Appendix C - Biological Resources Investigation Report

R
e
c
y
c
l
e
dW
a
t
e
r
PROJECT
Federally-Listed Biological
Resources Investigation
Report
April 2015
Federally-Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

Federally-Listed Biological Resources
Investigation Report
City of Ukiah
Recycled Water Project
Prepared by:
SMB Environmental, Inc.
April 2015
City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project
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 Boards 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
April 2015

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
April 2015
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 Ukiahs Recycled Water Project
April 2015
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 Ukiahs (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 Citys 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 Interiors
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)
Arenaria paludicola (FE)
Chorizanthe howellii (FE)
McDonalds rock-cress
marsh sandwort
Howells spineflower
April 2015

Red Mountain (=kelloggs) buckwheat

Menziess wallflower
water howellia
Burkes goldfields
Critical habitat, Contra Costa goldfields
few-flowered navarretia
many-flowered navarretia
slender Orcutt grass
Critical habitat, slender Orcutt grass
Red Mountain stonecrop
Point Arena mountain beaver

Steller (=northern) sea-lion
fisher
Marbeled Murrelet
western snowy plover
Western yellow-billed cuckoo
short-tailed albatross
California brown pelican
northern spotted owl
Reptiles
Caretta caretta (FT) (NMFS)

Chelonia mydas (includes agassizi) (FT) (NMFS)
Dermochelys coriacea (FE) (NMFS)

Lepidochelys olivacea (FT) (NMFS)

loggerhead turtle
green turtle
leatherback turtle
olive (=pacific) ridley sea turtle
Amphibians
Rana draytonii (FT) (FX)
California red-legged frog
Invertebrates
Branchinecta conservation (FE)
Lycaeides argyrognomon (FE)
Speyeria zerene behrensii (FE)
Syncaris pacifica

Conservancy fairy shrimp

Lotis blue butterfly
Behrens silverspot butterfly
California freshwater shrimp
Central California coast coho salmon

Central Valley/Coastal steelhead
California coastal Chinook salmon
Eriogonum kelloggii (FC)

Erysimum mensiesii (includes ssp. Yadonii) (FE)
Howellia aquatillis (FT)

Lasthenia burkei

Lasthenia conjugens (FX)

Navarretia leucocephala (ssp. pauciflora) (FE)
Navarretia leucocephala (ssp. pileantha) (FE)
Orcuttia tenuis (FT)

Orcuttia tenuis (FX)

Sedum eastwoodiae (FC)

Mammals
Aplodontia rufa nigra (FE)
Eumetopias jubatus (FT)
Martes pennanti) (C)
Birds
Fish
Brachyramphus marmoratus (FT) (FX)

Charadrius alexandrines nivosus (FT)
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis (FT)
Diomedea albatrus (FE)

Pelecanus occidentalis Californicus (FE)
Strix occidenallis caurina (FT)
Oncorhynchus kisutch (FE) FX)

Oncorhynchus mykiss (FT) (FX)
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (FT) (FX)
April 2015
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 Citys 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 Administrations 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
April 2015
Figure 1 - General Location Map
Proposed Action
1.25
1:144,448
2.5
5 mi
8 km
April 7, 2015
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp.,

GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL,
Author: cnddb_com
Printed from http://bios.dfg.ca.gov

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 Citys 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
April 2015

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 Citys
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 Citys 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.
10
April 2015
Vichy Sp
rings Rd
#
*
#
*
h
Vic
yH
ills
d
ill R
PLSS Boundary
bH
WWTP Facilities
Kno
Ruddick Cunningham Rd
N Main St
Proposed Storage Pond
Rte
Taylor D r
Hwy
#
*
Dr
on Rd
US Hwy 101
Phase 3 and 4 Customers
Phase 2 Customers
Proposed Service Connection
te
Sta
Discharge Location
#
*
Redwood
St
tate
SS
Phase 3 and 4 Pipeline
Phase 2 Pipeline
Talmage Rd State Rte 222
Gielow Ln
Ln
Whitmore
Legend
Phase 1 Customers
Recreati
River R
US Hwy 101
L
gard
Nor
Rd
lle
i
v
on
Bo
Phase 1 Pipeline
Rd
#
*
Toyon R
d
Eunice Ct
#
*
n Ln
Jefferso
st D
#
*
#
*
Laws Ave
re
Firc
#
#*
*
#
*
Airpor t Rd
Beacon Ln
Pomo Dr
Redwood Hwy
Hastings Ave
Wabash Ave
St
#
*
E Gobbi
#
*
Lorraine St
Perry St
S Dora St
Helen Ave
ve
Luce A
Ln
Waugh
Ave
Hillview
Dr
Mendocino
S Orchard Ave
bi S t
E Go b
St
Calvert Dr W Mill S
ins St
t
Leslie S
S Main
ol St S Oak St
S Scho
E Perk
W
at
so
#
*
#
*
Clara Ave
il D
St
t
dley S
W Stan
t
S
rch
W Ch u
y St
W Cla
Redemeyer Rd
Redemeyer Rd
River St
St
Elm
Brush St
Ln
a
Qu
N Oak
Sta
#
*
#
*
# Dora Ave
*
# t Ave
*
Walnu
#
*
Brunner St
Ford St
h St
N Bus
ve
Briggs St
Despina Dr
#Rd
*
A
Maple
ve
yA
nle
Mazzoni St
te St
Ga p
is
Ct
#
# *
*
#
*
# *
#
*
Le
w
ft
Lu
N Sta
#
*
Low
Ford Rd
Empire Dr
253
Howell Creek Rd
#Proposed Storage Pond

#*
*
for Phases 1 and 2
#
*
#
*
O
1,500
Feet
Figure 2
Proposed Action Pipeline
Alignments
3,000 Recycled Water Project, City of Ukiah
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
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
309.2
0.0
94.6
403.8
403.8
210.4
0.0
4.8
215.1
618.9
311.8
22.2
42.3
376.3
995.2
0.0
380.6
0.0
380.6
1,375.8
Total
831.4
402.8
141.7
1,375.8
12
April 2015
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 Citys 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 Citys 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.

13
April 2015

Figure 3 Recycled Water Storage Pond

Table 3
Proposed Pipeline Facilities
Phase
1
1
2
2
Type of Alignment
Diameter
(inches)
16
Ukiah WWTP Site Piping
12
Agricultural Land Service Roads

Phase 1 Subtotal
16
Paved Public Street
16
Phase 2 Subtotal
Length
(feet)
1,300
Length
(miles)
0.25
Construction
Schedule
2015 - 2016
5,600
1.06
2015- 2016
6,900
1.31
2015 - 2016
5,600
1.06
2020 - 2021
4,200
0.80
2020 - 2021
9,800
1.86
2020 - 2021
16
9,000
1.70
2025 - 2026
Paved Public Street
16
4,000
0.76
2025 - 2026
12
400
0.08
2025 - 2026
Paved Public Street
1,000
0.19
2025 - 2026
14,400
2.73
2025 - 2026
Phase 3 Subtotal
4
Paved Public Street
12
4,700
0.89
2031 - 2032
Paved Public Street
13,800
2.61
2031 - 2032
18,500
3.50
2031 - 2032
49,600
9.40
2015 - 2032
Phase 4 Subtotal
Proposed Action Total
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.
14
April 2015
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:
15
April 2015
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 Citys 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 Boards 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
16
April 2015

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.
17
April 2015
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
18
April 2015

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.
19
April 2015

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
20
April 2015

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 44F. 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).
21
April 2015
Figure 4 - Special Status Species in Proposed Action Area
1.25
1:144,448
2.5
5 mi
8 km
November 24, 2014
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
Plant (80m)
Animal (circular)
Aquatic Comm. (non-specific)
Plant (specific)
Terrestrial Comm. (80m)
Aquatic Comm. (circular)
Plant (non-specific)
Terrestrial Comm. (specific)
Multiple (80m)
Plant (circular)
Terrestrial Comm. (non-specific)
Multiple (specific)
Animal (80m)
Terrestrial Comm. (circular)
Multiple (non-specific)
Animal (specific)
Aquatic Comm. (80m)
Multiple (circular)
Animal (non-specific)
Aquatic Comm. (specific)
Sensitive EO's (Commercial only)

Author: cnddb_com
Printed from http://bios.dfg.ca.gov

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

Potential for

Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
Plants
Arabis macdonaldiana
FE/SE/--
Arenaria paludicola
Marsh sandwort
FE/--/--
Chorizanthe howellii
Howells spineflower
FE/--/--
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.
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.
It is endemic to coastal
Mendocino County,
California, where it is
23
Unlikely. Study area

does not provide
suitable habitat.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.

does not provide
suitable habitat.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.

does not provide
suitable habitat.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.
April 2015

Table 4

Potential for

Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
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
FC/SE/--
Red Mountain
No further actions
Red Mountain
buckwheat is only
does not provide
are recommended
buckwheat
known from serpentine suitable habitat.
for this species.
habitat located on Red
Mountain and Little
Red Mountain,
Mendocino County,
California.
Erysimum menziesii
FE/SE/--
Menzies wallflower is
No further actions
Menziess wallflower
known from 16 or more does not provide
are recommended
sites, scattered within
suitable habitat.
for this species.
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
FT/--/--
The plant grows in
No further actions
Water howellia
wetland habitat
does not provide
are recommended
surrounded by forests, suitable habitat.
for this species.
which provide organic
material.
Lasthenia burkei
FE/SE/1B.1 Found in meadows,
No further actions
Burkes goldfields
seeps, and vernal
does not provide
are recommended
pools.
suitable habitat.
for this species.
Lasthenia conjugens
FX/SE/--
Occurs in Napa, Santa
No further actions
Critical Habitat, Contra
Barbara, Solano, Contra does not provide
are recommended
costa goldfields
Costa, Santa Clara,
suitable habitat.
for this species.
Monterey and Alameda
Counties. This annual
herb typically flowers
from March through
June, and its colonies
grow in vernal pool
24
April 2015

Table 4

Potential for

Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
habitats at elevations
not exceeding 100
meters above sea level.
Navarretia leucocephala FE/--/1B.1
Found in cismontane
No further actions
ssp. pauciflora
woodland, lower
does not provide
are recommended
Few-flowered navarretia
elevation montane
suitable habitat.
for this species.
coniferous forests,
meadows, seeps, valley
and foothill grasslands,
and vernal pools.
Navarretia leucocephala FE/--/1B.1
It is native to North
No further actions
ssp. plieantha
America, including
does not provide
are recommended
Many-flowered
much of the western
suitable habitat.
for this species.
navarretia
United States and
central Canada. It
generally grows in wet
or moist terrestrial
habitat such as vernal
pools.
Orcuttia tenuis
FX/--/--
Associated with vernal Unlikely. Study area
No further actions
Slender Orcutt grass
pools. Plants sprout
does not provide
are recommended
Critical habitat, slender
when the while pools
suitable habitat.
for this species.
Orcutt grass
are full but grow and
flower after the pool
bed has dried.
Sedum eastwoodiae
FC/FE/--
The entire known
No further actions
distribution of Red
does not provide
are recommended
Mountain stonecrop
suitable habitat.
for this species.
occurs in the vicinity of
Red Mountain, near the
town of Leggett,
Mendocino County,
California.
Mammals
Aplodontia rufa nigra
FE/CSC/--
Is only found within a
No further actions
Point Arena mountain
24-square mile area in
does not provide
are recommended
beaver
western Mendocino
suitable habitat.
for this species.
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
25
April 2015

Table 4

Potential for

Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
point five miles south
of the town of Point
Arena.
Eumetopias jubatus
FT/--/--
Prefers the colder
No further actions
Steller Sea-lion
temperate to sub-arctic does not provide
are recommended
waters of the North
suitable habitat.
for this species.
Pacific Ocean. Haul
outs and rookeries
usually consist of
beaches (gravel, rocky
or sand), ledges, rocky
reefs.
Birds
Brachyramphus
FT/SE/--
Occur in calm, shallow, Unlikely. Study area
No further actions
marmoratus
FX
coastal waters and
does not provide
are recommended
Marbeled
bays, but breed inland, suitable habitat.
for this species.
murrelet
up to 45 miles from
shore, in mature, wet
forest
Charadrius alexandrines FT/CSC/--
Lives and breeds on
No further actions
nivosus
sandy coasts and
does not provide
are recommended
Western snowy plover
brackish inland lakes,
suitable habitat.
for this species.
and is uncommon on
fresh water.
Coccyzus americanus
FT/--/--
Yellow-billed Cuckoos
No further actions
occidentalis
use wooded habitat
does not provide
are recommended
Western yellow-billed
with dense cover and
suitable habitat.
for this species.
cuckoo
water nearby, including
woodlands with low,
scrubby, vegetation,
overgrown orchards,
abandoned farmland,
and dense thickets
along streams and
marshes. Once
common in the
Californias 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,
26
April 2015

Table 4

Potential for

Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
Sacramento, Feather,
and Lower Colorado
Rivers.
Diomedea albatrus
Short-tailed albatross
FE/--/--
Pelecanus occidentalis
californicus
California brown pelican
FE/--/--
Strix occidentalis caurina

FT/SC/--
FX
Reptiles
Caretta caretta
Loggerhead turtle
FT/--/--
Cheleonia mydas
Green turtle
FT/--/--
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
[10]
eastern Russia. They
can also be found as far
east as California.
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.
Prefer old growth
coniferous forests with
multi-layered, multi-
species canopy with
moderate to high
canopy closure.

does not provide
suitable habitat.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.

does not provide
suitable habitat.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.
Moderate. Study Area

may provide suitable
habitat for this species
near the Russian River
and adjacent to
agricultural fields.
Conduct pre-
construction
surveys.
Loggerheads nest on
ocean beaches,
generally preferring
high energy, relatively
narrow, steeply sloped,
coarse-grained
beaches.
Primarily use three
types of habitat
including beaches for
nesting, open ocean
convergence zones,
and coastal areas for

does not provide
suitable habitat.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.

does not provide
suitable habitat.
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.
27
April 2015

Table 4

Potential for

Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
"benthic" feeding.
Dermochelys coriacea
FE/--/--
Commonly known as
No further actions
Leatherback turtle
pelagic (open ocean)
does not provide
are recommended
animals, but they also
suitable habitat.
for this species.
forage in coastal
waters. In fact,
leatherbacks are the
most migratory and
wide ranging of sea
turtle species.
Lepidochelys olivacea
FT/--/--
Is mainly a "pelagic"
No further actions
olive ridley sea turtle
sea turtle, but has been does not provide
are recommended
known to inhabit
suitable habitat.
for this species.
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
FT/CSC/--
This species now occurs Unlikely. Study area
No further actions
California red-legged
FX
most commonly along
does not provide
are recommended
frog
the northern and
suitable habitat.
for this species.
southern Coast Ranges,
and in isolated areas in
the foothills of the
Sierra Nevada
mountains.
Fish
Eucyclogobius newberri
FE/SE/--
No further actions
Found primarily in
Tidewater goby
does
n
ot
p
rovide
are recommended
waters of coastal
suitable
h
abitat.
for this species.
lagoons, estuaries,
and marshes.
Hypomesus
transpacificus
Delta smelt
FT/SE/--
Endemic to the upper

Sacramento-San
does not provide
Joaquin Estuary of
suitable habitat.
California, it mainly
inhabits the
freshwater-saltwater
mixing zone of the
estuary, except during
its spawning season
when it migrates
upstream to freshwater
28
No further actions
are recommended
for this species.
April 2015

Table 4

Potential for

Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
following winter "first
flush" flow events
(approximately March
to May).
Oncorhynchus kisutch
FE/SE/--
This ESU includes all
Moderate.
Implement best
Central California coast
naturally spawned
Construction of the
management
coho salmon
populations of coho
Proposed Project/
practices and

salmon from Punta
Action could cause
erosion control

Gorda in northern
siltation and water
measures as
California south to and quality issues through
required by the
including the San
drainages and creeks
North Coast
Lorenzo River in central that ultimately
RWQCB.
California, as well as
discharge into the
populations in
Russian River.
tributaries to San
Francisco Bay,
excluding the
Sacramento-San
Joaquin River system.
Oncorhynchus kisutch
FT/ST/--
Central and northern
Moderate.
Implement best
Central California coast
California coastal rivers Construction of the
management
coho salmon, So OR/No
and streams.
Proposed Project/
practices and
CA
Action could cause
erosion control

siltation and water
measures as
quality issues through
required by the
North Coast
that ultimately
RWQCB.
discharge into the
Russian River.
Oncorhynchus mykiss
FT/CSC/--
Drainages of San
Moderate.
Implement best
Central California
FX
Francisco and San
Construction of the
management
Coastal steelhead
Pablo Bays, Central
Proposed Project/
practices and
California Coastal
Action could cause
erosion control
Rivers.
siltation and water
measures as
required by the
North Coast
that ultimately
RWQCB.
discharge into the
Russian River.
Oncorhynchus mykiss
FT/--/--
This DPS is found in
Moderate.
Implement best
Central Valley steelhead
coastal streams from
Construction of the
management
the Russian River in
Proposed Project/
practices and
Sonoma County south
Action could cause
erosion control
to Aptos in Santa Cruz
siltation and water
measures as
County, including
required by the
tributaries to San
North Coast
Francisco and San
that ultimately
RWQCB.
Pablo bays.
discharge into the
29
April 2015

Table 4

Potential for

Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
Russian River.
Oncorhynchus
FT/--/--
This ESU naturally
Moderate.
Implement best
tshawytscha
occurs in coastal rivers Construction of the
management
California coastal
and streams south of
Proposed Project/
practices and
chinook salmon
the Klamath
Action could cause
erosion control
River to the Russian
siltation and water
measures as
River, California.
required by the
North Coast
that ultimately
RWQCB.
discharge into the
Russian River.
Oncorhynchus
FE/CSC/--
This specific species
Unlikely. This is specific No further actions
tshawytscha
occurs in the
to the Sacramento
are recommended
Sacramento River
Sacramento River.
River.
for this species.
winter-run
Invertebrates
Branchinecta conservatio FE/--/--
Inhabit highly turbid
Unlikely. Suitable
No further actions
water in vernal pools.
habitat does not
are recommended

Known from six
appear to be present in for this species.
populations in the
the Study Area.
northern central valley.

Lycaeides argyrognomon FE/SE/--
Possibly extinct, the
Unlikely. Suitable
No further actions
lotis
Lotis Blue has not been habitat does not
are recommended
seen alive since 1983.
Little is known about
the Study Area.
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
FE/--/--
The Behrens silverspot Unlikely. Suitable
No further actions
behrensii
butterfly inhabits
habitat does not
are recommended
Behrens silverspot
coastal terrace prairie
butterfly
habitat west of the
the Study Area.
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
30
April 2015

Table 4

Potential for

Species
Status
Habitat
Occurrence
Recommendations
frequent summer fog.
Syncaris pacifica
FE/SE/--
Endemic to Marin,
Unlikely. Suitable
No further actions
California freshwater
Napa, and Sonoma
habitat is not present in are recommended
shrimp
Counties. Found in
the Study Area
for this species.

shallow pools away
from streamflow in low
gradient streams where
riparian cover is
moderate to heavy.

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
31
April 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.

32
April 2015
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.
33
April 2015

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-
34
April 2015

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.

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.
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).
35
April 2015

Northern spotted owls 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.
36
April 2015
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.

37
April 2015

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 12-14C. Coho do not persist in streams where
summer temperatures reach 22-25C 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.
38
April 2015

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 15C. A useful criterion for determining habitat suitability
based on the available literature suggests that average daily temperatures should be less than 20C and
daily maximum temperatures should be less than 24C to allow acceptable steelhead/rainbow trout
growth (Bell, 1973; Barnhardt, 1986). The 20C criterion represents a water temperature below which
reasonable growth of steelhead/rainbow trout may be expected. Data in the literature suggest that
temperatures above 21.5C 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 24C (75F; 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 20C, and frequency of maximum daily temperatures greater than 24C) 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 0C in winter to as high as 26-27C in summer (Moyle, 2002).
Temperatures greater then 23C can become lethal if acclimation is not gradual. Even with acclimation,
temperatures between 24-27C 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.
39
April 2015

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
40
April 2015
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
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).

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).

If the drilling lubricant congeals, no other actions will be taken that would
potentially suspend sediments in the water column.
Surface releases of bentonite will be allowed to harden and then will be removed.

The contingency plan will identify additional measures to be taken to contain or
remove the drilling lubricant if it does not congeal.
41
April 2015

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.
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
42
April 2015

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

The contingency plan will identify additional measures to be taken to contain or remove
the drilling lubricant if it does not congeal.
43
April 2015

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.
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.
44
April 2015
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)

Arenaria paludicola (FE)

Chorizanthe howellii (FE)

Eriogonum kelloggii (FC)

Erysimum mensiesii (includes ssp. Yadonii) (FE)
Howellia aquatillis (FT)

Lasthenia burkei

Lasthenia conjugens (FX)

Navarretia leucocephala (ssp. pauciflora) (FE)
Navarretia leucocephala (ssp. pileantha) (FE)
Orcuttia tenuis (FT)

Orcuttia tenuis (FX)

Sedum eastwoodiae (FC)

marsh sandwort
Howells spineflower
Red Mountain (=kelloggs) buckwheat
Menziess wallflower
water howellia
Burkes goldfields
Critical habitat, Contra Costa goldfields
few-flowered navarretia
many-flowered navarretia
slender Orcutt grass
Critical habitat, slender Orcutt grass
Mammals
Aplodontia rufa nigra (FE)
Eumetopias jubatus (FT)
Martes pennanti) (C)
Point Arena mountain beaver

Steller (=northern) sea-lion
fisher
Marbeled Murrelet
western snowy plover
short-tailed albatross
California brown pelicanReptiles
loggerhead turtle
green turtle
leatherback turtle
olive (=pacific) ridley sea turtle
California red-legged frog
Birds
Brachyramphus marmoratus (FT) (FX)

Charadrius alexandrines nivosus (FT)
Diomedea albatrus (FE)

Pelecanus occidentalis Californicus (FE)
Caretta caretta (FT) (NMFS)

Chelonia mydas (includes agassizi) (FT) (NMFS)
Dermochelys coriacea (FE) (NMFS)

Lepidochelys olivacea (FT) (NMFS)

Amphibians
Rana draytonii (FT) (FX)
45
April 2015

Invertebrates
Branchinecta conservation (FE)
Lycaeides argyrognomon (FE)
Speyeria zerene behrensii (FE)
Syncaris pacifica


Behrens silverspot butterfly
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)
Strix occidenallis caurina (FT)

Western yellow-billed cuckoo

Central California coast coho salmon

Central Valley/Coastal steelhead
California coastal Chinook salmon
Invertebrates
Fish
None
Oncorhynchus kisutch (FE) FX)

Oncorhynchus mykiss (FT) (FX)
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (FT) (FX)
46
April 2015
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.
47
April 2015
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, Californias 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 Myrtles 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).
plants: determination of endangered status for the Callippe silverspot Butterfly and the Behrens
silverspot Butterfly and threatened status for the Alameda whipsnake. December 5, 1997
(Volume 62 Number 234).
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).
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.
48
April 2015
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.
49
April 2015
Merritt Smith Consulting, Biological and Water Quality Monitoring in the Russian River Estuary,
1996, Annual Report, February 21, 1997.
1997, Second Annual Report, February 5, 1998.
1998, Third Annual Report, March 15, 1999.
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.
50
April 2015
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.
51
April 2015
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 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 yellowlegged frogs (Rana boylii)from Clear Creek, Nevada County, California. Masters 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.
52
April 2015
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 65:22422252.
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.
53
April 2015
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.
54
April 2015
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.
55
April 2015
Attachment A
Federally-Listed Species List for the City of
Ukiahs 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 Brown
SMB Environmental Inc.
P.O. Box 381
Roseville, 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 and
threatened species. The list covers the California counties and/or U.S. Geological Survey 7 minute quad or quads you
requested.
Our database was developed primarily to assist Federal agencies that are consulting with us. Therefore, our lists include
all of the sensitive species that have been found in a certain area and also ones that may be affected by projects in the
area. For example, a fish may be on the list for a quad if it lives somewhere downstream from that quad. Birds are
included even if they only migrate through an area. In other words, we include all of the species we want people to
consider 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 describes
your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.
Our database is constantly updated as species are proposed, listed and delisted. If you address proposed and candidate
species in your planning, this should not be a problem. However, we recommend that you get an updated list every 90
days. 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 the
attached list or your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. A list of Endangered Species Program contacts
can be found http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Branch-Contacts/es_branch-contacts.htm.
Endangered Species Division

Appendix C - Biological Resources Investigation Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Appendix C - Biological Resources Investigation Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

R

Federally-Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

SMB Environmental, Inc.

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Federally-Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Federally-Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Federally-Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Federally-Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

1.1 Purpose of this Assessment

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Federally-Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

Red Mountain (=kelloggs) buckwheat

Point Arena mountain beaver

California red-legged frog

Conservancy fairy shrimp

Central California coast coho salmon

Eriogonum kelloggii (FC)

Brachyramphus marmoratus (FT) (FX)

Oncorhynchus kisutch (FE) FX)

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Federally-Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

Section 2 - Description of Proposed Action

2.1 Project Location and Background

Figure 1 - General Location Map

Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp.,

Federally-Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

2.2 Goal and Objectives

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Federally-Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

Proposed Action Description

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Proposed Storage Pond

Phase 3 and 4 Customers

Proposed Service Connection

Phase 3 and 4 Pipeline

Talmage Rd State Rte 222

#Proposed Storage Pond

3,000 Recycled Water Project, City of Ukiah

Federally-Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

Irrigation Demand (AFY)

Irrigated area Served (Acres)

Parcels Provided irrigation (Number)

Frost Protection Demand (AFY)

Frost Protected land (Acres)

Parcels Provided Frost Protection (Acres)

Pipeline Length (Miles)

Pipeline Diameter (Inches)

2.3.1 Potential Users and Phasing

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Federally-Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

2.3.2 Pipeline Facilities

2.3.3 Pump Station

2.3.4 Storage Facilities

City of Ukiah Recycled Water Project

Federally-Listed Biological Resources Investigation Report

Ukiah WWTP Site Piping

Agricultural Land Service Roads

Paved Public Street

Agricultural Land Service Roads

Paved Public Street

Agricultural Land Service Roads