Att 2 - CEQA IS/MND — Fort Bragg City Council, May 23, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

Fort Bragg Raw Water Line Replacement Project 199
IS/MND Dewberry Engineers Inc.

May 2022
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? SEGMENTS 2 AND 4
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. The Segment 2 and 4, proposed pipelines would abandon the existing pipeline in-place and replace it with a new raw water pipeline along approximately the same alignment. Land use and roadway operations within and adjacent to the Segments 2, and 4 proposed pipelines would be the same as existing conditions upon construction completion. Operations of the Segments 2, and 4 proposed pipelines would be similar to existing conditions upon the completion of construction, as the Segment 2, and 4 proposed pipelines would be completely underground and parallel to existing pipeline. The proposed pipeline improvements on Segments 2 and 4 would not result in substantial changes in slope, prevailing winds, or other site conditions that would expose people or structures to increased wildfire risks. Therefore, operation of the Segments 2, and 4 proposed pipelines would have no impact on increased wildfire risk.

Construction activities involving vehicles, heavy machinery, and personnel smoking along the Segments 2, and 4 proposed pipelines alignment could result in the ignition of a fire due to the heavily forested nature of the nature of the surrounding area. During construction, heavy equipment and passenger vehicles driving on vegetated areas prior to clearing and grading could increase the risk of fire at the Segments 2 and 4 proposed pipeline sites. Heated mufflers and improper disposal of cigarettes could potentially ignite surrounding vegetation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure FIRE-1, Prepare and Implement Fire Safety Plan, would reduce the potential for construction activities to result in severe fires by requiring fire-safe construction and maintenance practices.

Construction related impacts would remain less than significant after implementation of mitigation measure.

SEGMENTS 3 AND 5
Less Than Significant with Mitigation. Segments 3 and 5 of the proposed pipeline would abandon the existing pipeline in-place and replace it with a new raw water pipeline along a new alignments.

Segments 3 and 5 proposed pipeline would require land clearing, timber harvest, access road grading and earthwork to install the pipeline along a new alignment. A temporary construction easement would likely be required for proposed access road grading, pipe stringing, trench excavation, trench soil storage, pipeline installation, trench backfill and compaction, and restoration of the right-of-way (ROW). Setbacks from the top of slopes should be approximately 150 feet, if possible, given site conditions. Segments 3 and 5 proposed pipeline would follow existing skid trails or roads to the extent possible to minimize impacts to vegetation. The new alignment would run through a gentler sloping topography than the existing pipeline alignment. These changes would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and therefore would not expose people in the surrounding area to pollutants due to wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. The Segment 3 proposed pipeline would have a less than significant impact in this regard. The improvements would not result in substantial changes in slope, prevailing winds, or other site conditions that would expose people or structures to increased wildfire risks.

Therefore, operation of Segments 3 and 5 proposed pipeline would have no impact on increased wildfire risk.

Construction activities involving vehicles, heavy machinery, and personnel smoking along the Segments 3 and 5 proposed pipeline alignment could result in the ignition of a fire due to the heavily forested nature of the surrounding area. During construction, heavy equipment and passenger vehicles driving on vegetated areas prior to clearing and grading could increase the risk of fire at the Segment 3 proposed pipeline site. Heated mufflers and improper disposal of cigarettes could Fort Bragg Raw Water Line Replacement Project 200
IS/MND Dewberry Engineers Inc.

May 2022
potentially ignite surrounding vegetation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure FIRE-1 would reduce the potential for construction activities to result in severe fires by requiring fire-safe construction and maintenance practices. Construction related impacts would remain less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Proposed Project would require improvements to access roads, including access road grading. Access roads are necessary to complete the Proposed Project and to provide maintenance access to the new pipeline. Access road grading and installment would be coordinated with the nearby property owners. The installation and reestablishment of access roadways and future maintenance activities could potentially result in marginal increases in fire risk within the Project area; however, implementation of Mitigation Measure FIRE-1 would ensure that Proposed Project improvements would have less than significant impacts on fire risk in the Project area.

The Proposed Project would not have any effect on other existing infrastructure; therefore, the Proposed Project would not require the installation or maintenance of additional infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Impacts from proposed project implementation would have no impacts relative to this topic. d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than Significant Impact. Significant sections of the Proposed Project are situated in steep, heavily wooded, and landslip-prone areas. Geotechnical data was collected during the pipeline planning process and the Project has been designed with these existing constraints in mind. Segments 2 and 4 of the Proposed Project would be installed underground along the existing alignment. Thus, operations of these Segments would be similar to existing conditions upon construction completion and improvements would not increase stormwater runoff, change drainage patterns, or result in a population increase that would ultimately expose people or structures to significant risks. Segments 3 and 5 of the Proposed Project would have a new alignment that would avoid the unstable and steep terrain in Newman Gulch that the existing pipeline runs through. The new alignment would reduce the risk of exposing people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Access road grading and possible permanent installation of access roads along the Proposed Project alignment is anticipated to slightly modify drainage patterns at the Proposed Project site; however, any drainage changes associated with access road improvements would be minimal and would not expose people or structures to significant risks. The proposed project would not substantially increase stormwater runoff, result in drainage pattern changes, or result in a population increase that would ultimately expose people or structures to significant risks.

Mendocino County has a Risk Index that is Relatively High for Landslides (FEMA, 2021). Segments 2 and 3 of the proposed pipeline are in both Zone X, Area of Minimum Flood Hazard, and Zone A, Areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30‐year mortgage, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Map (NFHL).

Segments 4 and 5 of the Proposed Project are both within Zone X.

Fort Bragg Raw Water Line Replacement Project 201
IS/MND Dewberry Engineers Inc.

May 2022
During construction, construction workers would be present on site; however, this increase in workers would be temporary in nature. The risks associated with runoff, slope instability, and drainage changes within the Project site during construction would be similar to existing conditions. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact in this regard and no mitigation measures are required.

4.20.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure PUB-1: Prepare Construction Period Emergency Access Plan. See the Public Services section of this document for information about this mitigation measure.

Mitigation Measure FIRE-1: Prepare and Implement Fire Safety Plan. Prior to the start of construction, the contractor shall coordinate with the Mendocino County Fire Department, City of Fort Bragg Fire Department, and CALFIRE shall coordinate to prepare a Fire Safety Plan for use during construction and operation of the Proposed Project. The Fire Safety Plan shall contain notification procedures and emergency fire precautions including, but not limited to, the following:

1. All internal combustion engines, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with spark arresters.

Spark arresters shall be in good working order.

2. Light trucks and cars with factory-installed (type) mufflers shall be used only on roads where the roadway is cleared of vegetation. Said vehicle types shall maintain their factory-installed (type) muffler in good condition.

3. Equipment parking areas (staging areas) shall be cleared of all extraneous flammable materials.

4. Personnel shall be trained in the practices of the Fire Safety Plan relevant to their duties.

Construction and maintenance personnel shall be trained and equipped to extinguish small fires in order to prevent them from growing into more serious threats.

5. Smoking shall be prohibited in wildland areas and shall be limited to paved areas or areas cleared of all vegetation.

4.20.4 References
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2020. Mendocino County, CA Fire Departments. Available: https://www.firedepartment.net/directory/california/mendocinocounty. Accessed June 12, 2020.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2007a. Local Responsibility Area.

Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazardsbuilding-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Accessed June 12, 2020.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE). 2007b. State Responsibility Area.

Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/wildfire-planning-engineering/wildland-hazardsbuilding-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Accessed June 12, 2020.

City of Fort Bragg. 2018. Fort Bragg Coastal General Plan. Ch. 7 – Safety Element. Available:
https://city.fortbragg.com/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_02262019-680. Accessed June 12, 2020.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer. Online:
https://hazards-
Fort Bragg Raw Water Line Replacement Project 202
IS/MND Dewberry Engineers Inc.

May 2022
fema.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa 9cd. Date Accessed: August 18, 2021.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). National Risk Index. Online:
https://hazards.fema.gov/nri/map#. Date Accessed: August 18, 2021.

Fort Bragg Fire Department (FBFD). 2020. Fire Department. Available:
https://city.fortbragg.com/372/Fire-Department. Accessed June 12, 2020.

Fort Bragg Raw Water Line Replacement Project 203
IS/MND Dewberry Engineers Inc.

May 2022

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Mandatory Findings of Significance –
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal, or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Have environmental effects that would cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?

4.21.1 Setting
According to CEQA regulations and guidelines, the Lead Agency must summarize the finding of significance from earlier sections and must consider potential cumulatively considerable effects for environmental impact reports (EIRs) and in the discussion section below. Even though this environmental document is an ISMND and not an EIR, the potential for cumulatively considerable effects is analyzed below.

For the cumulative analysis, the City selected the listing approach to identify past, present and future projects in the project area that combined with the impacts of the City project could generate cumulative impacts. The city reviewed available information from Caltrans District 1, JDSF, Lyme Redwood Timberland Company and Mendocino County Planning Department on potential projects in the project vicinity. Figure 4-17 presents information provided by JDSF on upcoming timber harvest plans within 5 miles of the Noyo River/Hare Creek/Covington Gulch watersheds within their jurisdiction in the next 5 years (Fabula pers comm). A general description of these potential timber harvest projects that were considered for cumulative impact analysis is provided below:

BOUNDARY CREEK THP
This timber harvest plan is located north of Highway 20 in the Boundary Creek tributary of South Fork Noyo River watershed located approximately three miles to the east of the City’s pipeline project.

RED TAIL THP
Currently underway. This timber harvest plan (shown in purple) is also located in South Fork Noyo River watershed adjacent to and south of the Boundary Creek THP.

Figure
4-17
JDSF Timber Harvesting Plans
2020-2025
Fort Bragg Raw Waterline
Replacement Project
Fort Bragg, CA
Legend
Proposed Project Segment 4
Proposed Project Segment 5
Jackson State Demonstration Forest Boundary
Fort Bragg Raw Water Line Replacement Project 205
IS/MND Dewberry Engineers Inc.

May 2022

MITCHELL CREEK THP
Scheduled for 2021 and is located in the Mitchell Creek watershed, approximately 1.5 mile south of the City’s pipeline project.

THE JUGHANDLE THP
Scheduled for 2022 and is located in Jug Handle Creek watershed. This THP is located about 3 miles south of the City’s pipeline project.

CASPAR THP
Currently underway and is located in the Caspar Creek watershed, which is located about 3.5-4miles south of the Hare Creek watershed.

LYME REDWOOD TIMBERLAND COMPANY THP
Lyme Redwood Timberland Company is proposing to conduct timber harvest within their lands south of the Noyo River, which includes Segment 3 of the City’s water line project. Lyme Redwood Timberland Company would prepare and submit a THP for the timber harvest with CALFIRE if they proceed before construction of the Proposed Project. The City plans to coordinate closely with Lyme Redwood Timberland Company on timing of their THP and the City’s project. The presumed sequence of events is for the City to construct their Segment 3 pipeline after Lyme Redwood Timberland Company has completed their timber harvest. The City would coordinate with Lyme Redwood Timberland Company and CALFIRE for implementation of any adopted mitigation measures for their pipeline project within the Lyme Redwood Timberland Company THP area. If Lyme Redwood Timberland Company does not elect to proceed with a THP, the City would move forward using a utility exemption.

A review of current projects by Caltrans District 1 website (accessed August 16, 2021) shows they have 18 projects currently being planned and implemented in their region. Review of the information available on those projects indicates that none of the projects are near the City’s water line project vicinity (www. https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-1/d1-projects).

4.21.2 Discussion
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant with Mitigation. The information in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) analyzes the potential effects of the proposed project on biological resources, including habitats, special-status plant species, and special-status wildlife species. Section 4.4, Biological Resources, requires the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-10. The impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation and adoption of mitigation measures. The information in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, and Section

4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this study analyze possible proposed project effects on cultural and tribal cultural resources including the possibility of human remains. Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, and Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, require the implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL1, CUL-2, and TRC-1. The impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures.
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in Fort Bragg Raw Water Line Replacement Project 206
IS/MND Dewberry Engineers Inc.

May 2022
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The City has identified several projects in the general region that are proposed within the general time frame of the City’s pipeline project. The City’s water line project is located primarily in forest lands and therefore the focus here was on projects proposed within JDSF and forest lands owned by Lyme Redwood Timberland Company as the City’s project cuts through both of their properties. All of the projects presented previously are timber harvest plans located within the JDSF and are subject to strict requirements and environmental protection measures of the California Forest Practices Act. Each of these THPs listed above are subject to detailed planning and environmental impact analysis for approval by CALFIRE and undergo public review process. All of these THPs are approved with various terms and conditions to ensure environmental protections are in place to protect special status species, wetlands and other. The impacts of the City’s project combined with these known future THPs is not expected to result in cumulative impacts because mitigation will be recommended for all significant environmental impacts of these projects through the THP process. Additionally, all of the known THPs provided by CALFIRE are located outside of the Hare Creek/Covington Gulch watershed therefore there are no combined effects at a watershed tributary scale. All of these projects must comply with local, state, and federal environmental laws and mitigation. Implementation of all the mitigation measures in this document Mitigation Measures BIO1 through BIO-10 would avoid significant cumulative impacts. For these reasons, this impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant with Mitigation. The City’s raw water line project would have short-term temporary traffic, noise, and air quality impacts from construction activities to residents that live primarily along Sherwood Drive and Dwyer Lane. Various mitigation measures are recommended in Sections 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.13, Noise, and would address these issues to minimize impacts to local City and County residents. For these reasons, this impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

4.21.3 Mitigation Measures
No additional mitigation measures are recommended beyond those presented in the individual technical sections of this ISMND.

Fort Bragg Raw Water Line Replacement Project 207
IS/MND Dewberry Engineers Inc.

May 2022

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. ROAD CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MODEL
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 10/5/2021 Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.0
Data Entry Worksheet
Optional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background.

The user is required to enter information in cells D10 through D24, E28 through G35, and D38 through D41 for all project types.

Please use "Clear Data Input & User Overrides" button first before changing the Project Type or begin a new project.

Input Type
Project Name Moody Creek Bridge Replacement Project
Construction Start Year 2023 Enter a Year between 2014 and 2040 (inclusive)
Project Type 1) New Road Construction : Project to build a roadway from bare ground, which generally requires more site preparation than widening an existing roadway 2) Road Widening : Project to add a new lane to an existing roadway 3) Bridge/Overpass Construction : Project to build an elevated roadway, which generally requires some different equipment than a new roadway, such as a crane 4) Other Linear Project Type: Non-roadway project such as a pipeline, transmission line, or levee construction Project Construction Time 8.00 months
Working Days per Month 22.00 days (assume 22 if unknown) Predominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1) Sand Gravel : Use for quaternary deposits (Delta/West County) 2) Weathered Rock-Earth : Use for Laguna formation (Jackson Highway area) or the Ione formation (Scott Road, Rancho Murieta) 3) Blasted Rock : Use for Salt Springs Slate or Copper Hill Volcanics (Folsom South of Highway 50, Rancho Murieta) Project Length 0.13 miles
Total Project Area 2.81 acres
Maximum Area Disturbed/Day 2.81 acres
Water Trucks Used? 1

1. Yes

2. No
Material Hauling Quantity Input
Material Type Phase Haul Truck Capacity (yd3
) (assume 20 if
unknown) Import Volume (yd3
/day) Export Volume (yd3/day)
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00
Grading/Excavation 20.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00
Paving 20.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00
Grading/Excavation 20.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00
Paving 20.00
Mitigation Options
On-road Fleet Emissions Mitigation Select "2010 and Newer On-road Vehicles Fleet" option when the on-road heavy-duty truck fleet for the project will be limited to vehicles of model year 2010 or newer Off-road Equipment Emissions Mitigation
Select "Tier 4 Equipment" option if some or all off-road equipment used for the project meets CARB Tier 4 Standard Will all off-road equipment be tier 4?
The remaining sections of this sheet contain areas that can be modified by the user, although those modifications are optional. (for project within "Sacramento County", follow soil type selection instructions in cells E18 to E20 otherwise see instructions provided in cells J18 to J22)
2 Soil
Asphalt
All Tier 4 Equipment
Please note that the soil type instructions provided in cells E18 to E20 are specific to Sacramento County. Maps available from the California Geologic Survey (see weblink below) can be used to determine soil type outside Sacramento County.
http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/geologic_mapping/Pa ges/googlemaps.aspx#regionalseries
3 Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background. 2010 and Newer On-road Vehicles Fleet
Select "20% NOx and 45% Exhaust PM reduction" option if the project will be required to use a lower emitting off-road construction fleet. The SMAQMD Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure (http://www.airquality.org/Businesses/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/Mitigation).

To begin a new project, click this button to
clear data previously entered. This button
will only work if you opted not to disable
macros when loading this spreadsheet.

Data Entry Worksheet 1
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 10/5/2021 Note: The program's estimates of construction period phase length can be overridden in cells D50 through D53, and F50 through F53.

Program Program
User Override of Calculated User Override of Default
Construction Periods Construction Months Months Phase Starting Date Phase Starting Date Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.80 1/1/2023
Grading/Excavation 3.60 1/26/2023
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2.40 5/16/2023
Paving 1.20 7/28/2023
Totals (Months)
Note: Soil Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D61 through D64, and F61 through F64.

Soil Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 30.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 30.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 30.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 30.00 0 0.00
2010+ Model Year Mitigation Option Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Paving (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Note: Asphalt Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D91 through D94, and F91 through F94.

Asphalt Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 30.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 30.00 0 0.00
Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 30.00 0 0.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 30.00 0 0.00
2010+ Model Year Mitigation Option Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Paving (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 Data Entry Worksheet 2
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 10/5/2021 Note: Worker commute default values can be overridden in cells D121 through D126.

Worker Commute Emissions User Override of Worker
User Input Commute Default Values Default Values
Miles/ one-way trip 20 Calculated Calculated
One-way trips/day 2 Daily Trips Daily VMT
No. of employees: Grubbing/Land Clearing 5 10 200.00
No. of employees: Grading/Excavation 28 56 1,120.00
No. of employees: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 18 36 720.00 No. of employees: Paving 8 16 320.00
Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.02 0.91 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 317.66 0.00 0.01 319.68 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.02 0.91 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 317.66 0.00 0.01 319.68 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.02 0.91 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 317.66 0.00 0.01 319.68 Paving (grams/mile) 0.02 0.91 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 317.66 0.00 0.01 319.68 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 1.04 2.75 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.26 0.07 0.03 79.50 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 1.04 2.75 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.26 0.07 0.03 79.50 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 1.04 2.75 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.26 0.07 0.03 79.50 Paving (grams/trip) 1.04 2.75 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 68.26 0.07 0.03 79.50 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.03 0.46 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 141.57 0.00 0.00 142.71 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 0.00 1.26 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.17 2.59 0.22 0.11 0.05 0.01 792.79 0.02 0.02 799.17 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.39 0.00 0.00 31.65 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.11 1.67 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.01 509.65 0.01 0.01 513.75 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.45 0.00 0.00 13.56 Pounds per day - Paving 0.05 0.74 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.00 226.51 0.01 0.01 228.33 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.99 0.00 0.00 3.01 Total tons per construction project 0.01 0.16 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 49.08 0.00 0.00 49.48 Note: Water Truck default values can be overridden in cells D153 through D156, I153 through I156, and F153 through F156.

Water Truck Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Override of Default Values Calculated User Input Default # Water Trucks Number of Water Trucks Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Trips/day Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Daily VMT Grubbing/Land Clearing - Exhaust 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Grading/Excavation - Exhaust 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
Paving 1 5 5 8.00 40.00
2010+ Model Year Mitigation Option Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Paving (grams/mile) 0.03 0.40 2.98 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,714.99 0.00 0.27 1,795.36 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 151.24 0.00 0.02 158.32 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00 1.39 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 151.24 0.00 0.02 158.32 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.99 0.00 0.00 6.27 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 151.24 0.00 0.02 158.32 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.99 0.00 0.00 4.18 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 151.24 0.00 0.02 158.32 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.09 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.31 0.00 0.00 13.93 Note: Fugitive dust default values can be overridden in cells D183 through D185.

User Override of Max Default PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5
Acreage Disturbed/Day Maximum Acreage/Day pounds/day tons/per period pounds/day tons/per period Fugitive Dust - Grubbing/Land Clearing 2.81 28.10 0.25 5.84 0.05 Fugitive Dust - Grading/Excavation 2.81 28.10 1.11 5.84 0.23 Fugitive Dust - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 2.81 28.10 0.74 5.84 0.15 Fugitive Dust
Data Entry Worksheet 3
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 10/5/2021 Off-Road Equipment Emissions
Default
Grubbing/Land Clearing Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.44 2.24 5.12 0.20 0.18 0.01 758.27 0.25 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.38 6.52 3.10 0.15 0.14 0.01 1,000.21 0.32 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grubbing/Land Clearing pounds per day 0.88 9.06 8.58 0.36 0.34 0.02 1,807.80 0.57 Grubbing/Land Clearing tons per phase 0.01 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.91 0.01 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier

0.00 Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00 N/A
Mitigation Option

0.00 0.00
N/A

0.00 0.00
N/A
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 4
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 10/5/2021 Default
Grading/Excavation Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.35 1.83 3.82 0.16 0.15 0.01 558.82 0.18 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.89 4.49 10.25 0.40 0.37 0.02 1,516.54 0.49 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.75 13.03 6.19 0.30 0.28 0.02 2,000.42 0.65 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.77 3.39 9.31 0.30 0.28 0.01 1,281.71 0.41 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.46 5.56 4.83 0.27 0.24 0.01 762.32 0.25 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.81 4.53 7.96 0.27 0.25 0.02 1,816.68 0.59 4 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 3.15 24.55 33.13 1.30 1.20 0.06 5,880.52 1.90 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.30 4.46 3.07 0.15 0.14 0.01 603.15 0.20 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Grading/Excavation pounds per day 7.54 62.14 78.92 3.16 2.91 0.15 14,469.49 4.67 Grading/Excavation tons per phase 0.30 2.46 3.13 0.13 0.12 0.01 572.99 0.18 N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00

0.00 Mitigation Option
N/A
Data Entry Worksheet 5
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 10/5/2021 Default
Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.26 2.41 1.74 0.09 0.09 0.00 375.26 0.02 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.31 3.67 2.72 0.13 0.13 0.01 623.04 0.03 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.77 3.39 9.31 0.30 0.28 0.01 1,281.71 0.41 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 34.48 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.33 3.73 2.75 0.13 0.13 0.01 623.04 0.03 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.11 2.29 1.40 0.04 0.04 0.00 333.80 0.11 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 3.15 24.55 33.13 1.30 1.20 0.06 5,880.52 1.90 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.30 4.46 3.07 0.15 0.14 0.01 603.15 0.20 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade pounds per day 5.31 45.00 54.73 2.18 2.04 0.10 9,804.32 2.71 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade tons per phase 0.14 1.19 1.44 0.06 0.05 0.00 258.83 0.07 N/A
N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Number of Vehicles
Mitigation Option

0.00 Data Entry Worksheet 6
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 10/5/2021 Default
Paving Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only
when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.19 2.88 1.88 0.09 0.08 0.00 455.22 0.15 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.17 2.56 1.60 0.08 0.07 0.00 394.47 0.13 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.15 1.85 1.61 0.09 0.08 0.00 254.11 0.08 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.06 0.30 0.36 0.01 0.01 0.00 49.31 0.01 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.30 4.46 3.07 0.15 0.14 0.01 603.15 0.20 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving pounds per day 0.88 12.06 8.53 0.42 0.39 0.02 1,756.26 0.56 Paving tons per phase 0.01 0.16 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.00 23.18 0.01 Total Emissions all Phases (tons per construction period) => 0.46 3.89 4.76 0.19 0.18 0.01 870.92 0.27 N/A
N/A
Equipment Tier
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

0.00 Number of Vehicles

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
Mitigation Option
Data Entry Worksheet 7
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 10/5/2021 N2O CO2e
pounds/day pounds/day

0.00 0.00

0.01 766.45

0.00 0.00

0.01 1,010.99

0.00 0.00

0.00 49.56

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
N2O CO2e
pounds/day pounds/day

0.00 0.00

0.02 1,827.01

0.00 16.08
Data Entry Worksheet8
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 10/5/2021 N2O CO2e
pounds/day pounds/day

0.00 0.00

0.01 564.84

0.01 1,532.90

0.00 0.00

0.02 2,021.99

0.00 0.00

0.01 1,295.52

0.00 0.00

0.01 770.54

0.00 0.00

0.02 1,836.30

0.05 5,943.88

0.00 49.56

0.00 0.00

0.01 609.64

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
N2O CO2e
pounds/day pounds/day

0.00 0.00

0.13 14,625.18

0.01 579.16
Data Entry Worksheet9
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 10/5/2021 N2O CO2e
pounds/day pounds/day

0.00 0.00

0.00 376.67

0.00 0.00

0.00 625.12

0.01 1,295.52

0.00 0.00

0.00 34.65

0.00 0.00

0.00 625.14

0.00 0.00

0.00 337.40

0.00 0.00

0.05 5,943.88

0.00 49.56

0.00 0.00

0.01 609.64

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
N2O CO2e
pounds/day pounds/day

0.00 0.00

0.09 9,897.59

0.00 261.30
Data Entry Worksheet 10
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 10/5/2021 N2O CO2e
pounds/day pounds/day

0.00 0.00

0.00 460.13

0.00 398.72

0.00 0.00

0.00 256.85

0.00 0.00

0.00 49.56

0.00 0.00

0.01 609.64

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
N2O CO2e
pounds/day pounds/day

0.00 0.00

0.02 1,774.90

0.00 23.43

0.01 879.96
Data Entry Worksheet 11
Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 10/5/2021 Equipment default values for horsepower and hours/day can be overridden in cells D403 through D436 and F403 through F436.

User Override of Default Values User Override of Default Values Equipment Horsepower Horsepower Hours/day Hours/day
Aerial Lifts 63 8
Air Compressors 78 8
Bore/Drill Rigs 221 8
Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 8
Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 8
Cranes 231 8
Crawler Tractors 212 8
Crushing/Proc. Equipment 85 8
Excavators 158 8
Forklifts 89 8
Generator Sets 84 8
Graders 187 8
Off-Highway Tractors 124 8
Off-Highway Trucks 402 8
Other Construction Equipment 172 8
Other General Industrial Equipment 88 8
Other Material Handling Equipment 168 8
Pavers 130 8
Paving Equipment 132 8
Plate Compactors 8 8
Pressure Washers 13 8
Pumps 84 8
Rollers 80 8
Rough Terrain Forklifts 100 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 247 8
Rubber Tired Loaders 203 8
Scrapers 367 8
Signal Boards 6 8
Skid Steer Loaders 65 8
Surfacing Equipment 263 8
Sweepers/Scrubbers 64 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 8
Trenchers 78 8
Welders 46 8

END OF DATA ENTRY SHEET
Data Entry Worksheet 12
APPENDIX B. USFWS, NOAA FISHERIES, CNDDB, AND CNPS SPECIES LISTS
2/3/22, 2:27 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/KR4QW7BAPNATTD3IMURB22UPIA/resources 1/14 IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information.

Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.

Project information
NAME
Fort Bragg Raw Waterline Replacement Project

LOCATION
Mendocino County, California

DESCRIPTION
Some(The City of Fort Bragg Public Works Department (City) is proposing to replace major portions of the City's main raw water supply pipeline. The Proposed Project would replace approximately 3.42 miles of the City's raw water pipeline that is reaching the end of its service life. The City of Fort Bragg is located in California's north coast region, within Mendocino County, California. The City of Fort bRagg's water supply comes from three main sources, including Waterfall Gulch, Newman Gulch, and the Noyo River. The City's Water Treatment Plant (WTP), located at the intersection of Sherwood Road and Monsen Way, receives its raw water supply from these three local sources via two main pipelines. The pipeline from the Noyo River is not a part of this Project. The Proposed Project pipeline transports water from Waterfall Gulch and Newman Gulch. Raw waterline replacement will occur in Phases. Phase II is approximately 3,150 feet long, Phase III is approximately 4,200 feet long, Phase IV is approximately 3,250 feet long, and Phase V is approximately 1,350 feet long. The Proposed Project is anticipated to take two construction seasons to complete, approximately 18 months.)
IPaC U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
2/3/22, 2:27 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/KR4QW7BAPNATTD3IMURB22UPIA/resources 2/14 Local office
Arcata Fish And Wildlife Office
 (707) 822-7201
 (707) 822-8411
1655 Heindon Road
Arcata, CA 95521-4573
2/3/22, 2:27 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/KR4QW7BAPNATTD3IMURB22UPIA/resources 3/14 Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts.

The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly.

For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:

1. Log in to IPaC.

2. Go to your My Projects list.

3. Click PROJECT HOME for this project.

4. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.

Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).

Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.

1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ).

2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.

The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:

Mammals
1 2

NAME STATUS
Pacific Marten, Coastal Distinct Population Segment Martes caurina Wherever found
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9081
Threatened
2/3/22, 2:27 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/KR4QW7BAPNATTD3IMURB22UPIA/resources 4/14 Birds
Reptiles
Amphibians
Fishes

NAME STATUS
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467
Threatened
Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location overlaps the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1123
Threatened
Western Snowy Plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8035
Threatened
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Threatened

NAME STATUS
Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6199
Threatened
Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1493
Endangered

NAME STATUS
California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891
Threatened

NAME STATUS
2/3/22, 2:27 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/KR4QW7BAPNATTD3IMURB22UPIA/resources 5/14 Insects
Flowering Plants
Tidewater Goby Eucyclogobius newberryi
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/57
Endangered

NAME STATUS
Behren's Silverspot Butterfly Speyeria zerene behrensii Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/900
Endangered
Lotis Blue Butterfly Lycaeides argyrognomon lotis
Wherever found
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5174
Endangered
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Candidate

NAME STATUS
Burke's Goldfields Lasthenia burkei
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4338
Endangered
Contra Costa Goldfields Lasthenia conjugens
Wherever found
There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7058
Endangered
Menzies' Wallflower Erysimum menziesii
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2935
Endangered
Monterey Clover Trifolium trichocalyx
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4282
Endangered
2/3/22, 2:27 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/KR4QW7BAPNATTD3IMURB22UPIA/resources 6/14 Critical habitats
Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves.

This location overlaps the critical habitat for the following species:

Migratory birds
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative Showy Indian Clover Trifolium amoenum
Wherever found
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6459
Endangered

NAME TYPE
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467#crithab
Final
Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1123#crithab
Final
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act .

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.

Additional information can be found using the following links:

Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/projectassessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php
Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf 1 2
2/3/22, 2:27 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/KR4QW7BAPNATTD3IMURB22UPIA/resources 7/14 occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below.

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.

NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A BREEDING

SEASON IS INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON

YOUR LIST, THE BIRD MAY BREED IN

YOUR PROJECT AREA SOMETIME

WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED,

WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE

OF THE DATES INSIDE WHICH THE

BIRD BREEDS ACROSS ITS ENTIRE
RANGE. "BREEDS ELSEWHERE"

INDICATES THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT

LIKELY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT
AREA.)
Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637
Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15
Black Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9591
Breeds Apr 15 to Oct 31
Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds elsewhere
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 31
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679
Breeds elsewhere
Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9481
Breeds elsewhere
2/3/22, 2:27 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/KR4QW7BAPNATTD3IMURB22UPIA/resources 8/14 Probability of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report.

Probability of Presence ( )
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25.

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score.

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3914
Breeds May 20 to Aug 31
Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002
Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 15
Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480
Breeds Jun 1 to Aug 10
Willet Tringa semipalmata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds elsewhere
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.

Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10
2/3/22, 2:27 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/KR4QW7BAPNATTD3IMURB22UPIA/resources 9/14 probability of presence breeding season survey effort no data To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

Breeding Season ( )
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area.

Survey Effort ( )
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.

To see a bar's survey effort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar.

No Data ( )
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.

Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.

SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Allen's Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a Bird
of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its range
in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Black Oystercatcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a Bird
of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its range
in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Black Turnstone
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a Bird
of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its range
in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Clark's Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a Bird
of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its range
in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
2/3/22, 2:27 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/KR4QW7BAPNATTD3IMURB22UPIA/resources 10/14 Lesser Yellowlegs
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a Bird
of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its range
in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Marbled Godwit
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a Bird
of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its range
in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Olive-sided
Flycatcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a Bird
of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its range
in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Rufous
Hummingbird
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a Bird
of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its range
in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Short-billed
Dowitcher
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a Bird
of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its range
in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Willet
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a Bird
of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its range
in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Wrentit
BCC Rangewide
(CON) (This is a Bird
of Conservation
Concern (BCC)
throughout its range
in the continental
USA and Alaska.)
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. 2/3/22, 2:27 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/KR4QW7BAPNATTD3IMURB22UPIA/resources 11/14 Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area.

When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.

What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or development.

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects 2/3/22, 2:27 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/KR4QW7BAPNATTD3IMURB22UPIA/resources 12/14 For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.

What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.

Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns.

THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.

Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.

Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
2/3/22, 2:27 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/KR4QW7BAPNATTD3IMURB22UPIA/resources 13/14 Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District.

Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site.

This location overlaps the following wetlands:

Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.

The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.

Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.

Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.

Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or

FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND
PEM1C

FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND
PFO1C

FRESHWATER POND
PUBHh

RIVERINE
R3UBH
R4SBC
R4SBA
A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website 2/3/22, 2:27 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources
https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/project/KR4QW7BAPNATTD3IMURB22UPIA/resources 14/14 adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may affect such activities. 1 Piazzoni, Allison M.

From: Piazzoni, Allison M.

Sent: Thursday, February 3, 2022 2:30 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: City of Fort Bragg Raw Water Line Replacement Project Good afternoon,
Federal Agency: n/a
Federal Agency address: n/a
Non-federal agency representative (if any): City of Fort Bragg Non-federal agency representative (if any) address: Diane O’Connor, 416 N Franklin, Fort Bragg, CA 95437 Project Title: City of Fort Bragg Raw Water Line Replacement Project Quad Name Fort Bragg
Quad Number 39123-D7
ESA Anadromous Fish
SONCC Coho ESU (T) -
CCC Coho ESU (E) - X
CC Chinook Salmon ESU (T) - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon ESU (T) -
SRWR Chinook Salmon ESU (E) -
NC Steelhead DPS (T) - X
CCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SCCC Steelhead DPS (T) -
SC Steelhead DPS (E) -
CCV Steelhead DPS (T) -
Eulachon (T) -
sDPS Green Sturgeon (T) - X
ESA Anadromous Fish Critical Habitat
SONCC Coho Critical Habitat -
CCC Coho Critical Habitat - X
CC Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat - X
CVSR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
SRWR Chinook Salmon Critical Habitat -
NC Steelhead Critical Habitat - X
CCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
SCCC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
2 SC Steelhead Critical Habitat -
CCV Steelhead Critical Habitat -
Eulachon Critical Habitat -
sDPS Green Sturgeon Critical Habitat - X
ESA Marine Invertebrates
Range Black Abalone (E) -
Range White Abalone (E) -
ESA Marine Invertebrates Critical Habitat
Black Abalone Critical Habitat -
ESA Sea Turtles
East Pacific Green Sea Turtle (T) - X
Olive Ridley Sea Turtle (T/E) - X
Leatherback Sea Turtle (E) - X
North Pacific Loggerhead Sea Turtle (E) -
ESA Whales
Blue Whale (E) - X
Fin Whale (E) - X
Humpback Whale (E) - X
Southern Resident Killer Whale (E) - X
North Pacific Right Whale (E) - X
Sei Whale (E) - X
Sperm Whale (E) - X
ESA Pinnipeds
Guadalupe Fur Seal (T) - X
Steller Sea Lion Critical Habitat -
Essential Fish Habitat
Coho EFH - X
Chinook Salmon EFH - X
Groundfish EFH - X
Coastal Pelagics EFH - X
3 Highly Migratory Species EFH - X
MMPA Species (See list at left)
ESA and MMPA Cetaceans/Pinnipeds
See list at left and consult the NMFS Long Beach office 562-980-4000
MMPA Cetaceans - X
MMPA Pinnipeds - X
Allison Piazzoni
Staff Environmental Scientist
D 916.363.2586
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . www.dewberry.com
Element Code Species Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
AAAAF02020 Taricha rivularis
red-bellied newt
None None G2 S2 SSC
AAAAJ01020 Rhyacotriton variegatus
southern torrent salamander
None None G3G4 S2S3 SSC
AAABA01010 Ascaphus truei
Pacific tailed frog
None None G4 S3S4 SSC
AAABH01021 Rana aurora
northern red-legged frog
None None G4 S3 SSC
AAABH01050 Rana boylii
foothill yellow-legged frog
None Endangered G3 S3 SSC
ABNDC04030 Hydrobates homochroa
ashy storm-petrel
None None G2 S2 SSC
ABNGA04010 Ardea herodias
great blue heron
None None G5 S4
ABNKC01010 Pandion haliaetus
osprey
None None G5 S4 WL
ABNKC12060 Accipiter gentilis
northern goshawk
None None G5 S3 SSC
ABNNB03031 Charadrius nivosus nivosus
western snowy plover
Threatened None G3T3 S2 SSC
ABNNN06010 Brachyramphus marmoratus
marbled murrelet
Threatened Endangered G3 S2
ABNNN12010 Fratercula cirrhata
tufted puffin
None None G5 S1S2 SSC
ABPAU01010 Progne subis
purple martin
None None G5 S3 SSC
AFBAA02100 Entosphenus tridentatus
Pacific lamprey
None None G4 S3 SSC
AFCHA02034 Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4
coho salmon - central California coast ESU
Endangered Endangered G5T2T3Q S2
AFCHA0209Q Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 16
steelhead - northern California DPS
Threatened None G5T2T3Q S2S3
AFCQN04010 Eucyclogobius newberryi
tidewater goby
Endangered None G3 S3
AMACC05030 Lasiurus cinereus
hoary bat
None None G3G4 S4
AMACC08010 Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat
None None G4 S2 SSC
Query Criteria: Quad IS (Noyo Hill (3912346) OR Dutchmans Knoll (3912356) OR Inglenook (3912357) OR Fort Bragg (3912347) OR Mathison Peak (3912336) OR Mendocino (3912337)) Report Printed on Thursday, February 03, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 30 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 of 5 Information Expires 7/30/2022
Selected Elements by Element Code
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Element Code Species Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
AMAFF23030 Arborimus pomo
Sonoma tree vole
None None G3 S3 SSC
AMAFJ01010 Erethizon dorsatum
North American porcupine
None None G5 S3
ARAAD02030 Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
None None G3G4 S3 SSC
CTT51110CA Sphagnum Bog
Sphagnum Bog
None None G3 S1.2
CTT51200CA Fen
Fen
None None G2 S1.2
CTT52110CA Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
None None G3 S3.2
CTT52200CA Coastal Brackish Marsh
Coastal Brackish Marsh
None None G2 S2.1
CTT52410CA Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
None None G3 S2.1
CTT82120CA Grand Fir Forest
Grand Fir Forest
None None G1 S1.1
CTT83161CA Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Forest
Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Forest
None None G2 S2.1
IICOL4A010 Coelus globosus
globose dune beetle
None None G1G2 S1S2
IIHYM24250 Bombus occidentalis
western bumble bee
None None G2G3 S1
IIHYM24380 Bombus caliginosus
obscure bumble bee
None None G4? S1S2
IILEPG5013 Plebejus anna lotis
lotis blue butterfly
Endangered None G5TH SH
IILEPJ6088 Speyeria zerene behrensii
Behren's silverspot butterfly
Endangered None G5T1 S1
ILARAU6040 Calileptoneta wapiti
Mendocino leptonetid spider
None None G1 S1
IMGASC5070 Noyo intersessa
Ten Mile shoulderband
None None G2 S2
NBMUS7S010 Triquetrella californica
coastal triquetrella
None None G2 S2 1B.2
NLLEC3S340 Ramalina thrausta
angel's hair lichen
None None G5? S2S3 2B.1
NLLEC5P420 Usnea longissima
Methuselah's beard lichen
None None G4 S4 4.2
PDAST1A022 Blennosperma nanum var. robustum
Point Reyes blennosperma
None Rare G4T2 S2 1B.2
Report Printed on Thursday, February 03, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 30 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 2 of 5 Information Expires 7/30/2022
Selected Elements by Element Code
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Element Code Species Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
PDAST3M3Z0 Erigeron supplex
supple daisy
None None G2 S2 1B.2
PDAST4R065 Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta
congested-headed hayfield tarplant
None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
PDAST5L0C4 Lasthenia californica ssp. bakeri
Baker's goldfields
None None G3T1 S1 1B.2
PDAST5L0C5 Lasthenia californica ssp. macrantha
perennial goldfields
None None G3T2 S2 1B.2
PDAST6E030 Microseris borealis
northern microseris
None None G5 S1 2B.1
PDAST8H0H1 Packera bolanderi var. bolanderi
seacoast ragwort
None None G4T4 S2S3 2B.2
PDASTE5011 Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia
short-leaved evax
None None G4T3 S3 1B.2
PDBRA160E3 Erysimum concinnum
bluff wallflower
None None G3 S2 1B.2
PDBRA160R0 Erysimum menziesii
Menzies' wallflower
Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
PDCAM02060 Campanula californica
swamp harebell
None None G3 S3 1B.2
PDCON040D2 Calystegia purpurata ssp. saxicola
coastal bluff morning-glory
None None G4T2T3 S2S3 1B.2
PDCOR01040 Cornus canadensis
bunchberry
None None G5 S2 2B.2
PDCUS011A2 Cuscuta pacifica var. papillata
Mendocino dodder
None None G5T1 S1 1B.2
PDERI04280 Arctostaphylos nummularia ssp. mendocinoensis pygmy manzanita
None None G3?T1 S1 1B.2
PDFAB0F080 Astragalus agnicidus
Humboldt County milk-vetch
None Endangered G2 S2 1B.1
PDFAB250P0 Lathyrus palustris
marsh pea
None None G5 S2 2B.2
PDFAB402J0 Trifolium trichocalyx
Monterey clover
Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1
PDHYD0C2B1 Phacelia insularis var. continentis
North Coast phacelia
None None G2T2 S2 1B.2
PDMAL110E0 Sidalcea malachroides
maple-leaved checkerbloom
None None G3 S3 4.2
PDMAL110FL Sidalcea malviflora ssp. purpurea
purple-stemmed checkerbloom
None None G5T1 S1 1B.2
PDNYC010N4 Abronia umbellata var. breviflora
pink sand-verbena
None None G4G5T2 S2 1B.1
Report Printed on Thursday, February 03, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 30 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 3 of 5 Information Expires 7/30/2022
Selected Elements by Element Code
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Element Code Species Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
PDONA05025 Clarkia amoena ssp. whitneyi
Whitney's farewell-to-spring
None None G5T1 S1 1B.1
PDONA0C1K0 Oenothera wolfii
Wolf's evening-primrose
None None G2 S1 1B.1
PDPGN040C0 Chorizanthe howellii
Howell's spineflower
Endangered Threatened G1 S1 1B.2
PDPLM040B6 Gilia capitata ssp. pacifica
Pacific gilia
None None G5T3 S2 1B.2
PDPLM04130 Gilia millefoliata
dark-eyed gilia
None None G2 S2 1B.2
PDRAN0A020 Coptis laciniata
Oregon goldthread
None None G4? S3? 4.2
PDROS0W0B0 Horkelia marinensis
Point Reyes horkelia
None None G2 S2 1B.2
PDROS1L060 Sanguisorba officinalis
great burnet
None None G5? S2 2B.2
PDSAX0N020 Mitellastra caulescens
leafy-stemmed mitrewort
None None G5 S4 4.2
PDSCR0D012 Castilleja litoralis
Oregon coast paintbrush
None None G3 S3 2B.2
PDSCR0D3N0 Castilleja mendocinensis
Mendocino Coast paintbrush
None None G2 S2 1B.2
PDSCR0D402 Castilleja ambigua var. humboldtiensis
Humboldt Bay owl's-clover
None None G4T2 S2 1B.2
PDSCR0H060 Collinsia corymbosa
round-headed Chinese-houses
None None G1 S1 1B.2
PDVIO041G0 Viola palustris
alpine marsh violet
None None G5 S1S2 2B.2
PGCUP04032 Hesperocyparis pygmaea
pygmy cypress
None None G1 S1 1B.2
PGPIN04081 Pinus contorta ssp. bolanderi
Bolander's beach pine
None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
PMCYP032D0 Carex californica
California sedge
None None G5 S2 2B.2
PMCYP037A7 Carex lenticularis var. limnophila
lagoon sedge
None None G5T5 S1 2B.2
PMCYP037L0 Carex livida
livid sedge
None None G5 SH 2A
PMCYP037Y0 Carex lyngbyei
Lyngbye's sedge
None None G5 S3 2B.2
PMCYP03BY0 Carex saliniformis
deceiving sedge
None None G2 S2 1B.2
Report Printed on Thursday, February 03, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 30 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 4 of 5 Information Expires 7/30/2022
Selected Elements by Element Code
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
Element Code Species Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant
Rank/CDFW
SSC or FP
PMCYP03EM5 Carex viridula ssp. viridula
green yellow sedge
None None G5T5 S2 2B.3
PMCYP0N010 Rhynchospora alba
white beaked-rush
None None G5 S2 2B.2
PMJUN012R0 Juncus supiniformis
hair-leaved rush
None None G5 S1 2B.2
PMLIL1A0C0 Lilium maritimum
coast lily
None None G2 S2 1B.1
PMORC1X050 Piperia candida
white-flowered rein orchid
None None G3 S3 1B.2
PMPOA04060 Agrostis blasdalei
Blasdale's bent grass
None None G2 S2 1B.2
PMPOA17070 Calamagrostis crassiglumis
Thurber's reed grass
None None G3Q S2 2B.1
PMPOA531L0 Puccinellia pumila
dwarf alkali grass
None None G4? SH 2B.2
PPLYC01080 Lycopodium clavatum
running-pine
None None G5 S3 4.1
Record Count: 91
Report Printed on Thursday, February 03, 2022
Commercial Version -- Dated January, 30 2022 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 5 of 5 Information Expires 7/30/2022
Selected Elements by Element Code
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
California Natural Diversity Database
2/3/22, 2:19 PM Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - Search Result https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&crpr=1A:1B:2A:2B&qsl=9&quad=3912346:3912356:3912357:3912347:3912336:3912337: 1/5 Search Results
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California
51 matches found. Click on scientific name for details
Search Criteria: CRPR is one of [1A:1B:2A:2B] , 9-Quad include [3912346:3912356:3912357:3912347:3912336:3912337] ▲ SCIENTIFIC

NAME COMMON NAME FAMILY LIFEFORM

BLOOMING
PERIOD
FED
LIST
STATE
LIST
GLOBAL
RANK
STATE
RANK
CA
RARE
PLANT

RANK PHOTO
Abronia umbellata
var. breviflora
pink sandverbenaNyctaginaceae perennial herb Jun-Oct None None G4G5T2 S2 1B.1 ©2021
Scot
Loring
Agrostis blasdalei Blasdale's bent
grass
Poaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
May-Jul None None G2 S2 1B.2
© 2001
Doreen L.

Smith
Arctostaphylos
nummularia ssp.
mendocinoensis
pygmy
manzanita
Ericaceae perennial
evergreen shrub
Jan None None G3?T1 S1 1B.2
No Photo
Available
Astragalus
agnicidus
Humboldt
County milkvetch
Fabaceae perennial herb Apr-Sep None CE G2 S2 1B.1
No Photo
Available
Blennosperma
nanum var.
robustum
Point Reyes
blennosperma
Asteraceae annual herb Feb-Apr None CR G4T2 S2 1B.2
No Photo
Available
Calamagrostis
crassiglumis
Thurber's reed
grass
Poaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
May-Aug None None G3Q S2 2B.1
No Photo
Available
Calystegia
purpurata ssp.
saxicola
coastal bluff
morning-glory
Convolvulaceae perennial herb (Mar)AprSepNone None G4T2T3 S2S3 1B.2 No Photo
Available
Campanula
californica
swamp harebell Campanulaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
Jun-Oct None None G3 S3 1B.2
No Photo
Available
Carex californica California sedge Cyperaceae perennial rhizomatous herb
May-Aug None None G5 S2 2B.2
No Photo
Available
Carex lenticularis
var. limnophila
lagoon sedge Cyperaceae perennial herb Jun-Aug None None G5T5 S1 2B.2 No Photo
Available
Carex livida livid sedge Cyperaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
Jun None None G5 SH 2A
No Photo
Available
2/3/22, 2:19 PM Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - Search Result https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&crpr=1A:1B:2A:2B&qsl=9&quad=3912346:3912356:3912357:3912347:3912336:3912337: 2/5 Carex lyngbyei Lyngbye's sedge Cyperaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
Apr-Aug None None G5 S3 2B.2
No Photo
Available
Carex saliniformis deceiving sedge Cyperaceae perennial rhizomatous herb
Jun(Jul) None None G2 S2 1B.2
No Photo
Available
Carex viridula ssp.
viridula
green yellow
sedge
Cyperaceae perennial herb (Jun)JulSep(Nov)None None G5T5 S2 2B.3 © 2015
Dana York
Castilleja ambigua
var.
humboldtiensis
Humboldt Bay
owl's-clover
Orobanchaceae annual herb
(hemiparasitic)
Apr-Aug None None G4T2 S2 1B.2
No Photo
Available
Castilleja litoralis Oregon coast
paintbrush
Orobanchaceae perennial herb
(hemiparasitic)
Jun None None G3 S3 2B.2
No Photo
Available
Castilleja
mendocinensis
Mendocino
Coast
paintbrush
Orobanchaceae perennial herb
(hemiparasitic)
Apr-Aug None None G2 S2 1B.2
No Photo
Available
Chorizanthe
howellii
Howell's
spineflower
Polygonaceae annual herb May-Jul FE CT G1 S1 1B.2
No Photo
Available
Clarkia amoena
ssp. whitneyi
Whitney's
farewell-tospring
Onagraceae annual herb Jun-Aug None None G5T1 S1 1B.1
No Photo
Available
Collinsia
corymbosa
round-headed
Chinese-houses
Plantaginaceae annual herb Apr-Jun None None G1 S1 1B.2 No Photo
Available
Cornus canadensis bunchberry Cornaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
May-Jul None None G5 S2 2B.2
© 2021
Scot
Loring
Cuscuta pacifica
var. papillata
Mendocino
dodder
Convolvulaceae annual vine
(parasitic)
(Jun)JulOctNone None G5T1 S1 1B.2
No Photo
Available
Erigeron supplex supple daisy Asteraceae perennial herb May-Jul None None G2 S2 1B.2 No Photo
Available
Erysimum
concinnum
bluff wallflower Brassicaceae annual/perennial
herb
Feb-Jul None None G3 S2 1B.2
No Photo
Available
Erysimum
menziesii
Menzies'
wallflower
Brassicaceae perennial herb Mar-Sep FE CE G1 S1 1B.1
No Photo
Available
Gilia capitata ssp.
pacifica
Pacific gilia Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Aug None None G5T3 S2 1B.2 © 2016
Steve
Matson
2/3/22, 2:19 PM Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - Search Result https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&crpr=1A:1B:2A:2B&qsl=9&quad=3912346:3912356:3912357:3912347:3912336:3912337: 3/5 Gilia millefoliata dark-eyed gilia Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jul None None G2 S2 1B.2 © 2017
John
Doyen
Hemizonia
congesta ssp.
congesta
congestedheaded hayfield
tarplant
Asteraceae annual herb Apr-Nov None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
© 2015
Vernon
Smith
Hesperevax
sparsiflora var.
brevifolia
short-leaved
evax
Asteraceae annual herb Mar-Jun None None G4T3 S3 1B.2
© 2006
Doreen L.

Smith
Hesperocyparis
pygmaea
pygmy cypress Cupressaceae perennial
evergreen tree
None None G1 S1 1B.2
© 2009
Neal
Kramer
Horkelia
marinensis
Point Reyes
horkelia
Rosaceae perennial herb May-Sep None None G2 S2 1B.2
© 2017
John
Doyen
Juncus
supiniformis
hair-leaved rush Juncaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
AprMay(JunJul)None None G5 S1 2B.2
© 2013
Asa Spade
Lasthenia
californica ssp.
bakeri
Baker's
goldfields
Asteraceae perennial herb Apr-Oct None None G3T1 S1 1B.2 ©2015
Asa Spade
Lasthenia
californica ssp.
macrantha
perennial
goldfields
Asteraceae perennial herb Jan-Nov None None G3T2 S2 1B.2 © 2013
John
Doyen
Lathyrus palustris marsh pea Fabaceae perennial herb Mar-Aug None None G5 S2 2B.2 © 2016
Keir Morse
Lilium maritimum coast lily Liliaceae perennial
bulbiferous herb
May-Aug None None G2 S2 1B.1
© 2020
Aaron
Schusteff
2/3/22, 2:19 PM Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - Search Result https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&crpr=1A:1B:2A:2B&qsl=9&quad=3912346:3912356:3912357:3912347:3912336:3912337: 4/5 Microseris borealis northern
microseris
Asteraceae perennial herb Jun-Sep None None G5 S1 2B.1
No Photo
Available
Oenothera wolfii Wolf's eveningprimroseOnagraceae perennial herb May-Oct None None G2 S1 1B.1 No Photo
Available
Packera bolanderi
var. bolanderi
seacoast
ragwort
Asteraceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
(JanApr)MayJul(Aug)None None G4T4 S2S3 2B.2
© 2021
Scot
Loring
Phacelia insularis
var. continentis
North Coast
phacelia
Hydrophyllaceae annual herb Mar-May None None G2T2 S2 1B.2 No Photo
Available
Pinus contorta ssp.
bolanderi
Bolander's
beach pine
Pinaceae perennial
evergreen tree
None None G5T2 S2 1B.2
No Photo
Available
Piperia candida white-flowered
rein orchid
Orchidaceae perennial herb (Mar)MaySepNone None G3 S3 1B.2 ©2016
Barry Rice
Puccinellia pumila dwarf alkali
grass
Poaceae perennial herb Jul None None G4? SH 2B.2
No Photo
Available
Ramalina thrausta angel's hair
lichen
Ramalinaceae fruticose lichen
(epiphytic)
None None G5? S2S3 2B.1
© 2013
Scot
Loring
Rhynchospora alba white beakedrushCyperaceae perennial rhizomatous herb
Jun-Aug None None G5 S2 2B.2
© 2021
Scot
Loring
Rhynchospora
globularis
round-headed
beaked-rush
Cyperaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
Jul-Aug None None G4 S1 2B.1
No Photo
Available
Sanguisorba
officinalis
great burnet Rosaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
Jul-Oct None None G5? S2 2B.2
No Photo
Available
Sidalcea malviflora
ssp. purpurea
purple-stemmed
checkerbloom
Malvaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
May-Jun None None G5T1 S1 1B.2
No Photo
Available
Trifolium
trichocalyx
Monterey clover Fabaceae annual herb Apr-Jun FE CE G1 S1 1B.1 No Photo
Available
Triquetrella
californica
coastal
triquetrella
Pottiaceae moss None None G2 S2 1B.2
No Photo
2/3/22, 2:19 PM Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California - Search Result https://rareplants.cnps.org/Search/result?frm=T&crpr=1A:1B:2A:2B&qsl=9&quad=3912346:3912356:3912357:3912347:3912336:3912337: 5/5 Available
Viola palustris alpine marsh
violet
Violaceae perennial
rhizomatous herb
Mar-Aug None None G5 S1S2 2B.2
©2021
Scot
Loring
Showing 1 to 51 of 51 entries
Suggested Citation:

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v9-01 1.0).

Website https://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 3 February 2022].

ABOUT THIS WEBSITE
About the Inventory
Release Notes
Advanced Search
Glossary

ABOUT CNPS
About the Rare Plant Program
CNPS Home Page
About CNPS
Join CNPS

CONTRIBUTORS
The Calflora Database
The California Lichen Society
California Natural Diversity
Database
The Jepson Flora Project
The Consortium of California
Herbaria
CalPhotos
Copyright © 2010-2022 California Native Plant Society. All rights reserved.

APPENDIX C. BOTANICAL SURVEY LIST

APPENDIX D. MAMU HABITAT REPORT
Marbled Murrelet
The range of the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) overlaps with the project area. Marbled Murrelet is endangered pursuant to Fish and Game Code (FGC) §2050 et seq. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists this species as threatened pursuant to Title 16, United States Code (U.S.C.) §1531 et seq. under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection lists the Marbled Murrelet as a sensitive species as defined by Title 14 California Code of Regulations §895.1.

The Marbled Murrelet is a seabird that nests within multistoried canopies on platforms at least 4 inches wide by 4 inches Iong. Marbled Murrelet are found in trees with large lateral limbs, epicormic branching, epiphytic growth and/or intertwined branching and are often associated with late seral (over mature) forest and/or tree structure characteristics.

Inspection of the planned pipeline route confirms that most of the route is located in habitats not suitable for marbled murrelet nesting. Closer inspection of certain areas in project areas Segment 2, Segment 3, Segment 4 and Segment 5 were made due to presence of larger young growth north coast coniferous forest habitats. Of the areas chosen for closer inspection timber associated with the Segment 2 and Segment 3 pipeline alignment have the greatest potential to provide marbled murrelet habitat.

Segment 4 and 5 stands consist of smaller young growth timber not known to support marbled murrelet nesting efforts.

Segment 2
Adjacent to the surveyed Segment 2 route several large diameter young growth redwood trees are found along a class 2 watercourse from Map Point A to Map Point B.

The largest trees in this area are located in the northern end of the drainage. The dominant trees in this cluster were reviewed individually and are described below.

Tree 1 Young growth redwood:

Height: 88 feet to broken top
DBH: 48 inches
Canopy Structure: Limbs typically sloping down and generally lacking diameters sufficient to provide 4+ inch egg platform. The top of the tree is broken out at approximately 16 inches diameter. No bryophyte development noted in the canopy. This tree is open to the north.

Tree 2 Young growth redwood:

Height: 137 feet
DBH: 66 inches
Canopy Structure: Limbs typically sloping down and generally lacking diameters sufficient to provide 4+ inch egg platform. Has several spike knots (iterated tops) No bryophyte development noted in the canopy. This tree is open to the west.

Tree 3 Young growth redwood:

Height: 149 feet
DBH: 55 inches
Canopy Structure Limbs typically sloping down and generally lacking diameters sufficient to provide 4+ inch egg platform. No bryophyte development noted in the canopy. This tree is open to the south.

Tree 4 Young growth redwood:

Height: 172 feet
DBH: 76 inches
Canopy Structure: Limbs typically sloping down and generally lacking diameters sufficient to provide 4+ inch egg platform. No bryophyte development noted in the canopy. This tree is not part of a clump and open grown.

Tree 5 Young growth redwood:

Height: 187 feet
DBH: 70 inches
Canopy Structure: Limbs typically sloping down and generally lacking diameters sufficient to provide 4+ inch egg platform. No bryophyte development noted in the canopy. This tree is not part of a clump and open grown.

Tree 6 Young growth redwood:

Height: 137 feet
DBH: 58 inches
Canopy Structure: Limbs typically sloping down and generally lacking diameters sufficient to provide 4+ inch egg platform. Has several spike knots (iterated tops) No bryophyte development noted in the canopy. This tree is open to the west.

Figure 1: Large diameter young redwoods adjacent to Segment 2 pipeline route Segment 2 Alignment Summary of Marbled Murrelet Habitat Assessment Limbs and branch nodes >4 inches in diameter are present but lack the overall character thought to be necessary to serve as viable egg platforms. Specifically downward slopes branch structure, lack of bryophyte development and limb size/structure yielding viable egg platforms where eggs would be secure through the incubation period without the benefit of a nest structure (flat or concave surfaces greater than 4” x 4”) while at the same time being sheltered from strong winds, direct solar effects and obscured enough from view to avoid predation during nesting. The dominant trees in this area either occur in small groups or individually tower above the surrounding forest canopy resulting in a moderately open upper canopy environment.

Because of these factors, Marbled Murrelet use of this area is considered to be unlikely.

Segment 3 Alignment
Adjacent to the surveyed Segment 3 route several large diameter trees are located adjacent to Newman Gulch Reservoir on property owned by the City of Fort Bragg.

These trees are located near the eastern terminus of the Segment 3 project area. The surveyed route extending westward is dominated by small diameter timber which is not suitable MAMU habitat.

Dominant trees at this location (see map) were reviewed individually and are described below.

Segment 3 Alignment Tree 1
Species Pygmy Cypress:

Height: 150 feet
DBH: 62 inches
Canopy Structure: Large limbs present with branching pattern that could potentially provide a 4+ inch egg platform. No some bryophyte development is also noted in the canopy. This tree is open to the east as it is directly adjacent to the Newman Gulch Reservoir (spillway visible in background).

Segment 3 Alignment Tree 2
Species: Pygmy Cypress:

Height: 132 feet
DBH: 75 inches
Canopy Structure: Large limbs present with branching pattern that could potentially provide a 4+ inch egg platform. No some bryophyte development is also noted in the canopy. This tree is surrounded by young growth canopy.

Segment 3 Alignment Tree 3
Species: Old Growth Redwood:

Height: 147 feet
DBH: 94 inches
Canopy Structure: Limbs typically sloping down and generally lacking diameters sufficient to provide 4+ inch egg platform. No bryophyte development noted in the canopy. This tree is not part of a clump and the upper canopy is open grown.

Segment 3 Alignment Trees 4 and 5
Tree 4 Tree 5
Species: Western Hemlock: Species: Western Hemlock:0
Height: 126 feet Height: 120 feet
DBH: 40inches DBH: 34 inches
Canopy Structure: Limbs have some branching patterns yielding horizontal limb surfaces potentially large enough to provide a 4+ inch egg platform. No bryophyte development noted in the canopy. This tree is not part of a clump. Surrounding canopy is generally closed from above but open below providing little cover to avoid predation.

Segment 3 Alignment Summary of Marbled Murrelet Habitat Potential habitat is limited to 5 trees located near the eastern end of the Segment 3 alignment.

Individual limbs on individual trees itemized above may provide surfaces potentially large enough to provide a 4+ inch egg platforms. The area where these trees are located is a busy environment with ongoing activity including municipal use and maintenance of the Newman Gulch Reservoir, use and maintenance of the Summers Lane Reservoir and extensive clearing and maintenance of right-of-way associated with the high voltage power transmission lines that bound this area on the south side. It is because of these site specific factors rather than purely existence possible platform nesting opportunities that Marbled Murrelet use of this area is considered to be unlikely.

APPENDIX E. NSO SURVEY REPORT

APPENDIX F. RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENT

RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENT
This section provides a summary of comments received during the public review period for the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the City of Fort Bragg Raw Water Line Replacement Project (Project). In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), City of Fort Bragg prepared an Initial Study to analyze the impacts created by the Project. The environmental document and Notice of Availability was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH No 2022030742) on March 29, 2022, and was circulated for State public review from March 29, 2022 through April 27, 2022.

The City posted a Notice of Availability on March 31, 2022, and circulated the environmental document for local public review from March 31, 2022 through May 2, 2022. During the review period, the City received 2 comments on the environmental document, which are included below.

Agencies, organizations, and individuals who have commented on the Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
Letter #1: State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Tina Bartlett, Regional Manager Northern Region, April 28, 2022.

Letter #2: Department of Transportation, Jesse Robertson, Transportation Planning Caltrans District 1, May 2, 2022
Responses to Written Comments
Letter #1: State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Tina Bartlett, Regional Manager Northern Region
No. Comment/Recommendation Response
1 Special‐Status Plant Species: CDFW states that
the IS/MND does not fully evaluate the impact of
the loss of the Mendocino Cypress and
recommends that the Lead Agency restrict the
existing pipeline easements, specifically Segment
#3, to the greatest extent possible to avoid and
minimize impacts to the Mendocino Cypress
Woodland (MCW) associations. CDFW feels that
this would reduce impacts to less than significant.

As stated on Page 97, the City has
selected old skid roads and existing
trails to minimize impact to the
greatest extent feasible. In addition,
seasonally appropriate pre‐
construction surveys will be completed,
and special‐status plants will be flagged
and avoided to the greatest extent
possible (Bio‐7). This would include the
Mendocino Cypress. A Restoration Plan
and a Mendocino Cypress and Bishop
Pine Mitigation Plan that the City will
prepare in consultation with CDFW is
also required per Bio‐8.
2 Special‐Status Plant Species: CDFW recommends
that the amount of vegetation removed should
be reduced to the greatest extent possible,
because the Sensitive Natural Communities likely
effected only consist of around 2,000 remaining
total acres in the state.

Special‐status plants will be flagged and
avoided to the greatest extent possible
(Bio‐7). In addition, the as mentioned in
the Project description, all vegetation
removal would be within the approved
project limits of disturbance, and the
City will also prepare a site restoration
and maintenance plan.
3 Rare soil type: CDFW recommends states that
the soil types in which promote the ‘Pygmy’
forests are extremely rare and notes that any
disturbances to this soil type would prevent this
rare forest type from existing in the future. The
CDFW recommends that caution be used during
the reopening of the existing road in order to
prevent further expansion outside of the
disturbance footprint into the natural soil types
that exist on either side of the roadbed.

As stated on Page 97, the City has
selected old skid roads and existing
trails to minimize impact to native soil
and natural occurring vegetation the
greatest extent feasible (Bio‐7).
4 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement:

CDFW recommends that the existing crossing at
the Noyo River and the crossings at the drainage
ditch for Segment #2 be assessed for appropriate
100‐year flood event size to ensure that the size
of Segment #2 is appropriate for the site and the
volume of water and debris that could pass
through the channel. Ultimately, three Lake and
Streambed Alternation Agreements will be
needed: Two existing crossings in Segment #2,
and the crossing proposed on Hare Creek in
Segment #5.

The Project is in the final design stage
and will comply with current design
standards, including the ability to
withstand a 100‐year flood event. As
stated on Page 105, the City will apply
for a Lake and Streambed Alteration
Agreement, and other applicable
permits, prior to project construction
and implement the terms and
conditions in each permit (Bio‐10).
5 Botanical Surveys and Impact Analysis: The
CDFW explains that transplanting the ‘pygmy’
form of the Mendocino Cypress would cause the
tree to no longer grow as a pygmy cypress. CDFW
states that transplanting is likely an unacceptable
mitigation measure for the pygmy form of the
tree since soil is such an important resource
within the MCW associations. The method of
transplanting the trees could be used for the
Mendocino cypress that are already growing at
full size, in the disturbed roadbeds.

The CDFW states that transplanting the pygmy
cypress would require a monitoring plan with
success criteria and an invasive plant control
strategy to ensure the resown native seed would
be successful. CDFW would like to see an
example of both strategies to demonstrate the
feasibility of the method as a suitable mitigation
measure along with the mitigation monitoring
plan.

As stated on Page 97, the City has
selected old skid roads and existing
trails to minimize impact to the
greatest extent feasible. In addition,
seasonally appropriate pre‐
construction surveys will be completed,
and special‐status plants will be flagged
and avoided to the greatest extent
possible (Bio‐7). This would include the
Mendocino Cypress. A Restoration Plan
and a Mendocino Cypress and Bishop
Pine Mitigation Plan that the City will
prepare in consultation with CDFW is
also required per Bio‐8.
6 The Department states that Sholar’s Bog is a
viable conservation opportunity. CDFW
recommends that the Lead Agency pursue this
option to offset current and future impacts to
MCW and Bishop pine forests.

As discussed in Bio‐8, the City is
actively seeking potential partners in
this concept, including Caltrans.

Letter #2: California Department of Transportation, Jesse Robertson, Transportation Planning Caltrans District 1
No. Comment/Recommendation Response
1 Encroachment on State Right‐of‐Way: Caltrans
explains that Segment 4 of the water supply
pipeline crosses Route 20 right‐of‐way at Dwyer
Lane, 1‐MEN‐20‐PM 1.828. Caltrans states that
open trenching across State routes is prohibited;
therefore, a casing will be required for the
transverse crossing, and utility depth
requirements of 42‐inches below the finished
grade, must be met. Caltrans states that an
encroachment permit will be required to perform
the transverse crossing. Caltrans also requires the
applicant to arrange and participate in a pre‐
submittal meeting with the Caltrans
encroachment permit staff in Ukiah prior to
submitting a permit application.

Section 2.7, Construction Permits and
Approvals Required, acknowledges that
an encroachment permit will be
required from Caltrans when crossing
through State ROW.

Conclusion
The lead agency has carefully considered the public comments, and has determined that neither the comments received, nor the responses thereto, identify any new significant impacts created by the Project. Therefore, no new information has been added to the MND in response to the public comment.

As defined by Section 15073.5(a) of CEQA, the environmental document will not require any “substantial revisions”. Pursuant to Section 15073.5(c) of CEQA, the environmental document does not require recirculation.

Letters Received
A copy of the letters that were received during the public circulation period follows this section.

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Northern Region
601 Locust Street
Redding, CA 96001
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
April 28, 2022
Diane O’Connor
City Projects Manager
City of Fort Bragg
Public Works Department
1416 North Franklin Street
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
[email protected]
SUBJECT: City of Fort Bragg Raw Water Line Replacement Project (SCH# 2022030742) Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Diane O’Conner:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received an Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) from the City of Fort Bragg (Lead Agency), for the City of Fort Bragg Raw Water Line Replacement Project (Project), dated March 28, 2022. CDFW understands the Lead Agency will accept comments on the Project through May 2, 2022.

The Project is located on Mendocino County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs):

Segment #2 – 020-500-13-00, 020500RW, 020-520-09-00, 020-520-23-00, 020-170-24-00, 020-170-04-00, 019-610-01-00, 019610RW.

Segment #3 – 019-640-01-00, 019-640-04-00.

Segment #4 – 01914221, 019-142-02-00, 019-142-12-00, 019-142-13-00, 019-142-14-00, 019-142-15-00, 019-150-01-00.

Segment #5 – 019-150-04-00.

The Project proposes to replace sections of its primary water transmission line that delivers raw water from sources at Waterfall Gulch and Newman Reservoir to the water treatment plant (WTP). The Project includes four distinct segments (Segment #2, Segment #3, Segment #4, and Segment #5) and is approximately two miles long. The Project involves lining the inside of the pipe crossing the Noyo River and replacing pipeline segments in the Covington Gulch and Hare Creek watersheds. The Project would provide a reliable and resilient water supply system that would provide safe, high quality drinking water to the residents of Fort Bragg.

As the Trustee for the State’s fish and wildlife resources, CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants and the habitat necessary to sustain their populations. As a Responsible Agency, CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act and other provisions of the Fish and Game Code (FGC) that conserve the State’s fish and wildlife public trust resources.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 508412F7-C525-4BD2-81FC-D52F9E99F5A4 Letter 1
Diane O’Conner, City Projects Manager
City of Fort Bragg
Public Works Department
April 28, 2022

Page 2 ends

CDFW offers the following comments and recommendations in our role as Trustee and Responsible Agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; California Public Resource Code §21000 et seq.). CDFW participates in the regulatory process in its roles as Trustee and Responsible Agency to minimize the Project impacts and avoid potential significant environmental impacts by recommending avoidance and minimization measures. These comments are intended to reduce the Projects impacts on public trust resources.

Mendocino Cypress Woodland Alliances
The IS/MND discloses the presence of Mendocino Cypress Woodlands (MCW) primarily in Segment #3 of the Project (Figure 1). MCW has been designated a Sensitive Natural Community (SNC) for 13 years (Sawyer et al. 2009). Furthermore, in 2018 CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP) completed a three-year vegetation analysis and mapping study of MCW and related natural communities on nutrient-poor (oligotrophic) soils on Mendocino County and northern Sonoma County coastal terraces. The study classified eight natural community associations which have been mapped and are currently viewable in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The resulting CNDDB observations illustrate the presence of two rare MCW natural community associations within the Project boundaries.

The Mendocino Cypress-Bolander Pine/Western Labrador Tea association (Hesperocyparis pygmaea-Pinus contorta ssp. Bolanderi /Rhododendron columbianum) association is mapped near Segment #3’s proposed route and is most likely to be impacted by the Project. It is ranked by the CNDDB as Globally and State critically imperiled—at very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity as well as critically imperiled in the state because of extreme rarity (G1/S1). It is estimated that only 2,029 acres of this forest type remain in California.

The Mendocino Cypress/ Bolander Pine/ Rhododendron association (H. pygmaea/ P. contorta ssp. Bolanderi/R. macrophyllum) is also mapped in close proximity with Segment #3’s proposed water line route. This association shares an identical CNDDB designation of Globally and State critically imperiled (G1/S1). It is estimated that only 2,292 acres of this forest type remain in California.

While the IS/MND discloses the presence of Mendocino cypress species and the extent in which they are going to be removed, it does not fully evaluate the impact of the loss of these trees when taken in a broader context of their association. The loss of 108 trees, represents a substantial portion of the remaining habitat when there is less than 4,321 acres estimated to remain in the state.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 508412F7-C525-4BD2-81FC-D52F9E99F5A4 Diane O’Conner, City Projects Manager
City of Fort Bragg
Public Works Department
April 28, 2022

Page 3 ends

Figure 1. A portion of the Project area in Segment #3 south of Newman Gulch. The global hill shade base layer reveals the existing easement road on the ridge while the green polygons represent the MCW associations mapped in the area. The red line offers an estimated distance to mapped MCW from the easement of roughly 112 feet.

Based on the MCW information discussed above, CDFW recommends the Lead Agency restrict the existing pipeline easements to the greatest extent possible to avoid and minimize any impacts on the adjacent MCW associations in an effort to reduce impacts to less than significant. (Recommendation #1)
Additionally, to minimize significant impacts, CDFW recommends the amount of vegetation removed be reduced to the greatest extent possible as the Sensitive Natural Communities likely effected only consist of about 2,000 remaining total acres in the state. (Recommendation #2)
Furthermore, the Botanical Survey and its Addendum document the Mendocino Cypress which occur in the old roadbed being the ‘non-pygmy’ form of the tree. While it is true the Mendocino Cypress will grow to large heights in non-oligotrophic soil types, it is paramount the Lead Agency recognizes that when the road was cut into the location the original soils were disturbed effectively destroying the hard-pan oligotrophic soils in which ‘Pygmy’ Mendocino Cypress might occur. It should be taken into consideration that soil types which promotes the ‘pygmy’ forest is also extremely rare and disturbances to it will effectively prevent this rare forest type from existing here in the future. As such, CDFW recommends that caution be used while reopening the existing road with care being taken to prevent further expansion outside of the disturbance footprint into the natural soil types existing on either side of the roadbed. (Recommendation #3)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 508412F7-C525-4BD2-81FC-D52F9E99F5A4 Diane O’Conner, City Projects Manager
City of Fort Bragg
Public Works Department
April 28, 2022

Page 4 ends

Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
The IS/MND discloses the route of the proposed pipeline travels down a slope in Segment #2 which runs along an existing road to reach the Noyo River crossing. The slope is described as “creeping” and prone to failure as past repairs have been required to the existing water line. A drainage ditch on the western side of the road is also described along with two existing crossings beneath the road as it descends to the Noyo River. A large volume of stormwater runoff is described to occur at this site which travels down this drainage ditch and ends up in the river. CDFW recommends these crossings be assessed for appropriate 100-year flood event size to ensure it is appropriate for the site and the volume of water and debris which may pass through the channel. The Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement mentioned in the IS/MND should consider at least three encroachments, the two existing crossings in Segment #2 described above, as well as the crossing proposed on Hare Creek in Segment #5. (Recommendation #4)
Botanical Surveys and Impact Analysis
The IS/MND Mitigation Measures (BIO-8) indicates that transplanting and restoration of rare plant and tree species would occur as mitigation on site. The report indicates that Nodding Semaphore Grass (Pleuropogon refractus) seed would be collected by a qualified botanist and then re-sown on-site post-project. The report also suggests that transplanting will be utilized for Bishop pine (Pinus Muricata) and Mendocino cypress trees.

Furthermore, as discussed above, the Mendocino Cypress growth form is highly dependent on the soil in which it is established. If a ‘pygmy’ growth form tree is uprooted and transplanted, it will no longer grow as a pygmy cypress. The soil is an important resource within MCW associations and transplanting is likely an unacceptable mitigation measure for the pygmy form of the tree. In the already disturbed roadbed in which the Mendocino cypress are growing to full size, this method may prove to be successful although CDFW would like to see evidence that demonstrates the feasibility of this strategy.

This process would also require a monitoring plan with success criteria and an invasive plant control strategy to ensure the resown native seed would be successful. CDFW would like to see an example of both strategies to demonstrate the feasibility of the method as a suitable mitigation measure along with the mitigation monitoring plan. (Recommendation #5)
The IS/MND also mentions a conversation in February of 2022 in which the California Coastal Commission staff suggested the investigation of the potential to assist with the protection and restoration efforts for Scholar’s Bog as a mitigation option. This site could potentially be used for mitigating impacts to both Mendocino cypress and Bishop pine (Pinus muricata) trees for this Project.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 508412F7-C525-4BD2-81FC-D52F9E99F5A4 Diane O’Conner, City Projects Manager
City of Fort Bragg
Public Works Department
April 28, 2022

Page 5 ends

Scholar’s Bog is a viable conservation opportunity the Lead Agency could pursue to offset current and future impacts to MCW and Bishop pine forests. (Recommendation #6)
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this IS/MND. If you have any questions, please contact Environmental Scientist Lee Margadant.

Sincerely,
Tina Bartlett, Regional Manager
Northern Region
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
ec: State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research [email protected]
Gil Falcone
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
[email protected]
Rebecca Garwood, Michael van Hattem, Lee Margadant,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Citations
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf and J.M. Evans (2009). A Manual of California Vegetation.

Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. U.S.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 508412F7-C525-4BD2-81FC-D52F9E99F5A4 “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 1
P.O. BOX 3700 | EUREKA, CA 95502–3700
(707) 445-6600 | FAX (707) 441-6314 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
May 2, 2022
1-MEN-20-1.828
Raw Water Line Replacement
SCH# 2022030742
Ms. Diane O'Connor
Public Works Department
City of Fort Bragg
1416 North Franklin Street
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
Dear Ms. O'Connor:

Thank you for giving Caltrans the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed City of Fort Bragg’s raw water line replacement project.

The proposes to replace major portions of the City’s main raw water supply pipeline that are reaching the end of their service life. Segment 4 of the water supply pipeline crosses Caltrans Route 20 right-of-way at Dwyer Lane, 1-MEN-20-PM 1.828. We have the following comments:

Open trenching across State routes is prohibited. A casing will be required for the transverse crossing. The crossing must meet the utility depth requirement of 42 inches below the finished grade, as described in the Caltrans Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM) Chapter 17: < https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/design/documents/pdpm-chapter17-a11y.pdf>.

An encroachment permit will be required to perform the transverse crossing. Permits issued to the City of Fort Bragg are fee exempt, but a double permit will be required, which does require a fee from the City’s contractor.

As part of the application package, requirements in Chapter 600 (603.6A) of the Encroachment Permits Manual (EPM) must be submitted, depending on what installation method is proposed. Chapter 600 of the EPM can be found here:
<https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/trafficoperations/documents/encroachment-permits/chapter-6-ada-a11y.pdf>.

To streamline the process, we require the applicant arrange and participate in a presubmittal meeting with the Caltrans encroachment permits staff in Ukiah, prior to submitting a permit application. For more information or to request an encroachment Letter 2
Ms. Diane O’Connor
5/2/2022

Page 2 ends

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” permit, please contact the Ukiah permits office at 707-463-4743, and refer to the following website: <https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/ep>.

A decision for a performance bond and bond amount will be determined upon application submittal. The deposit required for the double permit application will be 10 hours based on this fee schedule: <https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/traffic-operations/documents/encroachment-permits/hourly-rateflyer-a11y.pdf>.

Please contact me with questions or for further assistance at: (707) 684-6879 or by email at: <[email protected]>.

Sincerely,
Jesse Robertson
Transportation Planning
Caltrans District 1
e-copy: State Clearinghouse
Heidi Quintrell, Chief, Caltrans District 1 Encroachment Permits Office

Fort Bragg City CouncilMay 23, 2022

Fort Bragg City Council
May 23, 2022