MilPipeFEMAESA2.pdf

1 16

ESA/MSA Review Form for FEMA Projects Covered Under the NMFS PBO

Table 1:

Table 2:

Section A:

Section B:

Section C:

Section D:

Section E:

Section F:

2 16

Table 1. Summary of ESA Effect Determinations

Steelhead, Central California Coast (CCC) DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Project Name (FEMA Grant # or Disaster # and Project

Worksheet #) and Site/LOP#s ESA Determination on Species

ESA Determination on Critical Habitat

Table 2. Summary of MSA Effect Determinations

Coho Salmon (O. kisutch) EFH

Project Name (FEMA Grant # or Disaster # and Project

Worksheet #) and Site/LOP#s MSA Effect Determination

Chinook Salmon (O. tshawytscha) EFH

Project Name (FEMA Grant # or Disaster # and Project

Worksheet #) and Site/LOP#s MSA Effect Determination

Has an ESA consultation previously been conducted for this project outside the NMFS PBO?

YES NO

3 16

Name of Qualified Biologist, Organization, and Date of Preparation:

Biologist’s Qualifications:

Professional Degree:

Years of experience working with federally listed species, their habitats, and Endangered Species Act implementation in the State of California:

SECTION A. INFORMATION ON THE SUBAPPLICANT’S PROPOSED PROJECT (press F11 to advance to the next field)

*If more than one project or project site is included in this form, please differentiate between projects or project site by numbering the projects or sites in parentheses. Please use the same distinction between projects or sites throughout the entire form. For example, (Project 1, Project 2, Site 1, Site 2, etc.)

A.1. Name of Subapplicant6 (Agency Name):

A.2. Project Name, and FEMA Grant # or Disaster and Project Worksheet (PW) #s:

A.3. Project Location (street address, latitude/longitude, or UTM and Datum/Zone), and Municipality/County/State:

A.4. Project Type: Select the Subapplicant’s proposed project type as either a “Standard Action” or a “Framework Action” as defined in Table 1 in the NMFS PBO. Framework Actions that have a determination of “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” (LAA) for Covered Species and/or Critical Habitat require additional consultation.

Standard Action

Non-Emergency Debris Removal Road and Trail Construction * Utility Construction * Rail Line Construction* Flood Control Activities Culvert Construction* Bridge Construction* Bank Protection, Stabilization, and Erosion Control Activities Detention/Retention, or Basin Water Storage Facility Construction* Linear Water Conveyance Facility Construction*

Framework Action

Airport Runway Construction** Road and Trail Construction ** Utility Construction ** Facility Disaster Mitigation Activities Building and Facility Construction** Stormwater Management Construction** Flood Control Activities Bank Protection, Stabilization, and Erosion Control Activities Detention/Retention, or Basin Water Storage Facility Construction** Linear Water Conveyance Facility Construction**

4 16

Shoreline Facilities - Recreational or Maritime Use Shoreline Facilities – Protection Wildfire Risk reduction - Defensible Space Creation and Hazardous Fuels Reduction

Shoreline Facilities - Recreational or Maritime Use Shoreline Facilities – Protection

A.5. Description of Subapplicant’s Proposed Project:

Provide a detailed narrative of the project that clearly describes the scope of work at a sufficient level of detail to support all analysis needed for compliance with the ESA and MSA (please note, this will likely include additional detail found in project plans, design drawings, site visits, etc.). Please explain construction methods here (e.g., equipment to be used, access routes, construction work areas, construction staging areas, pile driving methods and materials, etc.), and see Section A.7 below to add further details concerning construction duration and timing. Include the Subapplicant’s best management practices (BMPs) to be implemented and other Subapplicant-planned measures and post-construction activities, if applicable.

5 16

Attach project plans, layouts, engineering drawings, if available. Reference those attachments below.

Describe the construction equipment:

Describe the access routes:

Describe the construction staging and work areas:

If the Subapplicant’s proposed project includes vegetation removal and/or trimming, describe the vegetation type and the extent that would be removed and/or trimmed.

Avena Bromus

Medicago polymorpha Geranium robertianum Ribes californicum Rubus ursinus

If the Subapplicant’s proposed project includes vegetation removal and/or trimming, describe the planned revegetation efforts, which should be consistent with the measures described in the NMFS PBO.

6 16

Quercus agrifolia Quercus macrocarpa

A.6. Description of the Action Area :

Please attach a map(s), aerial image, photographs, GIS data layers, and other information on the Action Area.

Briefly describe the project footprint10, and include the size of the project footprint (acres, square feet, etc.):

Briefly describe the Action Area in a few sentences including the size of the Action Area (acres, square feet, etc.) and explain the buffer or distance from the project footprint used to define the Action Area:

Please include a description of the vegetation communities, aquatic habitats, slope, and any sensitive biological resources in the Action Area.

Avena Bromus

7 16

Medicago polymorpha Geranium robertianum Ribes californicum Rubus ursinus

Umbellularia californica Quercus Polypodium californicum Lathyrus vestitus Erythranthe guttata Woodwardia fimbriata

Are any rivers, streams, estuaries, or coastal water feature located within the Action Area?

YES NO

If Yes, will in-water work be needed for completion of the Subapplicant’s proposed project?

YES NO

If No, how far is the aquatic feature from the limits of ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal?

What is the name of the river, stream, estuary, or coastal water feature? If the river/stream is a tributary, provide the name of the receiving water feature.

A.7. Proposed Project Schedule and Duration:

Please provide start and end dates (including month and year) of project implementation, number of work days, and number of work hours per day (e.g., 5 days of work for 10 hours per day).

Does construction of the Subapplicant’s proposed project meet the “Work Windows for In-Water Activities by Geographic Region” in Appendix C of the NMFS PBO:

YES NO

Start Date End Date

Number of work days:

Number of work hours per day:

Will in-channel work activities occur during nighttime? YES NO

8 16

A.8. Outside of FEMA’s Memorandum of Understanding11 (MOU) coordination with USACE, has a previous formal or informal ESA consultation or Technical Assistance with NMFS been initiated or completed for the Subapplicant’s proposed project? This may include a larger project by another Federal agency (e.g., Corps 404 permit) that encompasses the proposed project.

YES NO

If so, please include a copy of this documentation.

SECTION B. POTENTIAL PRESENCE OF COVERED SPECIES AND/OR CRITICAL HABITAT

(FOR STANDARD AND FRAMEWORK ACTIONS)

B.1. Does the Action Area for the Subapplicant's proposed project(s) have the potential to support covered species and/or does it contain Critical Habitat (i.e., the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species)? Please clearly indicate the appropriate response for each project or project site.

NO

It has been determined that the Action Area occurs either

a) Outside the range of any covered species, or

b) Within the range of a covered species but outside of suitable habitat and outside Critical Habitat, or

c) Within the range of a covered species but outside of suitable habitat and within Critical Habitat but lacks the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species.

Go to B.2.

YES.

Select the covered species and Critical Habitat that are present or potentially present within the Action Area for each project site(s), and indicate potential habitat usage within the Action Area of the Subapplicant’s proposed project(s). Information regarding occupied watersheds, life history, and seasonal patterns of distribution may be found in NMFS recovery plans, critical habitat designations, and watershed-specific survey or status documents, if available.

NOTE: If the responses to the table vary across sites, include a copy of this table for each.

Site(s):

Covered Species Within Species Range

Critical Habitat Present

Potentially Occupied

Life Stage Utilization/Season of Occupancy*

North American green sturgeon Southern DPS Coho salmon Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast

ESU

Coho salmon Central California Coast ESU Steelhead Southern California DPS Steelhead South-Central California Coast DPS Steelhead Northern California DPS Steelhead Central Valley DPS

9 16

Steelhead Central California Coast

DPS

Chinook salmon California Coastal

ESU

Chinook salmon Central Valley Spring-run ESU Chinook salmon Sacramento River Winter-run ESU Eulachon Southern DPS Black abalone

B.2. Does the Subapplicant’s proposed project(s) have the potential to affect covered species and/or Critical Habitat (i.e., the physical or biological features essential for the conservation of the species) in the Action Area?

NO

No Effect. FEMA has determined that implementation of the Subapplicant’s proposed project would have no effects on covered species and/or Critical Habitat. If a No Effect determination has been made for the proposed project, complete Section D (for MSA compliance). Do not complete Section C. Go to Section D.

No further consultation with NMFS is required under the ESA.

YES (go to C.1)

SECTION C. ESA EFFECT DETERMINATION(S) FOR COVERED SPECIES AND/OR CRITICAL

HABITAT (STANDARD AND FRAMEWORK ACTIONS)

C.1. Please describe potential effects of the action from implementation of the Subapplicant’s proposed project(s) in the Action Area. Refer to the NMFS PBO for a description of potential effects and, for Framework Actions, describe additional details as applicable.

a. Effects on Covered Species and Critical Habitat – check those that apply, indicate which project(s) or site(s) would be affected and in which manner, and add a discussion of the duration, severity, and species/habitat response of the effect, including the potential for take to occur, and/or effects on specific physical and biological features of Critical Habitat.

Erosion, turbidity, and sedimentation -

10 16

Potential spills or hazardous materials -

Noise and sound exposure - Dewatering, capture, and relocation of fish - Temporary or permanent effects on migration or fish movement - Riparian habitat removal and/or degradation - Streambed, bank, and shoreline modification - Invasive species and pathogens -

Loss or alteration of shallow water habitat - Loss or alteration of mid-channel habitat -

b. Describe any other effects on Covered Species not discussed above, including beneficial effects.

c. Describe any other effects on Critical Habitat not discussed above, including beneficial effects. If there are adverse effects, quantify the area (in acres, square feet, etc.) of Critical Habitat affected.

Note: Please note that take (as defined under the ESA) of a Covered Species and/or adverse effects to Critical Habitat trigger an LAA determination.

C.2. Please use the check boxes to select the Avoidance and Minimization Measures (AMMs) from the NMFS PBO that are applicable and will be implemented by the Subapplicant to avoid and minimize effects. If any AMMs are not applicable, include a brief justification for exclusion.

NMFS PBO AMMs Applicable Site(s) or Rationale for AMM Exclusion

See Notes Below for Details

11 16

AMM 2: For projects that involve bank stabilization on streambanks, please indicate which of the bioengineering options described under AMM-2 would be implemented (e.g., d.1), along with a brief description.

List any additional Project Specific AMMs developed for the Project(s) or BMPs that would be incorporated into the Subapplicant’s proposed project(s) to avoid and minimize adverse effects.

C.3. Considering the potential effects of the proposed project(s) (Section C.1) along with the implementation of applicable AMMs from the NMFS PBO (Section C.2), is there potential for the Subapplicant’s proposed project to result in take of a Covered Species, either through harassment

12 16

(including capture) and/or injury/mortality, and/or adverse effect to at least one physical or biological feature of Critical Habitat?

NO

FEMA has determined that the proposed project “May Affect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) Covered Species or Critical Habitat. Complete Section C.7 (skip Sections C.4 through C.6) of this form. Take of individual(s) or adverse effects to Critical Habitat is not expected to occur. Incidental take resulting from this project will not be covered. FEMA will notify NMFS by submitting the completed ESA/MSA Review Form for the proposed project and request concurrence that the proposed project(s) be covered under the NMFS PBO as an NLAA project.

YES

FEMA has determined that the proposed project “May Affect, and is Likely to Adversely Affect” (LAA) Covered Species or Critical Habitat and will request coverage from NMFS under the BO/ITS for ESA Section 7 compliance. Take of at least one Covered species or adverse effects to at least one physical or biological feature of Critical Habitat may occur. Complete Sections C.4 through C.7 of this form. FEMA will notify NMFS by submitting the completed ESA/MSA Review Form for the proposed project(s) and request that the proposed project(s) be covered under the NMFS PBO as an LAA project(s), which may include coverage under the Incidental Take Statement (ITS) in the NMFS PBO, if applicable.

C.4. Briefly describe how the potential effects of the Subapplicant’s proposed project(s) may result in take through harassment, injury, and/or mortality. If pile driving is occurring, include an analysis of the distances over which noise thresholds (as described in the NMFS PBO) may be exceeded, if applicable.

Please clearly indicate the appropriate response for each project or project site.

a. Take by Harassment

b. Take by Injury/Mortality

C.5. Check the applicable boxes and provide the amount of habitat disturbance resulting from the proposed project(s) as a take indicator, as described in the NMFS PBO. Please clearly indicate the appropriate response for each project or project site.

Construction-related disturbance of streambank and channel- linear feet Construction-related disturbance of estuarine/marine waters - acres Pile driving – distance to 150 dB RMS threshold in feet - and distance to 187/183 dB cumulative threshold in feet - Capture of juvenile fish during in-water work area isolation – complete next item

With the input and review of a senior fisheries biologist or in coordination with NMFS, provide an estimate of take by harassment and take by injury/mortality14 separately through capture and relocation.

Include a brief statement of rationale for each estimate.

a. Species 1 – Estimated Take by Harassment and Take by Injury/Mortality Separately

b. Species 2 – Estimated Take by Harassment and Take by Injury/Mortality Separately

c. (Add entries for additional Covered Species, if needed)

13 16

Describe the methods that would be utilized to capture and relocate fish. Refer to AMM #17 of the NMFS PBO and NMFS standard practices for fish relocation, as needed.

NOTE: For projects that require fish rescue and relocation, the Subapplicant will develop a detailed fish relocation plan and FEMA will submit it to NMFS for approval prior to project implementation.

C.6. Are there any cumulative effects from projects that do not have a Federal nexus that are anticipated from implementation of the Subapplicant’s proposed project? If so, please describe them.

C.7. Provide a summary of FEMA’s NLAA or LAA determination for Covered Species and Critical Habitat resulting from implementation of the Subapplicant’s proposed project(s). List all the Covered Species and/or Critical Habitat that could be affected and summarize those effects as they are presented in this section. An ESA determination for each Covered Species and/or Critical Habitat is required. Please clearly indicate the appropriate response for each project or project site.

Species

Determination Rationale for Species

Determination Rationale for Critical Habitat

14 16

SECTION D. DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS TO ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT PROTECTED

UNDER MSA

D.1. Is Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)16 present in the Action Area? Please clearly indicate the appropriate response for each project or project site.

NO

FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have “No Adverse Effect” on EFH. No notification to NMFS is required under MSA. No further steps are needed.

YES

Check the boxes for the EFH that is present in the Action Area, then complete D.2.

Pacific Coast Salmon EFH Pacific Coast Groundfish EFH Coastal Pelagic Species EFH Highly Migratory Species EFH

List Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs), if they are present in the Action Area(s):

D.2. Could the Subapplicant’s proposed project(s) adversely affect EFH?

NO

FEMA has determined that the proposed project will have “No Adverse Effect” on EFH. No notification to NMFS is required under MSA. No further steps are needed.

YES

If there are any potential adverse effects on EFH that have not been described above in Section C, please list them here, then complete D.3.

15 16

D.3. Are the AMMs listed in Section C.2 sufficient to minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH?

YES

No additional AMMs are needed. FEMA has determined that the proposed project(s) “May Adversely Affect” EFH. FEMA will notify NMFS by submitting a completed ESA/MSA Review Form with details on the proposed project(s) and request that the proposed project be covered under the NMFS PBO to comply with MSA.

NO

Please list any additional AMMs from the NMFS PBO along with any other BMPs implemented by the Subapplicant that would be incorporated into the Subapplicant’s proposed project to minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse effects on EFH.

FEMA has determined that the proposed project(s) “May Adversely Affect” EFH. FEMA will notify NMFS by submitting a completed ESA/MSA Review Form with details on the proposed project and request that the proposed project be covered under the NMFS PBO to comply with MSA. NMFS may provide additional conservation recommendations to protect EFH pursuant to MSA §305 (b)(4)(A). The Subapplicant must confirm to FEMA that these additional conservation recommendations will be implemented, and FEMA will notify NMFS and request concurrence.

Once NMFS concurs, MSA compliance is completed.

SECTION E. FOR NMFS TO COMPLETE AND SIGN

Project Name: Bury Milliken Raw Water Pipeline

FEMA Grant # or Disaster and Project Worksheet #s: 4344-284-091R

I concur with FEMA’s determination on federally listed species and Critical Habitat as described in this ESA/MSA Review Form, pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. NMFS agrees that this project qualifies for coverage under the NMFS Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) for FEMA’s Disaster, Mitigation, and Preparedness Programs issued on 9/25/2018. Therefore, no further action pursuant to the Act is necessary for the proposed project unless new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or Critical Habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; the action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or Critical Habitat that was not considered; or a new species is listed or Critical Habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action.

Signature is listed below:

Darren Howe San Francisco Bay Branch Supervisor California Coastal Office, West Coast Region National Marine Fisheries Service

16 16

SECTION F. FOR SUBAPPLICANT TO COMPLETE AND SIGN

On behalf of City of Napa (Subapplicant agency name), I have read the requirements from FEMA’s Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) with NMFS that are specific to the subject project and plan to implement them accordingly. I understand that failure to implement the required Avoidance and Minimization Measures may jeopardize funding for the subject project. The City of Napa (Subapplicant agency name) accepts implementation of the required measures described in this ESA/MSA Review Form as a stipulation of funding for Bury Milliken Raw Water Pipeline, 4344-284-091R (project name, FEMA Grant # or Disaster and Project Worksheet #s).

Signature is listed below:

Print and sign name Date

City of Napa (Subapplicant agency name) ddemaster Text Box Douglas W. DeMaster, P.E.

Senior Civil Engineer ddemaster Text Box September 27, 2024