidentalis caurina -‐ Northern spotted owl

Species Overview

The northern spotted owl is a federally-‐listed threatened species and a California species of special concern. It is a large, dark-‐eyed, round-‐headed, dark brown owl with white spotting on the head, back, and underparts. It inhabits old-‐growth forests throughout the Pacific Northwest. The 2008 Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan specifies the following vegetation alliances as their preferred nesting habitat: Douglas-‐fir, western hemlock, grand fir (Abies grandis), white fir (Abies concolor), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Shasta red fir (Abies magnifica), mixed evergreen, mixed conifer hardwood, coastal redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), Bishop pine (Pinus muricata), and mixed evergreen-‐deciduous hardwood (USFWS, 2008).



Northern spotted owl’s current range extends from southeast British Columbia through the Cascade Mountains, coastal ranges, and intervening forested lands in Washington, Oregon, and California, as far south as Marin County, California. Median annual home range for pairs in California, Oregon, and Washington varies from 2,955 to 14,211 acres (USFWS, 2008). Pairs are non-‐migratory and remain on their home range throughout the year. The northern spotted owl-‐breeding period extends from February, when courtship begins, to September.

Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) is the dominant prey species in the western hemlock/Douglas-‐fir (Tsuga heterophylla/Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests, in their northern range. Dusky-‐footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) is more important in the drier southern, mixed-‐conifer/mixed-‐evergreen forests (USFWS, 2008). There is a moderate potential for northern spotted owl occurrence due to the presence of suitable habitat and known breeding sites within vicinity of the Study Area. The following precautionary measures are recommended to reduce any potential adverse impacts.

• Survey for Active Nests. Before construction activity commences, all suitable nesting habitat within 0.5 mile of the impacted area will be surveyed for active nests. If an active nest is located within 0.5 mile of the construction site, a no-‐activity buffer will be erected around the nest while it is active to protect the nesting raptors. This buffer distance may be amended to account for nests that are not within the line-‐of-‐sight of the construction activity.

Cumulative Effects

Further, the Proposed Action is unlikely to have significant cumulative effects on this species or its supporting habitat. No other known development is currently planned in the Proposed Action Study Area that would remove or further degrade habitat in the vicinity of Proposed Action Area. In addition, the Proposed Action would also not have any long-‐term effects to habitat quality in the region after construction is complete.

Interdependent and Interrelated Effects

The Proposed Action is considered to be an action that has independent utility apart from other Projects in City and Ukiah Valley and would not have any additional adverse interrelated effects on this species or its supporting habitat.

4.2.5 Fish

The following is a summary of the potential to affect special status fish species.

Species Overview

The following fish species are discussed below.



• Oncorhynchus kisutch -‐ Central California coast coho salmon • Oncorhynchus mykiss -‐ Central Valley steelhead • Oncorhynchus tshawytscha -‐ California coastal Chinook salmon

General Salmonid Life Cycle. Anadromous salmonids share similar life cycle patterns. Anadromous fish live in the oceans as adults, growing and maturing in the food-‐abundant environment. After reaching maturity in the ocean, salmonids immigrate1 to their natal (place of hatching) streams to spawn. Spawning generally takes place in the tails of pools and riffles. Substrate size and quality is important for successful spawning. The suitable substrate is free of silt and size varies from small gravel to cobble (0.5 to 6 inches in diameter), depending on the fish species. Eggs are deposited in a gravel nest, called a redd, and hatch in 30 to 60 days depending on the temperature of the water and the species. In the Russian River, juvenile salmonids typically spend between two months (Chinook salmon), one and one-‐half years (coho salmon), and two years (steelhead) growing in the freshwater habitat before emigrating to the ocean. Prior to emigration, juvenile salmonids go through a physiological process that allows them to adapt from a freshwater environment to a marine environment (smoltification). The emigrating fish, called smolts, leave the freshwater environment for the ocean during the spring. Due to this anadromous life cycle, salmonids encounter a range of distinct habitat types throughout their life history.

During emigration, juvenile salmonids typically enter estuarine habitats, which can vary widely in their physical characteristics. Salmonid use of estuarine habitats has been well documented, and the time spent in an estuary and the benefits received from estuarine habitat can vary widely among species and watersheds (Bond et al., 2008; Smith, 1990). Some salmonids move through estuaries in days, whereas other species remain for many months (described in more detail by species, below). Studies have demonstrated that lagoon environments, such as the likely historic conditions of the Russian River Estuary, are beneficial to the growth of juvenile steelhead in central California due to their residency time prior to emigration (NMFS, 2008; Bond et al., 2008). Fresh or brackish water lagoons at the mouths of many streams in California often provide freshwater depths, water quality, and productivity that are highly favorable to the growth and ocean survival of rearing salmon and steelhead (NMFS, 2008; Smith, 1990, Bond et al., 2008).

Oncorhynchus kisutch -‐ Central California coast coho salmon. Coho salmon range from Asia and Alaska to Central California as far south as Santa Cruz County. This salmon is state and federally listed as endangered due to a 90-‐95% decline in abundance (Moyle, 2002). There is little historical documentation regarding the distribution and abundance of coho salmon in the Russian River (SCWA, 2010b). However, an early estimate put the coho salmon population at 5,000 fish, which utilized the tributaries near Duncans Mills (SCWA, 2008). Although there are no current estimates of coho salmon in the Russian River, recent juvenile surveys indicate that the wild coho population has been reduced to very low levels and are only known to persist in a few creeks. In an attempt to recover the Russian River run, the Coho Salmon Broodstock Program was initiated. The program propagates local coho at the Don Clauson Fish Hatchery located adjacent to Warm Springs Dam and releases young into several Russian River tributaries with historic occurrences of coho.



Coho salmon is an anadromous species with a three-‐year life cycle. Adults spend approximately two years at sea before migrating in late-‐fall and winter to their natal stream to spawn. Once spawning is completed adults die within a few days or weeks. Young spend their first year rearing in streams with deep pools and submerged large woody cover. Emigration occurs in spring usually before June to avoid warmer summer temperatures. Smolts may acclimate to seawater in estuaries before entering the ocean. Coho salmon are the most temperature sensitive of the three salmonids in the Russian River watershed and require permanent cool clean water for spawning and rearing young. Optimal juvenile habitat for growth is characterized by temperatures of 12-‐14°C. Coho do not persist in streams where summer temperatures reach 22-‐25°C for extended periods of time or where there are high fluctuations in temperature at the upper end of their tolerance range (Moyle, 2002). Additionally, although coho typically rear in clear streams, some juveniles rear in the freshwater portions of estuaries and lagoons rather than streams (Moyle, 2002), but summer lagoon rearing appears to be rare among coho salmon along the central California coast, probably due to the lower tolerance of the species to high water temperatures compared to steelhead.

Very few coho salmon smolts have been captured in the Estuary during fish monitoring surveys (SCWA 2006, 2010a). A total of 77 smolts have been captured since 2004. Low coho captures in the Estuary are related to their low numbers in the Russian River watershed, but also the timing of Water Agency fish surveys that begin in late-‐May or June when most smolts have already migrated to the ocean. Nearly all smolts are captured during May or early June (SCWA, 2010a). Most smolts seined in the Estuary had a clipped adipose fin indicating a hatchery origin from the Coho Salmon Captive Broodstock Program (SCWA, 2010b).

Oncorhynchus mykiss -‐ Central Valley steelhead. Steelhead range from Russia and Alaska to Baja, Mexico. The Russian River once supported the third most productive watershed for steelhead in California (Moyle 2002). Although steelhead have declined, wild steelhead continue to occur throughout most of the Russian River basin and spawn in the upper mainstem and numerous tributaries and are the most abundant and widespread of the ESA-‐listed species in the Russian River watershed. Hatchery steelhead raised at the Don Clauson Fish Hatchery are stocked in the Russian River and tributaries to mitigate for the loss of habitat upstream of Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino. Steelhead/rainbow trout are adapted to a variety of habitats and show considerable flexibility in life history patterns. Fish that spend their adult life in the ocean and migrate to freshwater streams to spawn (i.e., anadromous) are called steelhead, while fish that spend their entire life cycle in freshwater streams (i.e., resident fish) are called rainbow trout. Steelhead in the ocean take advantage of the abundance of food and can grow up to 70 cm in length. Rainbow trout have limited food resources and reach maturity at much smaller sizes. Adult steelhead migrate from the ocean during winter to natal freshwater streams were they spawn. Adults may spawn up to 4 times in their life. Juvenile steelhead, called parr or smolts, spend 1 or 2 years rearing in freshwater streams or estuaries before entering the ocean where they mature. Because of the broad plasticity in this species life history, there are intermediate or differing patterns for steelhead that take advantage of local conditions.



Due to the distribution of the species and plasticity of life history, water temperature requirements for steelhead vary in the literature (SCWA, 2008). Optimal summer water temperatures for steelhead in California range from approximately 10 to 15°C. A useful criterion for determining habitat suitability based on the available literature suggests that average daily temperatures should be less than 20°C and daily maximum temperatures should be less than 24°C to allow acceptable steelhead/rainbow trout growth (Bell, 1973; Barnhardt, 1986). The 20°C criterion represents a water temperature below which reasonable growth of steelhead/rainbow trout may be expected. Data in the literature suggest that temperatures above 21.5°C result in no net growth or a loss of condition in rainbow trout and a reduced capacity for respiration (Barnhardt, 1986). The upper incipient lethal temperature for steelhead/rainbow trout is approximately 24°C (75°F; Bell, 1973; Barnhardt, 1986). In general, salmonids in warmer waters require more food and oxygen because their metabolism increases with temperature (Moyle, 2002). In the absence of more definitive data on the thermal tolerance of steelhead, the thermal tolerance criteria (frequency of average daily temperatures greater than 20°C, and frequency of maximum daily temperatures greater than 24°C) should not be used as absolute thermal thresholds, but rather represent general guidelines for assessing the biological significance of water temperature conditions. However, steelhead have been documented in habitat with temperatures ranging from 0°C in winter to as high as 26-‐27°C in summer (Moyle, 2002). Temperatures greater then 23°C can become lethal if acclimation is not gradual. Even with acclimation, temperatures between 24-‐27°C are typically lethal other than for short exposures (Moyle, 2002).

The seasonal abundance of steelhead varies annually, but is usually highest in May and decreases in succeeding summer months. The spatial distribution of steelhead varies greatly. Most age 0+ steelhead are typically captured in the upper and middle Estuary (fresh and brackish water) during May and June (SCWA, 2010b). Few steelhead are captured in the lower Estuary during this period. Conversely, from July to September most steelhead are captured in the middle and lower Estuary (brackish and marine salinity conditions). Steelhead have rarely been captured at the two lower sample stations (River Mouth and Penny Island) during all survey years (SCWA, 2010b).

Recent research by Bond et al. (2008) has specifically attributed the importance of estuarine lagoon rearing to the survival of returning adult steelhead. Steelhead reared in a lagoon were shown to be significantly larger for all years studied than juveniles migrating directly to the ocean in spring (Bond et al., 2008). Lagoon residents were consistently larger than downstream migrants who spent little time rearing in lagoons. Size-‐selective survival is the largest determinant in driving which individuals contribute to the adult population. Steelhead smolts experience a strong size-‐selective mortality in the marine environment (that is, smaller individuals have a lower probability of survival). Bond et al. (2008) demonstrate a survival advantage for larger lagoon-‐reared individuals and over 95% of returning adults were lagoon-‐reared. These patterns of growth and ocean survival are driven by the difference in growth rates between productive estuary/lagoon waters and the relatively oligotrophic upstream habitat (Bond et al., 2008). There is strong evidence of the importance of lagoon habitat as a nursery to coastal California steelhead populations (Bond et al., 2008; Smith, 1990, NMFS, 2008) demonstrating the importance of lagoons in producing larger smolts that contribute to the majority of the adult population.



Oncorhynchus tshawytscha -‐ California coastal Chinook salmon. Russian River Chinook salmon follow the life history pattern of fall-‐run Chinook salmon, which is an adaptation to avoid summer high water temperatures. Fall-‐run adult salmon migrate from the ocean to spawn in the main channels of rivers and large tributaries in late summer and fall, and die soon after spawning. Fry emerge in spring and move downstream within a few months. Young Chinook salmon may rear in the mainstem of rivers or estuaries during spring before water temperatures increase in the summer. Estuary-‐reared juvenile Chinook salmon may grow to a larger size than river-‐reared fish, which is likely to improve their chances for ocean survival and return (McKeon, 1985; cited in Entrix, 2004). Once accustomed to saltwater, smolts emigrate out to sea where they spend between 1 and 5 years maturing before returning to their natal stream to spawn and complete their lifecycle. Upstream migration from the ocean to spawn in the mainstem of the Russian River and tributaries occurs from the last week in August through December (primarily October through November). Spawning begins in November and likely continues through early January, when the salmon die after spawning.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Proposed Action includes the provision to cross the six creek/drainage crossings which could result in potentially significant erosion and siltation which could affect these species in the Russian River. As a result, construction activities associated with crossing these creeks could have potential significant adverse effects on these fisheries. However, with implementation of the following mitigation measures, the Proposed Action is not likely to have a direct or indirect adverse impact on these species.

• Avoid cutting through the creeks. As described in the Proposed Action description, all of the creek crossings will be crossed by using trenchless construction techniques in the dry season. Specifically, no pipeline construction activities shall occur between December 1 and May 31 (a work window identified by the National Marine Fisheries Service), which is the period when adult and juvenile salmonids are likely to occur in the Russian River. Construction crews shall avoid entering the stream channels during installation.

• Implement Construction Best Management Practices. To reduce potentially significant erosion and siltation, the City and/or its selected contractor(s) shall obtain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) and implement Best Management Practices and erosion control measures as required by the North Coast RWQCB. Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and siltation shall include, at a minimum, the following measures: Avoidance of construction activities during inclement weather; limitation of construction access routes and stabilization of access points; stabilization of cleared, excavated areas by providing vegetative buffer strips, providing plastic coverings, and applying ground base on areas to be paved; protection of adjacent properties by installing sediment barriers or filters, or vegetative buffer strips; stabilization and prevention of sediments from surface runoff from discharging into storm drain outlets; use of sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated by dewatering; and



returning all drainages to preconstruction conditions. Construction crews shall avoid entering the stream channels during installation.

• Develop and Implement a Frac-‐Out Contingency Plan for Trenchless Construction Activities. For trenchless construction activities that use drilling lubricants, the City or its contractor shall prepare and implement a frac-‐out contingency plan that is intended to minimize the potential for a frac-‐out associated with tunneling activities; provide for the timely detection of frac-‐outs; and ensure an organized, timely, and “minimum-‐impact” response in the event of a frac-‐out and release of drilling lubricant (i.e., bentonite). The contingency plan will require, at a minimum, the following measures.

o Trenchless construction activities to be conducted during a work window identified

by the National Marine Fisheries Service when adult and juvenile salmonids are not present in the project area (June 1 through November 30).

o A full-‐time monitor will attend all drilling to look for observable frac-‐out conditions or lowered pressure readings on drilling equipment. If a frac-‐out is identified, all work will stop, including the recycling of drilling lubricant. In the event of a frac-‐out into water, the pressure of water above the tunnel will keep excess mud from escaping through the fracture. The location and extent of the frac-‐out will be determined, and the frac-‐out will be monitored for 4 hours to determine whether the drilling lubricant congeals (bentonite will usually harden, effectively sealing the frac-‐out location).

o If the drilling lubricant congeals, no other actions will be taken that would potentially suspend sediments in the water column.

o Surface releases of bentonite will be allowed to harden and then will be removed.

o The contingency plan will identify additional measures to be taken to contain or remove the drilling lubricant if it does not congeal.



Cumulative Effects

The Proposed Action is unlikely to have significant cumulative effects on this species or its supporting habitat. No other known development is currently planned in the Proposed Action Study Area that would remove or further degrade habitat in the Russian River within the vicinity of Proposed Action Area. In addition, the Proposed Action would also not have any long-‐term effects to habitat quality in the region after construction is complete.


The Proposed Action is considered to be an action that has independent utility apart from other Projects in City and Ukiah Valley and would not have any additional adverse interrelated effects on this species or its supporting habitat.

4.2.6 Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands

The following is a summary of the potential to affect water of the United States, including wetlands.

Overview

Seasonal Wetland/Vernal pools

The Proposed Action would be constructed on paved roads and on existing agricultural services roads in agricultural fields that are highly disturbed areas. As a result, there are no known seasonal wetlands and/or vernal pools that would be affected by the Proposed Action.

Other Waters of the U.S.

The Proposed Action would cross six ephemeral creeks/drainages that lead to the Russian River and would be considered Other Waters of the U.S.

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Proposed Action could have an adverse effect on six (6) creek/drainage crossings that may meet the USACE criteria for Waters of the U.S. and any fill or degradation to these channels could significantly impact water quality or habitat for protected species. Specifically, any activity which results in the deposit of dredge or fill material within the Ordinary High Water mark of Waters of the U.S. typically requires a permit from the (Corps). In addition, the bed and banks of the creeks and drainage channels could also fall under the regulatory authority of the CDFW. However, as stated in Section 2, Project Description, all of the creek/drainage crossings will involve the use of trenchless construction techniques in the dry season and not involve cutting through or disturbing the creeks.

Excavation, grading, and other general construction activities associated with the Proposed Action could expose and disturb soils, resulting in potential increases in erosion and siltation in the Project area. Construction during the rainy season could result in increases in erosion, siltation, and water quality



issues. Generally, excavation, grading, paving, and other construction activities could expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion by wind and runoff. Construction activities could therefore result in increased erosion and siltation, including nutrient loading and increasing the total suspended solids concentration. Erosion and siltation from construction have the potential to impact the creeks and drainage crossings, therefore posing a potentially significant impact to wetlands and waters of the U.S.

Implementation of the following precautionary mitigation measures would reduce and minimize these impacts so as to not adversely affect.

• Obtain all Required Authorizations. Prior to issuance of encroachment permits for the Proposed Action, the City shall, as necessary, obtain all required authorization from agencies with jurisdiction over riparian habitats and jurisdictional wetlands in the area. Such agencies may include, but are not limited to, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Mendocino County Regional Water Quality Control Board. Impacted habitat shall be offset through onsite restoration, offsite restoration, or purchase of credits at a CDFW and/or USFWS-‐approved mitigation bank in the region at no less than a 1:1 ratio. The requirements of this mitigation measure do not apply if pipeline installation activities completely avoid work within the bed, bank, or channel of the creeks and/or drainages.

• Develop and Implement a Frac-‐Out Contingency Plan for Trenchless Construction Activities. For trenchless construction activities that use drilling lubricants, the City or its contractor shall prepare and implement a frac-‐out contingency plan that is intended to minimize the potential for a frac-‐out associated with tunneling activities; provide for the timely detection of frac-‐outs; and ensure an organized, timely, and “minimum-‐impact” response in the event of a frac-‐out and release of drilling lubricant (i.e., bentonite). The contingency plan will require, at a minimum, the following measures.

o A full-‐time monitor will attend all drilling to look for observable frac-‐out conditions or lowered pressure readings on drilling equipment. If a frac-‐out is identified, all work will stop, including the recycling of drilling lubricant. In the event of a frac-‐out into water, the pressure of water above the tunnel will keep excess mud from escaping through the fracture. The location and extent of the frac-‐out will be determined, and the frac-‐out will be monitored for 4 hours to determine whether the drilling lubricant congeals (bentonite will usually harden, effectively sealing the frac-‐out location).

o If the drilling lubricant congeals, no other actions will be taken that would potentially

suspend sediments in the water column.

o Surface releases of bentonite will be allowed to harden and then will be removed.

o The contingency plan will identify additional measures to be taken to contain or remove the drilling lubricant if it does not congeal.



• Avoid cutting through the creeks. As described in the Proposed Action description in Section 2,

all creek crossings will be crossed by installing the pipelines on the side of the bridge and above the channel. Construction crews shall avoid entering the stream channels during installation. With these mitigation measures in place, the Proposed Action is unlikely to have a direct and/or indirect adverse effect on this species or its supporting habitat. Once constructed, the operation and maintenance of the Proposed Action will not adversely affect this species.

• Implement Best Management Practices. To reduce potentially significant erosion and siltation, the City and/or its selected contractor(s) shall obtain a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit (SWPPP) and implement Best Management Practices and erosion control measures as required by the North Coast RWQCB. Best Management Practices to reduce erosion and siltation shall include, at a minimum, the following measures: Avoidance of construction activities during inclement weather; limitation of construction access routes and stabilization of access points; stabilization of cleared, excavated areas by providing vegetative buffer strips, providing plastic coverings, and applying ground base on areas to be paved; protection of adjacent properties by installing sediment barriers or filters, or vegetative buffer strips; stabilization and prevention of sediments from surface runoff from discharging into storm drain outlets; use of sediment controls and filtration to remove sediment from water generated by dewatering; and returning all drainages to preconstruction conditions. Construction crews shall avoid entering the stream channels during installation.

Cumulative Effects

The Proposed Action is unlikely to have significant cumulative effects on riparian habitat and/or jurisdictional wetlands. No other known development is currently planned in the Proposed Action Area that would remove or further degrade riparian habitat and/or jurisdictional wetlands within the vicinity of Proposed Action Area. In addition, the Proposed Action would not have any long-‐term effects to riparian habitat and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the region as once construction is complete.


The Proposed Action is considered to be an action that has independent utility apart from other Projects in the City and in the unincorporated area in Ukiah Valley of Mendocino County and would not have any adverse interdependent and/or interrelated effects on riparian habitat and/or jurisdictional wetlands.



Section 5 Determination of Effects

This section provides a summary and makes a determination as to the potential for the Proposed Action to affect state and federally listed species. The Proposed Action would not adversely affect state or federal special status species after the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures and strategies.

5.1 No Effect Through the course of this study and analysis, it is our determination that the Proposed Action will not affect the following state and/or federally listed species:

Plant Species • Arabis macdonaldiana (FE) McDonald’s rock-‐cress • Arenaria paludicola (FE) marsh sandwort • Chorizanthe howellii (FE) Howell’s spineflower • Eriogonum kelloggii (FC) Red Mountain (=kellogg’s) buckwheat • Erysimum mensiesii (includes ssp. Yadonii) (FE) Menzies’s wallflower • Howellia aquatillis (FT) water howellia • Lasthenia burkei Burke’s goldfields • Lasthenia conjugens (FX) Critical habitat, Contra Costa goldfields • Navarretia leucocephala (ssp. pauciflora) (FE) few-‐flowered navarretia • Navarretia leucocephala (ssp. pileantha) (FE) many-‐flowered navarretia • Orcuttia tenuis (FT) slender Orcutt grass • Orcuttia tenuis (FX) Critical habitat, slender Orcutt grass • Sedum eastwoodiae (FC) Red Mountain stonecrop

Mammals • Aplodontia rufa nigra (FE) Point Arena mountain beaver • Eumetopias jubatus (FT) Steller (=northern) sea-‐lion • Martes pennanti) (C) fisher

Birds • Brachyramphus marmoratus (FT) (FX) Marbeled Murrelet • Charadrius alexandrines nivosus (FT) western snowy plover • Diomedea albatrus (FE) short-‐tailed albatross • Pelecanus occidentalis Californicus (FE) California brown pelicanReptiles

• Caretta caretta (FT) (NMFS) loggerhead turtle • Chelonia mydas (includes agassizi) (FT) (NMFS) green turtle • Dermochelys coriacea (FE) (NMFS) leatherback turtle • Lepidochelys olivacea (FT) (NMFS) olive (=pacific) ridley sea turtle

Amphibians • Rana draytonii (FT) (FX) California red-‐legged frog



Invertebrates • Branchinecta conservation (FE) Conservancy fairy shrimp • Lycaeides argyrognomon (FE) Lotis blue butterfly • Speyeria zerene behrensii (FE) Behren’s silverspot butterfly • Syncaris pacifica California freshwater shrimp

Fish • None

5.2 Potential to Affect, But Not Likely to Adversely Affect Through the course of this study and analysis, it is our determination that the Proposed Action could affect, but with the incorporation of the identified mitigation measures in Section 4, would not adversely affect the following federally-‐listed species:

Plants • None

Mammals • None

Reptiles • None

Birds • Coccyzus americanus occidentalis (FT) Western yellow-‐billed cuckoo • Strix occidenallis caurina (FT) northern spotted owl

Invertebrates

• None

Fish • Oncorhynchus kisutch (FE) FX) Central California coast coho salmon • Oncorhynchus mykiss (FT) (FX) Central Valley/Coastal steelhead • Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (FT) (FX) California coastal Chinook salmon



Section 6 Bibliography • California Natural Diversity Database. 2015. • U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list database and Wetland Tracker. 2015 • Allen, S., D.G. Ainley, L. Fancher, and D. Shuford. 1987a. Movement and activity patterns of

harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) from the Drakes Estero population, California, 1985-1986. Report to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA Technical Memoranda Series NOS/MEMD 6. August 1987.

• Allen, S., J.F. Penniman, and D. Ainley. 1987b. Movement and activity patterns of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) from the Drakes Estero population, California, 1986-1987. Annual report to the Marine and Estuarine Division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. December 1987.

• American Ornithologists' Union, Check-list of North American birds, 7th ed. Am. Ornithol. Union, Washington, D. C., 1998.

• Anderson, D. W. and F. Gress. 1984. Status of a northern population of California Brown Pelicans. Condor 85:79-88.

• Barbour, M. G, T. Keeler-Wolf, and A. A. Schoenherr, Terrestrial Vegetation of California, Third Edition, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA., 2007.

• Beedy, E. C. and W. J. Hamilton III, Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), in The Birds of North America, No. 423 (A Poole and F. Gills, eds.), The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA, 1999.

• Beedy, E. C. and W. J. Hamilton III, Tricolored blackbird status update and management guidelines, Jones & Stokes Associated, Inc. (JSA 97-099), Sacramento, CA, prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR and California Department of Fish and Game, 1997.

• Bolster, B. C. 2005. Species accounts: Lasiurus blossevillii, western red bat. Western Bat Working Group. Available at: http://wbwg.org/species_accounts.htm#LABL.

• Briggs, K. T., W. B. Tyler, D. B. Lewis, and D. R. Carlson. 1987. Bird communities at sea off California: 1975 to 1984. Studies in Avian Biology 11.

• Bulger, J. B., N. J. Scott, Jr., and R. B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of adult California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) in coastal forests and grasslands. Biological Conservation 110:85-95.

• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2008. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships: (CWHR Version 8.2). CDFG Natural Heritage Division. Rancho Cordova, CA.

• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. State of California, The Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database, July 2009. Special Animals (883 taxa). Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/cnddb/pdfs/spanimals.pdf.

• California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010. Rarefind 4.1, California Natural Diversity Database. Records for Arched Rock, Duncans Mills, Camp Mecker, Guerniville, Fort Ross, Bodega Head, and Valley Ford quadrangles. Electronic database. Sacramento, CA.

• California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks), Sonoma Coast State Park Final General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, May 2007.



• California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2010. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-10b). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Available at: http://www.cnps.org/inventory.

• Desmond J. S, Deutschman D. H, and J. B. Zeuler. 2002. Spatial and Temporal Variation in Estuarine Fish and Assemblages: Analysis of an 11-year Data Set. Estuaries Vol. 25, No. 4A, p. 552-569.

• Essig Museum of Entomology, 2006, University of California, Berkeley, California’s Endangered Insects. http://essig.berkeley.edu/endins/listed.htm.

• Federal Register. 1970a. 50 CFR Part 17, 8491-8498. Conservation of endangered species and other fish or wildlife (First list of endangered foreign fish and wildlife as Appendix A). June 2, 1970 (Volume 35).

• Federal Register. 1970b. 50 CFR Part 17, 16047-16048. Appendix D – United States list of endangered native fish and wildlife. October 13, 1970 (Volume 35).

• Federal Register. 1988. 50 CFR Part 17, 43884-43889. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of endangered status for the California freshwater shrimp. October 31, 1988 (Volume 53 Number 210).

• Federal Register. 1992a. 50 CFR Part 17, 27848-27858. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; six plants and Myrtle’s silverspot butterfly from coastal dunes in Northern and Central California determined to be endangered. June 22, 1992 (Volume 57).

• Federal Register. 1992b. 50 CFR Part 17, 45328-45337. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the Washington, Oregon, and California population of the marbled murrelet. October 1, 1992 (Volume 57 Number 191).

• Federal Register. 1996a. 50 CFR Part 17, 25813-25834. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the California red-legged frog. May 23, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 101).

• Federal Register. 1996b. 50 CFR Part 17, 26356-26320. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final designation of critical habitat for the marbled murrelet. May 24, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 102).

• Federal Register. 1997. 50 CFR Part 17, 64306-64320. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of endangered status for the Callippe silverspot Butterfly and the Behren’s silverspot Butterfly and threatened status for the Alameda whipsnake. December 5, 1997 (Volume 62 Number 234).

• Federal Register. 1999. 50 CFR Part 17, 46542-46558. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to remove the American peregrine falcon from the federal list of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and to remove the similarity of appearance provision for free-flying peregrines in the conterminous United States. August 25, 1999 (Volume 64 Number 164).

• Federal Register. 2010. 50 CFR Part 17, 12815-12959. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: revised designation of critical habitat for California red-legged frog; Final Rule. March 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 51).

• Hamilton, W. J., III, L. Cook, and R. Grey. Tricolored blackbird project 1994, Unpublished Report, prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR, 1995.



• Hamilton, W. J., Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), in The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California, California Partners in Flight, Available at: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmlodocs/riparian_v-2.html. 2004.

• Hanson, L., Russian River Estuary Study of Pinniped Report, prepared for the Russian River Estuary Study 1992-1993, 1993.

• Heckel, M., Russian River Estuary Study, 1992-1993, Prepared for Sonoma County Department of Planning and California State Coastal Conservancy, 1994.

• Holland, R. F., 1986, Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Nongame Heritage Program, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

• Jaques, D. L., Range expansion and roosting ecology of non-breeding California brown pelicans. Master's Thesis. Univ. of California, Davis. 1994.

• Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes, Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California, Final Report submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Contract No. 8023, 1994

• Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes, Habitat correlates of distribution of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): Implications for management, in: Sarzo, R., K. E. Severson, and D. R. Patton, (technical coordinators). Proceedings of the symposium on the management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America, USDA, Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166, Pp. 144-158, 1988.

• Jennings, M. R., M. P. Hayes, and D. C. Holland, A petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to place the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) on the list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, 1992.

• Klute, D. S., L. W. Ayers, M. T. Green, W. H. Howe, S. L. Jones, J. A. Shaffer, S. R. Sheffield, and T. S. Zimmerman, Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Western Burrowing Owl in the United States, U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Technical Publication FWS/BTP R6001-2003, 2003, Washington, D.C.

• Madrone Audubon Society, Inc., Sonoma County Breeding Bird Atlas, 1995.

• Martini-Lamb, Jessica, Sonoma County Water Agencey, written correspondence, September 21,

2010.

• Mathews, E.A and J. Driscoll, Disturbance of harbor seals (Phoca vitulina) and potential effects on counts from aerial surveys, Glacier Bay National Park, 1991-1999, prepared for: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Resource Management Division, 2001.



• Merritt Smith Consulting, Biological and Water Quality Monitoring in the Russian River Estuary, 1996, Annual Report, February 21, 1997.

• Merritt Smith Consulting, Biological and Water Quality Monitoring in the Russian River Estuary, 1997, Second Annual Report, February 5, 1998.

• Merritt Smith Consulting, Biological and Water Quality Monitoring in the Russian River Estuary, 1998, Third Annual Report, March 15, 1999.

• Merritt Smith Consulting, Biological and Water Quality Monitoring in the Russian River Estuary, 1999, Fourth Annual Report, March 24, 2000.

• Mortenson, J. 1996. Human interference with harbor seals at Jenner, California, 1994-1995. Prepared for Stewards of Slavianka and Sonoma Coast State Beaches, Russian River/Mendocino Park District. July 11. 1996.

• Mortenson, J. and E. Twohy. 1994. Harbor seals at Jenner, California, 1974-1993. Prepared for Prepared for Stewards of Slavianka and Sonoma Coast State Beach, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Duncans Mills, CA.

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Biological Opinion for Water Supply, Flood Control Operations, and Channel Maintenance conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Sonoma County Water Agency, and the Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation District in the Russian River Watershed¸ September 24, 2008.

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA), March 30, 2010. 2010c.

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris). http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/harborseal.htm, accessed August 3, 2010. 2010a.

• National Marine Fisheries Service, Harbor Seal (Phoca vitulina). http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/harborseal.htm, accessed August 3, 2010. 2010b

• Prunuske Chatham, Inc., Willow Creek Watershed Management Plan, March 2005.

• Remsen, Jr. J. V. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California, double-crested cormorant: California Department of Fish and Game.

• Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens, A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition, 2009.



• Seltenrich, C., and A. Pool, A standardized approach for habitat assessments and visual

encounter surveys for the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2002.

• Shaffer, H. B., G. M. Fellers, S. R. Voss, J. C. Olivers, G. B. Pauly. 2004. Species boundaries, phylogeography and conservation genetics of the red-legged frog (Rana aurora/draytonii) complex. Molecular Ecology 13:2667-2677.

• Sherwin, R. 1998. Species accounts: Antrozous pallidus, pallid bat. Western Bat Working Group. Available at: http://wbwg.org/species_accounts/species_accounts.html. Accessed February 1, 2008.

• Shuford, W.D., and Gardali, T., editors. California bird Species of Special Concerns: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California, Studies of Western Birds 1, Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, 2008.

• Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and Circuit Rider Productions, A guide to restoring native riparian habitat in the Russian River Watershed, Circuit Rider Productions, Inc., 1998.

• Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and Merritt Smith Consulting, Biological and Water Quality Monitoring in the Russian River Estuary, 2000, Fifth Annual Report, June 12, 2001.

• Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods, Russian River Estuary Management Activities – Pinniped Monitoring Plan, prepared by Jessica Martini-Lamb, Sonoma County Water Agency, and Michele Luna and Joe Mortenson, Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods, September 9, 2009a.

• Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods (Stewards) and Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Harbor Seals at Jenner and at Peripheral Sites, Presentation, April 2010a.

• Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Request for Marine Mammal Protection Act Incidental Harassment Authorization: Russian River Estuary Management Activities, July 2009.

• Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Russian River Estuary Fish and Macro-Invertebrate Studies, 2005, prepared by David Cook, July 2006.

• Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Russian River Estuary Sandbar Breaching Monitoring Plan, 2005, prepared by Jessica Martini-Lamb, Jeff Church, David Cook, Josh Fuller, and David Manning, September 2005.

• Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Russian River Estuary Management Activities, Pinniped Monitoring at Jenner Haulout Counts, unpublished data and photographs, July 1, 2010b.



• Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Vegetation Mapping Dataset, unpublished, 2010c.

• Stebbins, Robert C. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 3rd Edition. Houghton

Mifflin Company, 2003.

• Sturm, K. 1998. From summer range to home range? Endangered Species Bull. 23(5):22-24.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California brown pelican recovery plan, Portland, Oregon, 1983.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica) recovery plan, Portland, Oregon, 1998.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Federally endangered and threatened species that occur in or may be affected by projects in U.S.G.S. 7 ½ minute quads for Duncans Mills and Arched Rock, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento District office database. Available at: http://www.fws,gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/auto_list.cfm. Accessed June 29, 2010.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Recovery plan for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon, 2002.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Recovery plan for the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), California/Nevada Operations Office, 2007.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California, Portland, Oregon, 203 pp. 1997.

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl, Strix occidentalis caurina, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xii + 142 pp., 2008.

• Van Wagner, T. J., Selected life-history and ecological aspects of a population of foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii)from Clear Creek, Nevada County, California. Master’s Thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Chico, CA. 1996.

• Warner, R. E., and K. M. Hendrix, California Riparian Systems, Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA., 1984.

• Whitlow, T.H., Flood Tolerance in Plants: A State of the Art Review. Technical Report E-79-2, prepared for: Office, Chief of Engineers; U.S. Army, Washington, D.C.



• Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds., California's Wildlife. Vol I: Amphibians and Reptiles. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 1988.

• Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds., California's Wildlife. Vol. II: Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 1990a.

• Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds., California's Wildlife. Vol. III: Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 1990b.

• Barnhart, R.A., Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) - steelhead., U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Rep. 82(11.60), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. 21, pp, 1986.

• Behrens, D.K., Coastal and Oceanography Group, UC Davis/Bodega Marine Laboratory, UC Davis/Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, email communication and dissemination of data, November 23, 2010.

• Bell, M.C., Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon, Contract No. DACW57-68-C- 0086. 425 pp, 1973.

• Bond, M. H., S. A. Hayes, C. V. Hanson, and R. B. MacFarlane, Marine survival of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) enhanced by a seasonally closed estuary, Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 65:2242–2252.

• Cook, D. G., S. d. Chase, S. J. Manning. 2010. Distribution and ecology of the Russian River tule perch. California Fish and Game Journal 96:50-68.

• Department of Fish and Game (DFG). 2009. Longfin smelt fact sheet. DFG June, 2009. Accessed online November 30, 2010 at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/delta/data/longfinsmelt/documents/LongfinsmeltFactSheet_July09.pdf

• D.W. Alley & Associates, 2004 Soquel Creek Lagoon Management and Enhancement Plan Update, Prepared by Alley, D.W., K. Lyons, S. Chartrand and Y. Sherman, Prepared for the City of Capitola, Project # 192-01. June, 2004.

• D.W. Alley & Associates, 2010, Soquel Creek Lagoon Monitoring Report – 2009. Prepared by D.W. Alley & Associates. Prepared for the City of Capitola. Project #106-19. January, 2010.

• Environmental Data Solutions (EDS), 2009. Lower Russian River Bathymetric Analysis, Draft, October 2009, Methods Procedures, and Results, November 2009.



• Entrix, Russian River Biological Assessment, Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, San Francisco, California, and Sonoma County Water Agency Santa Rosa, California. Entrix, September 29, 2004.

• Goodwin, P., C.K. Cuffe, J.L. Nielsen, T. Light, and M. Heckel, Russian River Estuary Study 1992-1993, 1993.

• Habitat Restoration Group, Soquel Creek Lagoon Management and Enhancement Plan, Prepared by The Habitat Restoration Group, Prepared for the City of Capitola, 1990.

• Largier, J. and D. Behrens, Preliminary Study of Russian River Estuary: Circulation and Water Quality Monitoring -2009 Data Report, Report to Sonoma County Water Agency, Bodega Marine Laboratory, University of California Davis, February 2010.

• Merritt Smith Consulting. 2000. Biological and Water Quality Monitoring in the Russian River Estuary, 1999. Fourth Annual Report. 24 March, 2000.

• Moyle, P. B., Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2002.

• Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish species of special concern in California, second edition. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, CA.

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Biological Opinion (BO) for Water Supply, Flood Control Operations, and Channel Maintenance conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Sonoma County Water Agency, and Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation District in the Russian River Watershed, NMFS, Southwest Region, 2008.

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Recommendations for Water Supply, Flood Control Operations, and Channel Maintenance conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Sonoma County Water Agency, and Mendocino County Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation District in the Russian River Watershed. NMFS, Southwest Region, 2008.

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Environmental Assessment for the Issuance of Incidental Take Authorizations to the Sonoma County Water Agency for Russian River Estuary Management Activities, March, 2010.

• Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd., Russian River Outlet Channel Adaptive Management Plan, Prepared for Sonoma County Water Agency, Prepared by Philip Williams & Associates, Ltd. With Bodega Marine Laboratory, University of California at Davis, April 1, 2010.

• SCWA and Merritt Smith Consulting. 2001.



• Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Russian River Estuary Sandbar Breaching Monitoring Plan, September, 2005.

• Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Russian River Estuary Sandbar Breaching 2005 Monitoring Report. July, 2006.

• Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Water Supply, Transmission, and Reliability Project (Water Project), Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 2008.

• Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), 2010a, Estuary Fisheries Report, February 2010.

• Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), Russian River Estuary Sandbar Breaching 2009 Monitoring Report, 2010b.

• Smith, J.J. The effects of the sandbar formation and inflows on aquatic habitat and fish utilization in Pescadero, San Gregorio, Wadell, and Pomponio creek estuary/lagoon systems, 1985-1989. Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose, California, 1990.

Attachment A Federally-‐Listed Species List for the City of Ukiah’s Recycled Water Project

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605

Sacramento, California 95825

April 2, 2015

Document Number: 150402052437

Steve BrownSMB Environmental Inc.P.O. Box 381Roseville, CA 95661

Subject: Species List for City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Dear: Mr. Brown

We are sending this official species list in response to your April 2, 2015 request for information about endangered andthreatened species. The list covers the California counties and/or U.S. Geological Survey 7½ minute quad or quads yourequested.

Our database was developed primarily to assist Federal agencies that are consulting with us. Therefore, our lists includeall of the sensitive species that have been found in a certain area and also ones that may be affected by projects in thearea . For example, a fish may be on the list for a quad if it lives somewhere downstream from that quad. Birds areincluded even if they only migrate through an area. In other words, we include all of the species we want people toconsider when they do something that affects the environment.

Please read Important Information About Your Species List (below). It explains how we made the list and describesyour responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.

Our database is constantly updated as species are proposed, listed and delisted. If you address proposed and candidatespecies in your planning, this should not be a problem. However, we recommend that you get an updated list every 90days. That would be July 01, 2015.

Please contact us if your project may affect endangered or threatened species or if you have any questions about theattached list or your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. A list of Endangered Species Program contactscan be found http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Branch-Contacts/es_branch-contacts.htm.

Endangered Species Division

Appendix C - Biological Resources Investigation Report

Documents

Transcript of Appendix C - Biological Resources Investigation Report